So .... Libya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It may be unreasonable to do so, but one might argue that some moral positions can be arrived at through reasoning ie. that rational people will agree about what's right and what's not. Granted you can't disregard the social context, but the position that some things are just universally "known" to be wrong isn't exactly unheard of on this forum.

---

That logic falls apart when you realize that every single individual in a society is unable to arrive that position through reason. So either every single member of society is incapable of using reason, or that morality is unfathomable in that context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That logic falls apart when you realize that every single individual in a society is unable to arrive that position through reason. So either every single member of society is incapable of using reason, or that morality is unfathomable in that context.

---

I dunno, maybe they haven't had the training, the education, the freedom from passion and other interference, the permission, etc.

I mean, there are no doubt societies that just don't grok things like reading and writing, science, and maths.

But, like I said, this sort of approach may not be entirely reasonable, as in sensible and fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Murder is unlawful killing. As societies dictate both laws and punishments, so also do they dictate whether or not death can be a legal punishment for crime. Most societies, however, (Libya included) require some kind of judicial proceeding before such punishments are meted out.

I reject your premise. Libya has some semblance of a functioning legal system, even if that legal system is provincial, and often rooted in Sharia law. Granted that's not a legal system I'd want to be subject to, but the whole country is not wallowing in anarchy.

---

All of which neatly ignores that there's no legal way to kill the king, given that the king makes laws against trying to kill him, dontchaknow.

Bringing us back to either: accepting murder(s) as not inherently immoral or using a definition of murder that renders the question tautological.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Considering that Libya has no functioning legal system, killing a dictator can hardly be termed murder. And yes, Libyan society does accept killing in retaliation for massive wrongs. As for slavery, I'd argue that the argument against it makes much more sense in the modern age than at the time when it was universally practiced. It wasn't a very nice institution, but it existed alongside plenty of other not-so-nice institutions, making it very difficult for people at that time to view it as the evil that we see it today.

---

It is ridiculous to talk about Libya as if it were a legal tabula rasa because it isn't. Law enforcement in Libya collapsed, but that doesn't mean law collapsed. That is also recognized by its interim government that doesn't act as if there are no laws and they have to start from scratch but from a position where they have to scrap laws they no longer deem fitting for the new Libya. All sorts of crimes were committed during the war and plenty of them will be punished under Libyan law.

Also, murder is not just an illegal killing, but it is a pre-meditated illegal killing. That makes it very unlikely that anybody will ever be tried for the 'murder' of Muammar Ghadaffi, as the man was not murdered. He died a gruesome death, but that doesn't mean he was murdered. Hell, a good lawyer could even turn this into an act of self-defense. A libyan who lived under Ghadaffi for 42 years and was in Siirte at the time of his flight from that city had reason to fear for his life if the dictator managed to get away from his captors or if his loyalists would attempt to free him.