Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

who among us has the right to decide who should live and who should die when the belief that you can take a life you are playing god while there is no proof of god those fools who dare play god will see that there is no joy in this game

My definition of murder is more or less the same as Scott's, the unlawful killing of another whether it be for good, bad, or no intention at all. I always oppose murder because it is not always necessary. If it is in the act of self-defense or there is no other way to resolve the situation, murder seems inevitable (unless you are willing to sacrifice yourself because you do not wish to take anothers life). Although their intentions may be good, the act is still wrong and your intentions will be just as bad as the victims. Self-defense and protection rarely end up in murder (from what I've seen), and is usually a last resort. If you are able to resolve the situation by decommissioning the murderer, murder is not necessary and will be worse than if it was unable to be avoided. Taking ones life is an act of injustice and is at no means necessary. Sooner or later the person who has committed the murder will be punished or worse. Murder leads to a whole 'nother level of punishment, and is not worth going through. Good intentions do not make evil deeds good ones.

[Scott]

My definition of murder is more or less the same as Scott's, the unlawful killing of another whether it be for good, bad, or no intention at all.

I agree with much of the sentiment of your post, but that is not my definition of murder.

In this thread, I define murder as offensive, intentional homicide regardless of whether it is illegal or not. I am not talking about just statutory murder (as explained in post #24).

Intention is a major part of the definition of murder in any sense I can think of, especially the statutory sense.

In this thread, I am not interested in discussing non-intentional homicide or defensive homicide--even in jurisdictions where self-defense is illegal.

***

We need to figure out whether or not killing in self-defense is actually a form of offensive/intentional homicide...

That's not hard to figure out. Killing in defense is obviously not offensive homicide; this is precisely what I mean by using the word offensive.

If one uses excessive force in combination with defensive force, then that extra force is offensive--such as a cop who purposely bangs a hand-cuffed perpetrators head into the car out of anger. If only as much violence was used as necessary to stop the attack, then that is defensive not offensive.

Scott

I like your definition of murder, and I think I have a scenario where "the offensive, intentional killing of another person" is morrally permissible, and perhaps even an imperative.

First, your definition (if I understand correctly) includes those who receive the death penalty. A convicted capital criminal-(one who has commited a capital offence)- poses no immediate threat to soceity from within a jail cell, so to kill him on the ground of protecting soceity is unneccessary; he can simply be incarcerated for the rest of his life. My point? Capital punishment is offensive, because killing a captured criminal is not the only way to defend society.

Since capital punishment is murder under your def, I can think of ways in which murder is permissible, using a combination of moral codes.

1) Justice: the idea that each should be given their due. Everyone's actions and choices deserve repercussions. If one commits certain actions, (murder, rape), then they deserve to die. You can label this as "An eye for an eye" or good old fashioned "Vengence," but whether people accept it or not, this is a central ideology of The Criminal Justice System.

2) Utilitarianism: the net happiness theory. If the net result of an action is more good than bad, then it is moral. Most arguments for the death penalty rely on this moral code. The idea that the death penalty deters crime is an example, as is a scenario where it is cheaper to kill someon than to house and feed them indefinately. Unfortunately, reseach has shown neither of these arguments exist in the status quo, so I offer a hypothetical policy; harvest organs from death row. There would be a real benefit from the death of an inmate, one that is tangible and therefore irrefutible.

Of course, all these examples and scenarios assume it is permissible for someone to be deserving death under justice, but when their crime is the result of their own rational choice, I do not think society should be deprived of the benefits of their death.

I believe murder is justifiable. (If that's spelled correctly, man I miss my FireFox.) If somebody kills another person, I believe they should be killed in the same, if not worser, way than the crime committed.

I only find one problem with this kind of murder. The people who's killing the murderers might want to become a killer themselves. So, let's say, the FBI kills child molesters that murders their victims in the same way. That FBI member might want to start murdering people. Then a more higher up will kill that FBI Member, and so forth. This is why quick, painless murders are accepted, only a small bit.

To Holt10, the murderer in prison, of a capital crime, in prison for his entire life costs loads of money. It'll save money, which everyone needs now a days, to kill them.