Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

Scott,

I think utilitarian murder includes defensive murder, because you're essentially choosing to let one person live instead of another because you like that outcome better. It's just a matter of where you draw the line; how far ahead are we willing/able to predict? How likely is it that there's another option somewhere? Etc. These are empirical and epistemic distinctions, not moral or values-based distinctions.

I have to disagree Alun since use of the term "like" denotes a subjective circumstance.

If we are to accept an axiom such as "utilitarian murder" then we must accept "murder", as historically defined, is a necessary best action for a necessary best outcome.

Since murder is the unlawful act of taking an innocent human life for and with an unlawful purpose then in order to accept murder as utilitarian then one must accept it as necessary thereby making murder a just product.

While "defensive homicide" in context, does not denote an act of self defense or duress, mental illness or any exigent circumstance which does not strictly fall under the category of murder but an offence which warrants punitive action nonetheless.

Justice is a rational endeavor of moral rightness which pervades every aspect of civil society and to which all reasonable expectations of equity, fairness, and natural law be applied. Simply redefining words, phrases and law does not advance any obscure tenet or philosophy.

Scott -

I don't think you answered the most important part of my post.

Regarding defensive homicide, my point was that in as much as capital punishment is offensive homicide/murder (regardless of the law), so to is defensive homicide and killing on the battlefield.

Defense would not cause harm as an attack would. Attack is an antonym of defense. To defend is to avoid or protect oneself WITHOUT striking back offensively. So at some point in the villain's attack on us we chose to react with offensive homicide.

No reason attached to why we reacted that way will negate the fact that we did offensively murder the attacker. Maybe it is okay to kill to protect yourself - I don't think so - but it is not okay to say that it is not murder (at least, if we are saying that the law's and Webster's definitions are insufficient as seen by your example that the Nazis did MURDER Jews even though it was legal for them to kill Jews).

Unless you're stating that it is only murder if the victim is innocent, or guilty but defenseless. And if that is your position I will continue to disagree. Murder is the intentional killing of another person; reasons are validations or excuses which seek to pretty-up the harshness of becoming a killer.

If you can give reasons to justify your killing (defense), I can give reasons to justify my killing (I enjoy being covered in blood). In both cases, we have acted offensively regardless of motivation with the intent to kill.

EX. One man steals to feed his crack addiction rather than look for a job, another man steals because he can't find work though he tries and because he is desperate to feed his family and even gives his food portion to his loved ones. One man is definately not as bad as the other (because of motivation), but they are both guilty of the same crime. Both men have succumb to the available temptation. But neither HAD TO. Starvation and sobriety are both valid options sometimes. Again, maybe it's okay to steal for certain reasons, but say it is not stealing.



I said in my earlier post,

"I would say that murder is willing/non-accidental homicide; the intent to kill and the following through of that intent. If that is apt, capital punishment IS murder; as is defensive homicide - just murder under the pretense of self-defense. Justifiable or not, it is still intentional, offensive homicide (a.k.a. murder) to kill an attacker; just not according to the current law.

What exactly is premeditated murder? Does it mean that only that someone had afore thought and intention for days or hours prior to the killing or does is include a 5 minute span of time? My point is that even if it was only 5 SECONDS before someone actually attacked you - like you knew they were coming for your head - it is somewhat premeditated.

Even DURING their attack on you, you chose to kill them BEFORE you actually killed them. Premeditation. Sure you didn't leave your house this morning intending to kill someone, but neither did the carjacker who ended up "having" to kill someone to get away.

We never HAVE to kill anyone. Sure if your goal is survival, but you can change your goals. You are not forced to pull the trigger."

IMS -

Desperate times call for a sound mind.

I am amazed the way the human mind breaks when it means to. A law must be based or come as close to being rational and natural as possible.

What this means is that a state cannot make a law which calls for the extermination of thousands and rational people consider it natural.

Now if those people turned into zombies and threatened otherwise healthy people's lives then it will do well to order their legal termination.("Dawn of the Dead" humor)

If the argument here is to define capital punishment then part of that definition falls between two camps.

One is the fact that individuals have a right to live in peace and harmony with their fellow man with the unrestricted and equal opportunity to pursue happiness. The "privilege" of living in such a society does come with restrictions in that an individual does not have the right to disrupt, by force, or irrational law, anyones peaceful intents and thier right to "life", liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In order for a society to remain consistent, affirm and declare the sanctity of individual life undeniable is to hold those who prove a complete disdain for life ultimately responsible. This is a rational of law and justice, a contract between rational men befitting a moral society who hold the sanctity of life seriously.

The other is based on the moral and spiritual complement of a society in that a society has developed a moral and spiritual construct equivalent with the highest aims of society. Meaning that society, as a whole, with individual development, has reached such a state that each individual conducts their life with the highest principles of spiritual and moral value to their life and the lives of others. In such a society law and justice would direct itself to the meritorious acknowledgements and accomplishments of the individual. There would be no need of punishment or rebuke.

We live on an earthly dominion. Not all men comport themselves to the highest standards of human reasoning. All throughout human history men have proven themselves to be unconcerned or irrational towards the treatment of their fellow man. Slavery persists, genocide persists, the value of unborn human life and the respect for the elderly, the disabled and our neighbors are constantly challenged by those who would rather see the earth burn than it be a shining beacon of "LIFE", liberty and the sanctity and purpose of each "PERSON".

The idea society is not based on expectations, but on actualizations. Unfortunately as long as we believe in nothing more than an earthly existence, a spiritual reality remains forever a moment away.

I have to disagree Alun since use of the term "like" denotes a subjective circumstance.

Well, I would've said "Because it's a better outcome," except that then Scott wouldn't have liked the unexplained moral connotations of "better"--and my point works whether or not you believe morality is objective.

If we are to accept an axiom such as "utilitarian murder" then we must accept "murder", as historically defined, is a necessary best action for a necessary best outcome.

Since murder is the unlawful act of taking an innocent human life for and with an unlawful purpose then in order to accept murder as utilitarian then one must accept it as necessary thereby making murder a just product.

Well, now you're getting caught up in semantics. I think defensive homicide can be justified in an essentially utilitarian way--a way that would not condone anything that we usually term "murder." And in a similar fashion, I think it is at least theoretically possible to justify executions. In other words, while I don't support the death penalty, I do not think we can say that using lethal defensive force is a totally different ball game than using lethal punishment.

Justice is a rational endeavor of moral rightness which pervades every aspect of civil society and to which all reasonable expectations of equity, fairness, and natural law be applied. Simply redefining words, phrases and law does not advance any obscure tenet or philosophy.

What I'm saying is that the reason we think it's ok to kill defensively is because we're pursuing justice--and the reason we want to kill as punishment is also to pursue this same kind of justice. Hence, the two are not as distinct as Scott argues.

"Defensive homicide" is a legal phrase used to denote an action which fails to completely meet a standard or murder but still fails to meet a standard generally applied to self defense, or some form of mental defect. It is generally used to protect those who have endured some form of abuse, like a woman who kills her husband while he sleeps because of past abuse or fear of future abuse. While still a punishable offence it generally requires less punishment as would murder or manslaughter, or non-punishment as warranted under self defense rules. Many states have adopted the language.

The difficulty, the way I see it, is to argue for capital punishment from only one perspective as would the concept of deterrent apply. Capital punishment is punishment for the severity of the acts committed and for the personal responsibility for the act applicable, while some may still argue for it as a deterrent. Capital punishment is employed as part of the punishment schema of the legal and justice system necessary to impart seriousness to the value for the sanctity of life to those who would deny that civil necessity to others.

"Utilitarian Murder" is oxymoronic in that if we accept the traditional definition of "murder" and accept that murder is illegal, in that context, then I cannot see that it could ever be utilitarian unless we mean to apply it as some sort of socio-biological imperative. This is what I meant as a redefinition of terms.

Juice -

You obviously do not care about the lives of those who have taken innocent lives. So rather than saying that EVERY PERSON has a right to life, please say that only persons innocent of murdering an innocent persons have the right to life.

Additionally, because at least one innocent person has been killed by the death penalty, human fallibility or not, support for the death penalty entails that the supporter is also guilty of killing/murdering an innocent person and is therefore accountable and subject to the same punishment.

Am I to understand that you support all types of killing except for the killing of innocent people? In which case you violate your own principle through support of the death penalty because it has killed at least one innocent person. Or is it not murder because it was lawful even if later on we discovered new evidence that proved that person's innocense? But doesn't that mean that though capital punishment is lawful, subjecting a person who turns out to be innocent to capital punishment isn't or shouldn't be lawful?

Scott -

Perhaps we should start a new topic titled... Killing Humans - Do You Ever Support It?
due to the varying definitions of the term murder.

[Scott]

No, I am not interested in using this thread to talk about homicide (i.e. killing a human) in general.

As the OP of this thread, I request that people use the definition of 'murder' that I have put forth or, to avoid equivocation, not use the word 'murder' in this thread at all but instead spell your definition out. If you feel the definition I have provided of murder in the non-statutory sense does not accurately represent what people usually mean by the term, then I apologize, but I think I did a good job defining it as it is usually used in the non-statutory sense. Feel free to replace the word murder when I use it with the phrase offensive, intentional homicide. Please also remember, as explained in post #24, we are not talking about 'murder' or 'homicide' in the statutory sense of the word. In other words, an act can be 'murder' or 'homicide' in the non-statutory sense regardless of whether or not it is legal. (e.g. "Even though it was legal, what Hitler's men did to the Jews was murder.")

***

What I'm saying is that the reason we think it's ok to kill defensively is because we're pursuing justice--and the reason we want to kill as punishment is also to pursue this same kind of justice.

I don't know what you mean by justice. Regardless, I want to save lives. The systematic use of lethal defensive force, if necessary, to stop murderers from murdering saves lives. Murdering a murderer as revenge doesn't save a life; it ends one.

The pacifist may have a compelling argument even against legal, defensive homicide. But I can understand why people would support that. So in this thread I've decided to focus on that which I don't understand: people's support of what I call murder, which is offensive, intentional homicide.

***

Can some of you please directly answer these simple questions so I can know what you do and do not support and figure out what it is you are and are not arguing for. You can see the explanation of each type of the three categories of murder in post #101. There's 6 paragraphs of questions because I split each one into those that are state-sponsored and those that are committed by a non-state actor.

Again, if you disagree with my definition of murder, don't try to answer these questions using a different definition. Instead, replace the word murder with offensive, intentional homicide.

1. Do you support state-sponsored murder for revenge? Always, sometimes or never? Do you support it only if it is an eye-for-an-eye, or would you possibly support it even if the one being murdered hadn't murdered anyone (e.g. the state-sponsored executions of people for the crimes of adultery or witchcraft)?

2. Do you support murder for revenge when it is not state-sponsored? Always, sometimes or never? Do you support it only if it is an eye-for-an-eye, or would you possibly support it even if the one being murdered hadn't murdered anyone?

3. Do you support state-sponsored utilitarian murder? Always, sometimes or never? If sometimes, under what conditions? If the death penalty deters more murder than incarceration, would you support it?

4. Do you support utilitarian murder that is not state-sponsored? Always, sometimes or never? If sometimes, under what conditions? What about the raft example? What about the cannibalism example? What if it deters murder for civilians or other non-government groups to murder murderers?

5. Do you support murder state-sponsored murder for nationalism or one's loved ones? Always, sometimes or never? If only sometimes, under what conditions? Would you support your government/race/religion murdering civilians from another country/race/religion as terrorism if it would save the lives of some of people from your country/race/religion even if the number saved from your country/race/religion was less than the number murdered from their country/race/religion?

6. Do you support murder for nationalism or one's loved ones that is not state-sponsored? Always, sometimes, never? If sometimes, under what conditions? What about the example of a father who murders a stranger to use the strangers organs as transplants to save his daughter's life?

As I already said, my answer to all 6 questions is never.

(When we have 6 questions each with 3 possible answers--always, sometimes or never--that means there's 729 possible combinations of answers. At least provide me the clarity of telling me into which of those 729 categories your philosophy falls.)

Scott -

We need to figure out whether or not killing in self-defense is actually a form of offensive/intentional homicide because that would be an instance where YOU support murder.




So I will say it again...

"Defense would not cause harm as an attack would. Attack is an antonym of defense. To defend is to avoid or protect oneself WITHOUT striking back offensively. So at some point in the villain's attack on us we chose to react with offensive/intentional homicide (MURDER).

No reason attached to why we reacted that way will negate the fact that we did offensively murder the attacker. Maybe it is okay to kill to protect yourself - I don't think so - but it is not okay to say that it is not murder (at least, if we are saying that the law's and Webster's definitions are insufficient as seen by your example that the Nazis did MURDER Jews even though it was legal for them to kill Jews).

Unless you're stating that it is only murder if the victim is innocent, or guilty but defenseless. And if that is your position I will continue to disagree. Murder is the intentional killing of another person; reasons are validations or excuses which seek to pretty-up the harshness of becoming a killer.

If you can give reasons to justify your killing (defense), I can give reasons to justify my killing (I enjoy being covered in blood). In both cases, we have acted offensively regardless of motivation with the intent to kill.

EX. One man steals to feed his crack addiction rather than look for a job, another man steals because he can't find work though he tries and because he is desperate to feed his family and even gives his food portion to his loved ones. One man is definately not as bad as the other (because of motivation), but they are both guilty of the same crime. Both men have succumb to the available temptation. But neither HAD TO. Starvation and sobriety are both valid options sometimes. Again, maybe it's okay to steal for certain reasons, but say it is not stealing.



I would say that murder is willing/non-accidental homicide (offensive/intentional homicide) If that is apt, capital punishment IS murder; as is defensive homicide - just murder under the pretense of self-defense. Justifiable or not, it is still intentional, offensive homicide (a.k.a. murder) to kill an attacker; just not according to the current law.

Even DURING their attack on you, you chose to kill them BEFORE you actually killed them. Premeditation. Sure you didn't leave your house this morning intending to kill someone, but neither did the carjacker who ended up "having" to kill someone to get away.

We never HAVE to kill anyone. Sure if your goal is survival, but you can change your goals. You are not forced to pull the trigger."

I may be straying off the topic here but I feel that it is a point of contention of the topic at hand.

I understand that we all have disagreements or differing opinions, especially on some of the more emotional topics involving use of force issues and the paradigm of justice.


What I am confused by is the introduction of "neologisms" to advance any particular ideology. It seems to me to be a sign of confusion.

What I find interesting, particularly in regards to capital punishment, is an almost total lack of empathy with victims, in regards to discussing the demise of death penalty eligible criminals, or those who suffer at the hands of disparate individuals or organizations throughout the world.

What would be interesting is if we could apply the same rationals for determining subjective language and neologisms to victims.

I adamantly oppose all victimizations. I define victimization as those who have had their will contravened by the act or will of others without due process of law,or civil intent.

What I find confusing are those who support victimization, at least in theory. Those who would encourage a cycle of violence whether physical or psychological by not recognizing the psychological and/or physical impairment victimization causes a civil society and its peaceful intention by not wanting those who willfully victimize held ultimately accountable.

I define "ultimately accountable" as the need for society to prove its sincerity and the importance of its affirmation for the sanctity of life and its commitment to deter and stop the willful victimization of individuals and society by any means for as long as it is necessary.

I have a friend who had a sister who was brutally raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered. She was, a teacher, twenty-two, beautiful and intelligent. He would go to her small apartment after school so she could help him with his homework. He, unfortunately, found her body. The way he tells it he covered her body, thinking he could warm her, not wanting to accept the truth in her stillness, and doesn't recall how long he knelt by her side before he was startled by the phone and answering it informing his mother of what he found and hearing her scream and scream. When the police arrived he watched them gingerly take his sister away.

My friend has never married. A good looking, well to do, middle aged man who sleeps with a gun under his pillow. Almost forty years have passed and his mother cries daily. The wear of grief apparent in her eyes and the turn of her mouth. His father having recently passed away with God in his heart and alcohol finally putting him to rest.

The "person" who did this sits in jail. A part of the penal system for life. My friend is glad that he will never be able to do what he did to anyone again. I ask him if he wishes he was dead for his crime. My friend says it makes no difference, his family has been dead since that day, it is what death does, a person who would do these things is dead before the deed is done, no person alive, filled with life, lover of life, grateful for life would do such a thing. He grieves for his father, his mother, himself and his sister whose only crime was loving life so much that death thought to take a part of it for himself. How can one kill death? It's only life that is killed.

Sure we may consider it moral to "rehabilitate" those who are dead, and give them life through acts of compassion and reason, while those who the killers kill, now live dead.

Scott's right to want to stop all "murder", by any means possible, but I think we need to stop all "victimization", by any means possible. It may be that the actions men take, in any regard, are those that belong to the individual, no matter how crowded the crowd gets, the voice in our minds gives that want to the authority of itself, each of us taking whatever steps necessary to be heard, seen, confirmed when life demands its presence.

In that language becomes a fickle thing and we must ask if words are that which change a mind or if actions speak louder words, or if words are stronger when heard without a beating heart.

Juice -

Please directly tell us which kinds of murder and human killing you do and do not support.

I do no support any kind of killing or murder!!

I do support capital punishment and providing armed support in peace efforts. I believe I have made this abundantly clear. Killing should be avoided at all costs as long as such avoidance does not compromise mission objectives or the loss of team members whether to death or injury. If mission objectives are as such that advancing and or occupying enemy positions then lethal force is automatically authorized without discrimination. The use of air or artillery support is authorized to secure advance and or occupy enemy positions.

While the presence of nuclear armament can not be confirmed nor denied the use of such armament is authorized when mission capable.

Peace! There can be no stinkin peace, what am I gonna do with all dese bullets?

Juice said, "Peace! There can be no stinkin peace, what am I gonna do with all dese bullets?"


That was VERY funny. I wish we would all incorporate comedy in our philosophical conversations as often as possible. It keeps things a bit more lighthearted in the midst of some very troubling issues.

That being said...

***

Juice said, "I do no support any kind of killing or murder!!"


UMMMM......... The death penalty KILLS people. Destroying the opposing military or terrorists KILLS people. Maybe they were guilty and deserved it and maybe it's done as "justice" or a last resort and maybe it is merely killing and not murder, BUT IT IS STILL KILLING.

You DO support killing in some instances.

Thanks for answering my question; though I was hoping you would answer Scott's list of 6 kinds of murder/killing.

I am not SO naive as to say that killing in all cases is unethical (for example I am a proponent of euthanasia). But I do think that killing is justifiable if and ONLY if it is the lesser of two evils, one should definately "refrain" from killing as much as one reasonably can, and since killing "particularly of your own species", is so rarely the lesser of two evils it is hard to see when and if I would ever kill someone, as I have never killed anyone, and probably never will. As regards murder, well, something is murder if its "unlawful killing", so where I stand with murder depends entirely on what the law is, (because I respect ethics more than I respect legality "most" of the time they are the same thing (at least in the UK they are), but not always).

Do I support capitol punishment? Well, I would IF prisons where not very good at keeping people away from innocents, as is the case in some places. The point of both life imprisonment, and execution is to keep people safe from people who are clearly never going to change their ways. But, people escape so rarely (at least in the UK they do) that I think executing them just because they "might" (extremely unlikely) is a bit over the top. I think that IF one has been imprisoned for life, and literally has no chance of EVER getting out, THEN it should be up to THEM if they live out the rest of their lives in prison, or end their life there and then. What separates euthanasia from suicide, is that suicide is a permenant solution to a temporary problem, whereas ethanasia is not, if you have a permenant problem, you need a permenant solution. But, people should never be FORCED to die. Because, we don't even decide where and how we are born! So if we can't decide, where and how we die, what choices do we really have in life?

I think the only time, it would ever be justifed to kill someone against their will, would be if its an un or them situation, i.e. they are a very clear and real threat (as is the case on the battle field, albeit whether the battle ought to happen in the first place is another matter entirely). So if someone is shooting at me, and the only way I can survive is by shooting them and (which might very well kill him), I don't think I'm an evil person for shooting him. But apart from self defence and killing someone because they asked you to kill them (and their problem is a permenant one), then no, killing is clearly wrong.

HP-I am sorry that I am not as concrete or convinced in my thinking as you are and others seem to be. But I think that's because I don't think life is as clearcut as you would believe, let me take that back, life "is not" clearcut.

You are right that this is philosophy and as SS points out that it is not enough to want to define killing or murder under such narrow restrictions as some have want. Or, to define those who have an opposing view under the same restrictive lens, by increasing the magnification when the answer you want is not so easily gotten by linguistic pornography.

I am not a pacifist but I support pacifism. I do not maneuver through life looking for ways to support or become violent. That's the difference. I want peace but know that peace must be defended and protected.

I believe I have answered Scott's questions, sorry if you find them inadequate. Philosophy is the language of thought, life and requires deft reasoning to comprehend another's thoughts and life.

I do not support murder or killing, but death is a part of life.