Ethics of murder

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I wouldn't murder anyone. I've yet to have any desire to. Yes, I have said statements like "He is better off dead" to people who I feel lack compassion and regard, but I personally wouldn't like to be one who kills (notice I did not use the word murder).

Despite my believes in capital punishment and war, I'm pretty much a pacifist--ironic, yes.

Pacifism means total opposition to war. Look it up in the dictionary. This would just make you an oxymoron a statement which is seemingly self-contradictory. Look that one up as well if you think I'm wrong. Get your words straight.

no i meant to type "if you kill him" hence the "lesser of two evils part", dunno how the "don't" got in there :S

sorry

(nods)

"Pacifism covers a broad range of ideas and practices, but the common denominator is opposition to force and militarism at the individual, societal, and international levels. In its purest form this opposition is absolute, unequivocal, and unconditional, and no resort to any violence whatsoever is condoned, for any reason.
....
Approaching this but not rejecting violence in self-defence is the anarchist tradition that rejects the initiation of violence and thus most forms of government, based as they are on force or the threat of same.
...
Pacifism encompasses so broad a range of often contradictory views that it cannot be considered a discrete and coherent school of thought. The absolute rejection of coercion remains deeply subversive of all governments and by definition cannot express itself in terms of public policy. Conditional pacifism does not have to be hypocritical, and acts as the principal moral moderator where the use of military force is concerned. "

Its not 100% right to say he's speaking oxymoronically. But his comfort with initiating force at best places him near the boundary of the system...on which side of it would be an academic debate, I think.

Murder is literally defined as unlawful killing, yet killing someone in defense of self or another isn't against the law, despite all the red tape. So if you or someone else are in immediate danger of dying or being mortally wounded by another person's intentional action, then killing them is not technically murder, and thereby justifiable homicide (the killing of one human being by another.)

Before trying to come across like smartass you should try to analyze what I meant by my words and how I could've reached such conclusions or beliefs. If you were confused, you could have asked instead of trying to discredit me. Also, I've looked over a couple of entries and none clearly quote "Total opposition to war."

When all fails, try Wiki:


Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and inter-personal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found. Pacifists in general reject theories of Just War.

Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that non-violent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others. Others support destruction of property in such emergencies or for conducting symbolic acts of resistance like pouring red paint to represent blood on the outside of military recruiting offices or entering air force bases and hammering on military aircraft. However, part of the pacifist belief system is taking responsibility for one's actions by submitting to arrest and using a trial to publicize opposition to war and other forms of violence.

Ok, AG, you're weird.

I seem to be the only one who voted for that option so far
I like lots of your posts though.

The problem with the poll is that I would need to vote for more than one option.

Murder is wrong because it is unlawful killing
It is a good thing that murder is unlawful.

Murder is wrong because we'd all be dead if we all murdered
What would happen if murder was seem ok and acceptable in society, how many people would get killed just for arguments or for silly little fights? You get angry at someone, and realise later you were wrong, then nothing you can do to fix it. Even though that would reduce the world's population, would you rather live in a world like that or in a world were murder is considered wrong for your own saftey and your family?

How about discrimination? Discrimination=murder, hate crimes.


Murder is wrong because taking life is wrong
Taking a life is wrong, especially if the person who is killed does not want to die.

Murder is ok if it saves lives
It's not ok actually, but in a case like that, it should be a thing considered as a last resort, in which other alternatives should be considered first.

See, this is what I meant: I'm generally a non-violent person. If I see an insect I won't kill it because, well, it's a living creature and why should I? I don't pick flowers because that would too be taking a life from a plant for my selfish need. In places where I cannot prevent such a destruction would be during consumption of food and during a time of struggle where an attacker, despite my unwillingness to fight, will have no regard towards my emotions.

The same is applied with war. How can tyranny truly be defeated with peace? It's not possible, unless the Tyrant grows tired of murdering people who fail to raise a hand.

Also, in the same sentence I noted the irony of my position.

You should care about the life of others because you appreciate your own life, taking the life of another person and the person cease to exist and causing pain to other people because of it, doesn't look good, any human being who is sane enough would feel repulsed by the idea of killing another person, especially for reasons of wealth or others than just rage. Sympathy and empathy play a big role.


How can you know killing a man will save many others?


Why would you need to kill someone to support yourself and your family?
What kind of moral values would your family gain from it?



Greed, just the word itself is wrong enough.


Well, another man would get the pleasure of doing you, which is very common when that happens.


I think this topic is a little dark, I believe this question is made in a philosophical way, with a philosophical point of view, which I think some of the answers would be practical rather than philosophical.

Sadly the same questions might be asked by psychopaths in which the lack of guilt and lack of empathy might make them unable to process these things, therefore being an easy task for them.

Another answer to the question, that applies not only to murder but with things related to ethics and morality, a thing some people call Karma, although I dont see it in a supernatural way, more like a cause and effect process, if you kill someone, you increase your chance of getting killed if not caught by law, if you harm someone, you increase your chance of getting hurt for revenge as an example.

It resumes to "Every action has its consequences", some are good and some are painful, some are not what expected.

are we talking head shot from a mile away with a sniper riffle or tearing out your throat with my teeth lvl of murder???? seperate things

So you're more of the type who sends someone else to do it?

I know, the use of the term "murder" was partially hyperbolic, sort of like how people say "meat is murder". Also, the fact in the matter is that I never established a causal relationship in my poll in any step, none of the options say "self-defense" or "defense of others", although they can be interpreted in that manner, but they could also be interpreted as "killing for the money to save lives".


Weird? Yeah, actually, I am surprised that only one person voted for that option. I expected that a large number of people would do that. I am glad that my posts have some value.

Right, well, I can understand that. Part of the reason for the poll was to attempt to find a primary moral directive. Like "murder is unlawful" reflects a moral view driven by commitment to uphold social rules, the view that "murder is wrong period" is a more empathetic and deontological view, while "murder is wrong because if everyone murdered we'd be screwed" is rule utilitarian, and "murder is ok if others are saved" is utilitarian in the sense we normally understand it. I mean, I wish I could get every moral perspective, but I got enough, and there is little sense to me to allow blending of views.


Well, that can be taken as true, but still, that doesn't mean that the moral notion shouldn't be questioned. Heck, I would question the notion of sanity itself in many cases, so the argument that "X is insane" doesn't work so much for me.


You can't be sure of anything technically, however, I am assuming a reasonable to absolute level of certitude, such as my family needs a medical treatment so I need to kill for the drug or kill for the money for the treatment, or that the person killed is planning on doing/not allowing done something that would help many others out. Heck, if you just look at that ethics research(don't care to get a link to that, sorry) that looks at actively killing someone verse doing something that will lead to their death, those examples are examples that would count.


You need food, you need medicine, you made a bad deal with a bookie and he is threatening to kill your family if he doesn't get the money, you are being extorted. Your family would get moral values that would lead to a family-centric view of the world, or towards a view of responsibility towards those they have pledged loyalty to, or some other more ruggedly individualist view in many ways.



Greed is only wrong because you have labeled it such.

Speaking of prison? Perhaps so, depending on whether or not we are assuming that you'd get caught and that there'd be consequences.


That is good that I have actually done something slightly philosophical. 'Tis true, some of the answers will inevitably be practical because we all know we will get into a situation where killing will be desired, most likely when all of the world governments collapse and we are given a post-apocalyptic anarchy to fight through.

I can understand that, such a view merely ties in egoism with actions typically considered ethically correct. I mean, a person who acts good to avoid bad or get good, is no more a saint than a man who acts bad to get good and avoid bad, as the issue is merely the mechanisms in place.


For the purpose of the question, there is no real difference. You, as the murderer, can murder however you want whether it is painfully and cruelly or mercifully.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 27 Apr 2008, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Technically "murder" is defined as immoral killing, so murder is always wrong simply by definition.

I lean towards a utilitarian viewpoint intellectually, but my gut just can't accept it because of an instinctual aversion towards direct harm (such as pushing a fat guy in front of a trolley in order to save 5 other people) as opposed to indirect harm or triage (causing a trolley to switch tracks so it only kills 1 person instead of 5).

I feel that a court is free from "sin." There is no such thing as murder through a proper and just trial.

Murder is wrong, murder is bad, no one has the right to take the life of another...

But in all honesty, any one of us could be pushed to "pull that trigger." So, I guess, murder just is...

No, it is technically defined as "unlawful" killing, but I was not even using the term technically in the first place, but rather emotively, sort of like how people may call abortion or genocide to be murder even though those acts may be within the law.