Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.

Search found 19 matches

Return to: Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

  • Author
  • Message

November 1st, 2009, 4:22 pm

Interesting topic and even more interesting answers.

It seems we can all take it for granted that once we have established a "greater good" we can make our choice whether it is acceptable to ourselves that a murder becomes legitimate.

If its up to us to value life in the same way as we make up our daily decisions, the answer would be just as easy it seems.

November 2nd, 2009, 1:17 pm

wanabe wrote:Offense/defense are relative, I agree Alun. I think that portion is therefore irrelevant and problematic as well, since it is included(another thing to define).

It becomes even more problematic when you look at something as the death penalty.

The person to be executed is in custody and at that point no longer a threat to the community.

Would his execution be regarded as a defensive homicide or just plain murder.

November 3rd, 2009, 12:45 pm

Scott wrote:I didn't think to put self-interest on the list because in most cases we wouldn't support it

Scott wrote:But when someone offers us a billion dollars to do it or even more the chance to save the lives of our loved ones, we'd probably at least consider it.

I think self-interest should be on top of the list if we do not clearly define our motivations to make a choice.

For me it goes as far as the fact I can perfectly be at peace with a mass murderer getting executed, it is the slightest possibility of an innocent person getting the death penalty that makes it impossible for me to be at peace with it as a whole.

How can I not save someone dear to me over another person?

Yet who am I to value the life more worthy than the other?

November 3rd, 2009, 4:30 pm

Scott, am I right to assume that in your opinion the only murder allowed should be one that is a result of the "natural consequence" you described in your last post?

I have some problems with the interpretation of offensive, intentional homicide versus defensive homicide both could be a "natural consequence" of a murderer's intent.

I still have a choice when I am about to shoot my would be murderer, as did the jealous spouse who found his wife/man cheating on him/her and decided to kill the rival.

The only difference being time between thought and action.

November 4th, 2009, 2:31 pm

Scott, I think you have explained your definition of murder very well and also clarified to me what you believe to fall under that definition.

It's a very good topic as it seems that although we all agree on murder being unacceptable our definitions are biased by our personal feelings and we differ on what we would consider murder.

I do believe that in order to abolish all murder from this world any form of killing being intentional or unintentional should be prevented.

Since I do not think we have the means to make that happen it is my belief murder will still be a part of our society for quite some time.

November 4th, 2009, 5:23 pm

Juice wrote:The argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent is a tautology.

I was under the impression that the meaning of deterrent was being scrutinized because it lacked the desired effect of scaring off people to commit serious crimes.

If so I fail to see how deterrent and capital punishment can have the same meaning in the quoted sentence.

As for it being effective, I tend to believe more people get killed to prevent them from being a witness to a crime punishable by death than that it would save people from getting killed by someone with murdering intentions

November 5th, 2009, 2:58 am

Juice wrote:The argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent is a tautology.

I clearly misunderstood the objective of explanation here and was looking for more than I should have.

Juice wrote:IMS-You missunderstand I am stating that making an argument against capital punishment by claiming it is not a deterrent is a tautological argument, meaning, in essence that it is a false value of a truth expression and rhetorical as demonstrated in post #37.

Thank you for clarifying.

Juice wrote: The object of capital punishment is to punish. If there is no effect to capital crimes with or without capital punishment then it doesn't matter to try to argue its effects to any end, especially since capital punishment is not meant to deter anything but to punish by applying the same standard of value to the crime committed with the punishment executed.

Than it is my mistake to think the death penalty has to have more value than just an eye for an eye.

November 8th, 2009, 5:45 am

Juice wrote: Those of us who believe we came from monkeys and therefore must wait for the evolution of moral aptitude to manifest globally should be glad for any removal of that gene from the natural selection process. (Don't get ahead of yourself and ask if I support killing the killers children, that statement is just a bit of sarcasm, for the edumycation of those with a limited sense of humor).

The humor wasn't lost on me :wink:

Addressing the gene pool in our murder topic would broaden our current dilemma only further so I would like to keep it at one directed question towards Juice.

Juice wrote: The objective reasoned deportment of Lex Talens theory is supported by legal and legislative fidelity of retribution and proportionality and the will of the people.

Lets assume we are able to rehabilitate beyond any doubt a person who has committed a crime deserving of capital punishment.

Would you still support Lex Talens as you describe it even if it means that the "will of the people" might not adapt to the new circumstances on which we based our legal and legislative standards?

November 8th, 2009, 1:46 pm

juice wrote:It would seem that some have a problem, if not for the need for punishment, but in the need for retribution.

I still don't see the need for retribution, other than revenge.

I support your view of capital punishment, but I am unable to defend it.

juice wrote:First let me say that it seems a bit "strange" to argue concepts of death with some who do not believe in an afterlife. I do not fear death, and since I don't see it as the end of existence it may well be that my perspective on capital punishment is so influenced. From my perspective a person who commits such an egregious offence against individual(s) or society so as to warrant a punishment of forfeiture of life in this material existence stands a greater and eventual chance for redemption directly under Gods Grace than he would have considered on this plane of existence. Be that as it may I only offer this explanation to further the discussion since I have observed that some consider belief in an afterlife as born out of fear of death. Judging by some of the commentary here it may seem that the opposite could be argued as the more valid consideration.

I would like to think that personal believes will always have some influence on what we write.

I sincerely hope it will never be a reason to dismiss someone's opinion or deem the contents not worth reading and contemplating about.

How are we to learn from each other otherwise?

In short: Itmattersnot.

November 8th, 2009, 4:00 pm

The topic Scott started : Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

Scott wrote:Juice pointed out that some people such as himself support murder as punishment when he or enough people are so disgusted with a person that they want to hurt the person or get revenge.

Which Juice narrowed to:

juice wrote:If that is the case then yes I support murder in the case of defense of property and in cases where an individual or individuals have committed egregious acts against society or individuals so defined by law and according to jurisdiction are so punished accordingly and so long as murder in these cases are further defined as protective homicide and intra-legal (defensive) punishment and so morally justified.

Where does "murder" by (capital) punishment fit in?

Juice wrote:Murder is a legal term defining the act of killing unlawfully more specifically with malice afore thought.

It's legitimacy (death by execution) lies within "the will" of the majority of people.

Juice wrote:The expectation of punishment is not to rehabilitate but to punish proportionately as to clear the perpetrator of that debt and make him whole in those accounts without regard to rehabilitation although one hopes that rehabilitation and conformity to better aspects of peaceful coexistence ensue, after and in conjunction with repayment of that adjudicated punishment.

I'd say that the expectation of someone rehabilitating after an execution would be slim at best.

November 9th, 2009, 1:31 pm

Juice wrote:The argument against "defensive homicide" cannot proceed effectively unless one agrees that there are moral absolutes or truths applicable to an apriori attribute of distinguishable right and wrongs to establish such moral absolutes...

Juice, let me clarify my intent, I do not see why enacting Lex Talens principles that could lead to execution would fall under "defensive homicide".

The remarks I made are solely for pointing out the inconsistency I believe is there.

If my choice of wording is wrong than it is because I do not want to be lost in semantics, I just want to keep the conversation going and if a carefully selected wording is needed I'll leave it to an expert like you :D

November 9th, 2009, 4:38 pm

Juice wrote:If proportionality between offence and punishment is desired then having capital punishment as a maximum applicable punishment ensures maximum proportional punishments for all crimes.

Yes, to safeguard our justice system we must at least be able to punish a person to the extend that there is no more the community could ask for retribution.

Thank you Juice, at least I have found the defense I could not formulate myself.

So back to Scott's topic: Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

Murder by conviction of a crime punishable by death, this murder I would not oppose.

November 10th, 2009, 5:39 pm

Scott wrote:Why? How does punishing a person in itself safeguard a justice system? Why can't we only use defensive force against attackers to stop their attack just to protect people, which includes protecting people by incarcerating the attacker. Why do we need to use what's called excessive force, i.e. causing pain to the attacker because we enjoy his suffer in itself when it provides no extra defense?

We don't need to, we need to be able to.

In Holland we do not have a death penalty, in fact the majority of our people are frustrated about the sentences for major crimes being below standard in the eyes of the community but our judges aren't complying to the will of the people.

I am convinced that our legal means to punish crimes is severely hampered by continuously lowering the severity of a sentence.

By being able to "demand" the highest punishment we allow for room to adapt the sentence better to the circumstances.

If the justice system fails to "do right" in the eyes of the community for too long , than it will result in more drastic changes to the legal system.

That's why I believe:

"to safeguard our justice system we must at least be able to punish a person to the extend that there is no more the community could ask for retribution."

I am not saying we should execute offenders guilty of committing a crime punishable by death, I am just saying we should be able to.

November 14th, 2009, 8:34 am

pjkeeley wrote:I still don't see how killing a killer benefits the family of the victims (or anyone).

That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

I am not saying this justifies killing the offender but it will most certainly benefit relatives of a victim by making them able to live "normal" lives again.

November 17th, 2009, 1:35 pm

pjkeeley wrote:
Itmattersnot wrote:That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

Maybe so, but it seems unreasonable. What if the family of a murder victim said they needed a palace made of solid gold in order to feel emotionally capable of returning to normal life?

And what is the difference between a castle of solid gold or millions of dollars paid for compensation?

pjkeeley wrote:Would we be obliged to fulfil their insane request? It would be offensive to a reasonable person to do so.

Families of victims are often "awarded" with huge sums of money, if that's insane you have beef with the judicial system.

pjkeeley wrote:Similarly, having someone killed for their emotional wellbeing seems insane to me.

Reason and emotion don't mix well, if you expect all of society to be reasonable above any level of emotion than we would not have a discussion about murder.

I can perfectly understand why killing an offender doesn't make sense to you, I can sympathize with families of victims for wanting it but I cannot support it either.

pjkeeley wrote: If they can't return to normal life without having someone killed, what kind of people are they?

The ones that feel that Justice is served by taking a life for a life.


Since we are all sinners in your eyes, how is it that you cannot be at peace with the thought that in the end God will do the judging?

Return to: Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

Can't find what you are looking for? Try our custom Google search of this website.