I think morality and positive law can come apart. But if you mean to build *moral wrongness* into the definition, then the question instead becomes whether an act of apparent "murder" is actually murder at all, or rather the (morally justified but illegal) killing of an innocent person.
I think morality and positive law can come apart. But if you mean to build *moral wrongness* into the definition, then the question instead becomes whether an act of apparent "murder" is actually murder at all, or rather the (morally justified but illegal) killing of an innocent person.
Yes, exactly! The question in relation to things like murder (and other morally charged kinds) is whether a given action should really count as an instance of that kind. And yes, I mean moral wrongness, and agree morality and positive law can come apart.
Btw, I was reacting to this line: тАЬIтАЩm not defending an absolutist view here: there are always conceivable exceptions to any rule.тАЭ Which you wrote in the context of discussing procedural rules having little to do with my example, of course.
But I think my point still raises an important question in relation to absolutism per se, and how we understand (absolute) prohibitions in morality in general. Pointing to the murder/killing distinction is just the easiest way to illustrate the point.
I think morality and positive law can come apart. But if you mean to build *moral wrongness* into the definition, then the question instead becomes whether an act of apparent "murder" is actually murder at all, or rather the (morally justified but illegal) killing of an innocent person.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the OP.
Yes, exactly! The question in relation to things like murder (and other morally charged kinds) is whether a given action should really count as an instance of that kind. And yes, I mean moral wrongness, and agree morality and positive law can come apart.
Btw, I was reacting to this line: тАЬIтАЩm not defending an absolutist view here: there are always conceivable exceptions to any rule.тАЭ Which you wrote in the context of discussing procedural rules having little to do with my example, of course.
But I think my point still raises an important question in relation to absolutism per se, and how we understand (absolute) prohibitions in morality in general. Pointing to the murder/killing distinction is just the easiest way to illustrate the point.