Murder is not objectively immoral.

[Lannan13]

To challenge many people's belief. Murder cannot be objectively immoral. For this we would have to see that due to the state of "is" this would mean in every situation, an absolute. Many can argue that murder is immoral, but since they would have the Burden of Proof to persuade that this is an ansbolute in every situation. There are many different cases of which this can be justified.

 

The first theory of ethics that can lead to certainly is Utilitarianism. We do have to focus on the aspect of the Greatest Amount of Happiness for the Greatest Amount of Sentient Beings. Before there is a boss rush at me for the aspect of Sentient beings, we have to see that JS Mill favored the aspect of human pleasure over that of animals as humans have a higher potential of pleasure to expierence then that of animals. Many would certainly argue that if they had the chance to kill Hitler before he rose to power that they would. This is a blatant use of murder. Though let's use a less obvious example. One is that of Khan. A Serial Killer, who had been on the run and free for 12 years, had killed Khan's father. Khan, eventually, tracked the Serial Killer and then killed the Serial Killer. Was this murder justifiable? We could see that under this motion that it was moral since he perserved the lives of a multitude of people who could have potentially been killed by this person. This would greatly reduce the amount of Happiness if Khan allowed him to move forward. 

 

The next theory is that of the Kingdom of Ends. Kant, one of my favorite philosophers, argued that In a civilized society, we as humans must live together peacefully. One key issue is that we should move to create a Kingdom of Ends. The Kingdom of Ends is where people are treated as an end of themselves, not a means. This is important as it is part of the soceity that we should strive to as it maximizes human equality and the ability to live together peacefully. The Kingdom shows that many people can live together under common just laws as they are able to live as ends instead of means. At the End, they are able to live together as citizens in this Kingdom to be treated as ends and this will lead to an equality through individiual rights. When the aspect of another has intruded upon the Kingdom of Ends, then there is a possibility for one to attempt to rationalize with the person to act within the means of the Kingdom of Ends. When the aggressor refuses to take corrective action then corrective action must be made in order to perserve the Kingdom of Ends. It may justify the murder of others in order to save other in perserving the Kingdom of Ends, much like in Khan's case.

 

There is also the Just War theory. If a war meets St. Thomas's 3 criteria for this, war can be justified as it is seem in "God's eyes" as not a sin. The murder of armed men from the opposition would then become justifiable.

 

What are your thoughts?

[fistofdoom]

[Lannan13]

A good case of semantics I would say.

[fistofdoom]

tbf, I think the scenarios you presented are really black and white, there is such thing as grey in specific cases :|

i dunno if that came across correctly but w/e

Edited April 27, 2016 by fistofdoom

[Lannan13]

tbf, I think the scenarios you presented are really black and white, there is such thing as grey in specific cases :|

i dunno if that came across correctly but w/e

I know what you mean and some things can seem blurred, but this was simply an example. 

[Lannan13]

Needs more grey 

The more grey the more subjective it gets.

[Lannan13]

Kill when necessary. End of story.

It's necessary when it is defense. It is necessary when the victim is one that is actively harming the society.

And why is it necessary?

[Lannan13]

I mean, if we're being objective here, is there any downside with use nerve gassing the ghettos?

Why?

[Spite]

Kill does not equal murder.

 

Murder is a word which implies a moral judgement has already taken place.

 

Ergo murder is wrong by definition. If it was not wrong, it would not be murder.

[Lannan13]

Just humor me.

Using the same line of thought as in the murder argument, would it not be in our best interest to eliminate the dregs of society?

(This is a hypothetical and in no way does it represent my actual views. This is simply an intellectually stimulating question)

Eugenics opens an entirely new set of issues. I could argue that since abortion reduces crime then it should be legal.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Nothing is objectively immoral. Hence murder is not objectively immoral either.

[SoS]

Kill does not equal murder.

 

Murder is a word which implies a moral judgement has already taken place.

 

Ergo murder is wrong by definition. If it was not wrong, it would not be murder.

I was going to say the same thing, but I realized that was exactly his (poorly conveyed) point. If murder, a type of killing "is" moral then all types of killing "is" moral, or not immoral.

[Warburg]

The first theory of ethics that can lead to certainly is Utilitarianism. We do have to focus on the aspect of the Greatest Amount of Happiness for the Greatest Amount of Sentient Beings. Before there is a boss rush at me for the aspect of Sentient beings, we have to see that JS Mill favored the aspect of human pleasure over that of animals as humans have a higher potential of pleasure to expierence then that of animals. Many would certainly argue that if they had the chance to kill Hitler before he rose to power that they would. This is a blatant use of murder. Though let's use a less obvious example. One is that of Khan. A Serial Killer, who had been on the run and free for 12 years, had killed Khan's father. Khan, eventually, tracked the Serial Killer and then killed the Serial Killer. Was this murder justifiable? We could see that under this motion that it was moral since he perserved the lives of a multitude of people who could have potentially been killed by this person. This would greatly reduce the amount of Happiness if Khan allowed him to move forward. 

 

 

Wouldn't the truly Utilitarian thing to do be to remove the threat to society without killing Hitler/the serial killer (i.e. avoid mass killings and avoid killing the murderers)? Because the Hitler/killer are part of the Utilitarian model, and killing them would hurt them. Killing them is more Utilitarian than letting them hurt many others, but I can imagine scenarios other than murder that are more Utilitarian (throw them in the Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable tyrants and kings, or something), making murder objectively immoral under the Utilitarian philosophy.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Warburg

[Doktor Avalanche]

Wouldn't the truly Utilitarian thing to do be to remove the threat to society without killing Hitler/the serial killer (i.e. avoid mass killings and avoid killing the murderers)? Because the Hitler/killer are part of the Utilitarian model, and killing them would hurt them.

As long as the society is capable of maintaining such threats without hindrance to the society, then yes. If the society is incapable of avoiding any hindrances, then execution/murder is considered acceptable. Surprisingly this is the Roman Catholic stance on incarceration and execution.

[fistofdoom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment

 

yeah

[Doktor Avalanche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment

 

yeah

"Our fundamental respect for every human life and for God, who created each person in his image, requires that we choose not to end a human life in response to violent crimes if non-lethal options are available."

 

That is at the end of the article. Hence, if the society is able to sustain the threat, without hindrance, then it is not necessary to execute.

[Spite]

I was going to say the same thing, but I realized that was exactly his (poorly conveyed) point. If murder, a type of killing "is" moral then all types of killing "is" moral, or not immoral.

 

I don't know what you mean, that isn't a logical following. If A does not equal B, and A is always C, it does not follow that B is always C. If murder is always immoral, and murder does not equal killing, then killing is not necessarily always immoral.

 

If the debate is whether killing is always immoral, that is a different question, and has an equally obvious answer - killing is not objectively moral or immoral, it depends on context.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Spite

[Moreau]

I don't know what you mean, that isn't a logical following. If A does not equal B, and A is always C, it does not follow that B is always C. If murder is always immoral, and murder does not equal killing, then killing is not necessarily always immoral.

Though I am not disagreeing with your argument... The logic you've used is false, as both A and B can both equal C.

 

To demonstrate: If rape is always immoral, and murder does not equal rape, then murder is not necessarily always immoral? No.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Moreau III

[Arthur James]

killing like execution is not murder.

Murder is about killing innocent without violation of law.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Arthur James

[SoS]

Murder is a word. Killing is the exact same action regardless of the purpose. If you can justify killing for one purpose, why can't it be justified for any purpose?

[Frank Todd]

*Grave digging*

 

Murder is viewed as an immoral act, but given that a few thousand years ago we would kill without it being called Murder.. Additionally morality is an illusion put upon by people to help them sleep at night. At base we are animals to some degree, and what do animals do to each other in order to survive... Kill. Whether it be for food, or for protection. (or in the case of some predatory animals, Fun/teaching newborns).

 

Am I going to go murder someone just cause, probably not, but that's cause I don't wanna, not cause it's "wrong".

[SoS]

If murdering a random person from a distant country would set up your posterity forever would you do it?

[Lannan13]

If murdering a random person from a distant country would set up your posterity forever would you do it?

There's a ton of factors that go into that. 

[SoS]

Not really. You kill someone, for no reason other than profit, in some sandy country. Your portfolio gains as a result, so your generations are set. It's simple. Would you kill for a worthwhile gain?

[Peacity Peace]

Murdering/killing is only moral in the eyes of those that see the benefit.