It’s a human kind of thinking to verbally insist that “Don’t kill” is an an absolute rule, why, it’s right up there in the Ten Commandments. Except that what soldiers do doesn’t count, at least if they’re on the right side of the war. And sure, it’s also okay to kill a crazy person with a gun who’s in the middle of shooting up a school, because that’s just not what the absolute law “Don’t kill” means, you know!
Why? Because any rule that’s not labeled “absolute, no exceptions” lacks weight in people’s minds. So you have to perform that the “Don’t kill” commandment is absolute and exceptionless (even though it totally isn’t), because that’s what it takes to get people to even hesitate. To stay their hands at least until the weight of duty is crushing them down. A rule that isn’t even absolute? People just disregard that whenever.
This section of the post seems to be a significant part of the argument; a critical example of a central point being made.
It’s also totally wrong.
The Ten Commandments do not contain an absolute rule against killing. They contain an absolute rule against murder, which is defined as killing which is morally unjust. (Don’t take my word for; go and read about it for yourself! No, really. Don’t assume. Go and read.)
That means that not only is the alleged “do not kill” (but actually “do not murder”) injunction not an example of Eliezer’s point, it’s actually an excellent counterexample. Here we have the greatest of rules: a commandment from the Lord God Himself. And this highest of moral laws has exceptions baked right into it! Yet we do not see people “just disregard[ing] [it] whenever”; actually, it seems to carry significant weight in the minds of the faithful.
It took me less than five minutes to verify this. What does this say about the rest of Eliezer’s argument?
“Murder” is plausibly a better translation of the original Hebrew, but “kill” is still more common in the English-speaking world. I’m also not seeing how it weighs against Eliezer’s point if some absolute rules are worded so as to guard against loopholes, and other absolute rules aren’t. Foundational moral rules that count as counter-examples to Eliezer’s generalization should look more like “instructions that explicitly encourage people to use their personal judgment about when and how to apply the rule and subjectively factor in idiosyncratic contextual information”. I don’t think that choosing a pejorative word instead of a more neutral word achieves this.
E.g., if “first, do no harm to your patient” were “first, do no harm to your patient unless it looks like a good idea” then Eliezer’s generalization would look less plausible; but changing it to “first, do no violence to your patient” or “first, commit no sins against your patient” would count as little or no counter-evidence even though it’s more loophole-resistant and builds in stronger evaluative/normative content and connotations.
E.g., if “first, do no harm to your patient” were “first, do no harm to your patient unless it looks like a good idea” then Eliezer’s generalization would look less plausible; but changing it to “first, do no violence to your patient” or “first, commit no sins against your patient” would count as little or no counter-evidence
It absolutely counts as counter-evidence to me. Words have meanings. “Harm” is not the same as “violence”. Neither is it the same as a “sin”. The first meaning says, “Do not do anything to harm your patient, regardless of intent. If you do something well intentioned, but with bad results, you are still morally at fault.” The second means, “Do not take intentional action to harm your patient.” The third means, “Do your best to act in your patient’s best interest, but you will not be held morally at fault if bad results occur.” Those all all different, and the latter two are way looser in my opinion than, “Do no harm.”
“Murder” is plausibly a better translation of the original Hebrew
No, no. This is an entirely inadequate characterization of what the Torah / the Bible have to say on the matter. Quoting from the Wikipedia page which I linked:
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach [i.e., the word used in the “thou shalt not murder” commandment in the Torah. —SA.], but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder. The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h “to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill”.
The ancient Hebrew texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle.[28] Rabbi Marc Gellman explains the distinction between “harag” (killing) and “ratzah” (murder) and notes the different moral connotations. ”...there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just, and killing an enemy combatant during wartime is one of them.”[29] For example, the Torah prohibits murder, but sanctions killing in legitimate battle.[30][31] The Bible often praises the exploits of soldiers against enemies in legitimate battle. One of David’s mighty men is credited with killing eight hundred men with the spear,[32] and Abishai is credited with killing three hundred men.[33]
As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”[34]
…
but “kill” is still more common in the English-speaking world.
Oh? Well, I am not sure how you prefer to operationalize that claim, but one related thing I can think of that we can easily check is to see how different versions of the Bible render this verse. Let’s see:
New International Version
“You shall not murder.
New Living Translation
“You must not murder.
English Standard Version
“You shall not murder.
New American Standard Bible
“You shall not murder.
King James Bible
Thou shalt not kill.
Christian Standard Bible
Do not murder.
Contemporary English Version
Do not murder.
Good News Translation
“Do not commit murder.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Do not murder.
International Standard Version
“You are not to commit murder.
NET Bible
“You shall not murder.
New Heart English Bible
“Do not commit adultery.
GOD’S WORD® Translation
“Never murder.
JPS Tanakh 1917
Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
New American Standard 1977
“You shall not murder.
Jubilee Bible 2000
Thou shalt not murder.
King James 2000 Bible
You shall not kill.
American King James Version
You shall not kill.
American Standard Version
Thou shalt not kill.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not kill.
Darby Bible Translation
Thou shalt not kill.
English Revised Version
Thou shalt do no murder.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Thou shalt not kill.
World English Bible
“You shall not murder.
Young’s Literal Translation
’Thou dost not murder.
(Note also the cross-references, listed on the right side of the page.)
(Also, why specify the English-speaking world? Did Eliezer intend his point to only cover anglophone countries, or was it meant to describe people in general? I don’t see that he said anything about where, or indeed when, his point applies; I took it to apply to all of history, since the days of the Old Testament.)
Out of curiosity I looked to Slovak translations, and all major versions actually use “kill” (not “murder”). So the problem is not limited to the English-speaking world.
For those who want to see how it is in their language, here are the places in Bible referencing the commandment:
Ex 20,13; Dt 5,17 - commandment given to Moses
Mt 5,21 - Jesus quotes the commandment and adds “don’t even get angry, bro”
Mt 19,18; Mk 10,19; Lk 18,20 - Jesus provides “Cliff’s Notes” of the commandments
Rom 13,9 - Paul further abbreviates the “Cliff’s Notes”
This section of the post seems to be a significant part of the argument; a critical example of a central point being made.
It’s also totally wrong.
The Ten Commandments do not contain an absolute rule against killing. They contain an absolute rule against murder, which is defined as killing which is morally unjust. (Don’t take my word for; go and read about it for yourself! No, really. Don’t assume. Go and read.)
That means that not only is the alleged “do not kill” (but actually “do not murder”) injunction not an example of Eliezer’s point, it’s actually an excellent counterexample. Here we have the greatest of rules: a commandment from the Lord God Himself. And this highest of moral laws has exceptions baked right into it! Yet we do not see people “just disregard[ing] [it] whenever”; actually, it seems to carry significant weight in the minds of the faithful.
It took me less than five minutes to verify this. What does this say about the rest of Eliezer’s argument?
“Murder” is plausibly a better translation of the original Hebrew, but “kill” is still more common in the English-speaking world. I’m also not seeing how it weighs against Eliezer’s point if some absolute rules are worded so as to guard against loopholes, and other absolute rules aren’t. Foundational moral rules that count as counter-examples to Eliezer’s generalization should look more like “instructions that explicitly encourage people to use their personal judgment about when and how to apply the rule and subjectively factor in idiosyncratic contextual information”. I don’t think that choosing a pejorative word instead of a more neutral word achieves this.
E.g., if “first, do no harm to your patient” were “first, do no harm to your patient unless it looks like a good idea” then Eliezer’s generalization would look less plausible; but changing it to “first, do no violence to your patient” or “first, commit no sins against your patient” would count as little or no counter-evidence even though it’s more loophole-resistant and builds in stronger evaluative/normative content and connotations.
It absolutely counts as counter-evidence to me. Words have meanings. “Harm” is not the same as “violence”. Neither is it the same as a “sin”. The first meaning says, “Do not do anything to harm your patient, regardless of intent. If you do something well intentioned, but with bad results, you are still morally at fault.” The second means, “Do not take intentional action to harm your patient.” The third means, “Do your best to act in your patient’s best interest, but you will not be held morally at fault if bad results occur.” Those all all different, and the latter two are way looser in my opinion than, “Do no harm.”
No, no. This is an entirely inadequate characterization of what the Torah / the Bible have to say on the matter. Quoting from the Wikipedia page which I linked:
…
Oh? Well, I am not sure how you prefer to operationalize that claim, but one related thing I can think of that we can easily check is to see how different versions of the Bible render this verse. Let’s see:
(Note also the cross-references, listed on the right side of the page.)
(Also, why specify the English-speaking world? Did Eliezer intend his point to only cover anglophone countries, or was it meant to describe people in general? I don’t see that he said anything about where, or indeed when, his point applies; I took it to apply to all of history, since the days of the Old Testament.)
> Also, why specify the English-speaking world?
Out of curiosity I looked to Slovak translations, and all major versions actually use “kill” (not “murder”). So the problem is not limited to the English-speaking world.
For those who want to see how it is in their language, here are the places in Bible referencing the commandment:
Ex 20,13; Dt 5,17 - commandment given to Moses
Mt 5,21 - Jesus quotes the commandment and adds “don’t even get angry, bro”
Mt 19,18; Mk 10,19; Lk 18,20 - Jesus provides “Cliff’s Notes” of the commandments
Rom 13,9 - Paul further abbreviates the “Cliff’s Notes”
Jam 2,11 - mentions some commandments in passing
I suddenly have the strangest compulsion to go and summarize the entire Bible in this style… really gave me good laugh. Thank you for this, truly. :)