Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

Scott-If all life being "equal" in value, a person who determines himself able to reason the the value of the wanton killing of another human being should also reason the same equal standard of value applicable to his life, as a self determined differentiation between right-right or wrong-wrong. It's either that or society and individuals can determine degrees and levels of moral equivalence. A person who kills subjects himself to being killed, all things being equal, that is.

I didn't think you could answer the question but my response is damn near a post graduate thesis, plus the other thread you started included, but I believe these concepts need deference.

[Scott]

Alun,

I do not think punishment is desirable at all. Depending the circumstances, I would possibly tolerate the use of punishment as an indirect way of achieving some other goal that I support, such as rehabilitation, or as an indirect consequence of doing something I support against the attacker, such as using force against the attacker to defend the one that the attacker is attacking. In these cases, punishment is not the goal, but a necessary means or consequence of some other goal.

You asked me "why it's ok to hurt the 'deserving' attacker to stop the attack, but not ok to hurt an innocent person to stop the attack?" I'll translate that into a question that I believe more accurately represents my views: "Why do I support hurting the attacker to stop the attack, but do not support hurting an innocent person to stop the attack?" The explanation is that I do not want any people to be hurt because I sympathize with their pain. Unfortunately, when someone initiates a conflict by offensively attacking other people which we have the potential ability to stop with the use of force against the attacker, then the attacker has forced us to choose between allowing an 'innocent' person to be attacked and pained (either by doing nothing or somehow hurting some other innocent person to save the intended victim) or using defensive force to reflect the pain back onto the one who has caused it. When causing pain to someone is necessary, i.e. when one initiates violence making it necessary that someone feel pain, if possible I prefer to reflect that pain back at the one who made it necessary than have it hurt an 'innocent' person. For me and my desires and feelings, it's the choice of the lesser of two undesirable outcomes.

For me, in and of itself it feels less unpleasant to let pain go to the one who made it necessary. I believe a society can be made in which there is the near unanimously agreed upon simple rule, no offensive violence and thus no murder is allowed, but where defensive force is quite effectively and commonly used when offensive attacks are attempted or do happen. I believe the occurrence of violence would be drastically reduced in such a society. I want that, and I think most people want that.

For example, would you refuse to put a child, Jerry, in timeout for hitting another child, Ronald, even if you're in a daycare, and after the incident Ronald went home and only Jerry was left?

That's an important point. Again, I may punish Jerry with time out not because I get some joy in causing pain to someone as revenge. It's not only not desirable to cause pain to Jerry in and of itself; it's obviously undesirable to me and almost anyone. But I may be willing to do it as a means to the end of teaching Jerry to behave in the way that I want. I believe that analogy would relate to the process of rehabilitating convicted murders, rapists and other violent offenders. I very much support rehabilitation, and I may support punishing a criminal or patient as to condition them to behave differently if it is effective at rehabilitating them and thus making everyone safer. Frankly, I greatly doubt it is an effective method of rehabilitation. I imagine therapy, education and medication of psychological disorders are far more effective forms of rehabilitation than trying to condition human beings as if they were Pavlov's dogs. But I suppose that's a topic for another thread with lots of references to psychology and tested data from behavioral experts.

Regardless, I think we can easily agree that you can't rehabilitate or train someone by murdering them. Dead people can't learn.

***

Itmattersnot,

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?

No, I do NOT support any types of murder.

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.

Indeed, you do have the choice whether to defend yourself from murder by killing the murderer just like the jealous spouse has a choice of whether to murder or not. The difference is the first is self-defense and the latter is murder. You may oppose both. As I understand it, pacifists oppose both. I only oppose murder. I respect the pacifists' views, and I am glad they oppose murder too even though they do not support violent self-defense.

***

Juice,

You write that "a person who determines himself able to reason the value of the wanton killing of another human being should also reason the same equal standard of value applicable to his life." I agree at least in part in the sense that I also think someone is a hypocrite if they murder others but then want to not be murdered themselves.

In a society where the death penalty is present either from a government or vigilantes, of course a person who murders subjects himself to being murdered. But it does not have to be like that. We can choose to not murder anyone even the murders, and at the same time still reduce and try to eliminate the occurrence of murder with various methods including defensive force.

If one truly gets pleasure from murdering people as revenge or gets pleasure from causing pain to someone as revenge, then that's the way they are. I can't say their emotions, feelings and opinions are incorrect. If I think a flavor of ice cream tastes bad, and you think it tastes good, neither of us would be wrong. I can only point out the potential drawbacks of murder for the ones who commit it, say that I oppose murder, say that I get displeasure from causing pain to others, and hope when others think about it they realize they feel the same way.

I'm still glad we are all having this discussion to think up the reasons some people support some types of murder. I think almost everyone already opposes almost every type of murder. And if they really consider it and weigh the consequences of engaging in murder and not having a society in which all murder is illegal, I think almost everyone would conclude that they also oppose all murder. I hope that one day all murder is illegal and that anyone who commits murder for any reason is incarcerated until rehabilitated and that as much defensive force as needed is commonly used to stop any and all types of would-be murder.

Thanks everyone for your replies and contributions to the discussion!
-Scott

I do not think punishment is desirable at all.

Ok. Just for the record, I think there is a legitimate difference between punishment and revenge. This is sortof a semantic point, so I'll focus on the concepts themselves which you refer to:

When causing pain to someone is necessary, i.e. when one initiates violence making it necessary that someone feel pain, if possible I prefer to reflect that pain back at the one who made it necessary than have it hurt an 'innocent' person. For me and my desires and feelings, it's the choice of the lesser of two undesirable outcomes.

This is, I think, what I mean by punishment; that we feel the consequences of bad intentions are better suited to the actor, rather than victims. This is why I was insisting that, to some degree, it seems like you're saying punishment is desirable--not because it makes us feel good (and in fact it shouldn't), but because we want to live in a world where you suffer (or enjoy) the consequences of your actions. Now, this is different from saying the value of punishment always makes punishment a good thing; in the case of executions, the cost of punishment is the death of the person, so it seems obvious to me that at some point the ideal of desert is outweighed.

However, as you say, when the only choice is between directing bad consequences on the actor or on some innocent victim, we ought to reflect them at the actor.

Regardless, I think we can easily agree that you can't rehabilitate or train someone by murdering them. Dead people can't learn.

This is true, but I think there is a lot to be said about deterrence as well. To uphold punishment is to uphold an ideal that effects everyone who might commit a wrongdoing and who might be the victim of the wrongdoing. E.g. even to the point where I act differently in anticipation of what someone else might decide to do. If I know that a person who kills me is likely to be executed, for example, I am more bound to trust that even a burglar in my house will not want to kill me. I still don't think you can execute people, but you can see why the ideal itself might be that valuable.

As you say, this is basically just a setup for empirical tests. If it can be shown that really the principle of punishment isn't useful at the extremes, then there is a lesser degree to which we should pursue it. And again, it's outweighed by political considerations--whether there's a valid social contract being the most important factor for me.

Scott -

You said, "Regardless, I think we can easily agree that you can't rehabilitate or train someone by murdering them. Dead people can't learn."

I am glad that you are a fan of rehabilitation or at least an attempt at it. I just wish you would apply this admiration of reform to the attacker even while he's attacking. Harder to do, I know.

If nothing else, we could more actively pursue effective, non-lethal weaponry so that killing the attacker need not even be an issue when it comes to defending oneself. For more on this, see my new thread Tranquilizer Guns For Everyone in the Philosopher's Lounge section.



A serious issue of concern -

Scott, collateral damage is bound to happen in almost every war.

Let's say the U.S. military were to finally find Osama bin Laden. And let's say that he was about to launch a massive attack on innocent U.S. civilians (say, 20 times worse than 9-11 and you and your family were also a target).

The only way to stop him is to blow up the area where he is located and quickly. The problem is that there is one innocent child in that area and the only attack against bin Laden that would be effective would also take the life of that innocent child.

Would you support the murder of that child because there is so much at stake? Is that an instance where you yourself actually would support murder even though you have claimed that you do not support ANY kind of murder?

More directly, do you support any war where innocent people are unfortunately murdered (the civil war, ww1, ww2, viet nam, war in iraq, war in afghanistan, war on terror, iran, north korea, etc.)?

I am not talking about accidentally killing a civilian due to a miss-fire (though you might want to ask yourself that as well). I am talking about the deliberate murder of an innocent because of the "greater good". This is utilitarian murder at it's most tempting (well, nearly).

If murder occurs in war, than to support that war is to support murder.

What about killing Hitler and all the Nazi party in the midst of the holocaust at the cost of murdering one innocent Jew in the process?

Who cares, right? It's one life VS millions. And that one Jew was probably gonna be murdered by the Nazis anyway.

Or maybe not. Or maybe none of that matters.

Do you really oppose ALL murder?

For more on other options, see my thread Benefits And Drawbacks Of Non-Lethal Warfare.

And if anyone says that intentional collateral damage doesn't count as murder because it is merely "killing" in war and that the rules do not apply to times of war, I swear I will HUNT YOU DOWN and politely ask you to stop being such a jack-ass.

I am anticipating that someone is going to respond that, though they do not support the murdering of innocent people in war, they feel that, since it is a "unfortunate necessity" in order to emerge victorious, they will allow this collateral damage to occur where it must and continue to support the war.

To this I will say... Then your opposition to murder is half-assed and it is pointless to mention it even in theory because as soon as you are backed up against a wall you will betray your beliefs.

If you truly oppose murder, you will not support an activity like war which is so well-known for being the cause of MASS murder.

Some might say that they support the cause (defending freedom) but not the negative aspects (destroying freedom), but they go along anyway.

I say... Then find a way to engage in the cause WITHOUT associating with the negative aspects (non-lethal warfare, diplomacy, etc.); OR do not engage in the cause if such negative aspects are unavoidable and allow whatever harm may come as a result.

To be so concerned that innocent people are going to be killed that you yourself decide to kill innocent people BAFFLES MY MIND.

[Scott]

I have made a new blog post with facts about the death penalty that show some of the drawbacks of the death penalty, i.e. state-sponsored murder as revenge/punishment.

***

Homicidal Pacifist,

I would apply rehabilitation or non-violent methods of stopping an attacker even while he is attacking insofar as it would be as effective at protecting others from his attacks. For instance, I would prefer to talk a upset, perhaps suicidal, gunman down, convince him to put down his weapon and take him away to jail peacefully if I felt that had as much or more of a chance of stopping him from shooting anyone else as shooting him ourselves.

Of course I would support the use of non-lethal weaponry such as tasers in cases where they would be just as effective at protecting others from the attacker.

As for war, I do not think unintentional collateral damage is murder, and I recognize it as a fact of war even in the few the types of wars I would support. Many wars I wouldn't support because of this non-murderous but still deadly and devastating collateral damage, such as the ones with Iraq or Vietnam.

But I oppose terrorist tactics, by which I mean the intentional murdering of civilians as a military tactic. This includes dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, flying planes into civilian filled towers in New York, or blowing up airports in Lebanon. At best, these types of acts fall into the category of utilitarian murder (e.g. murdering one man to feed 3 other starving people who would have died otherwise), but often falls into the type of murder you pointed out before, murder for nationalism or one's loved ones (e.g. murdering three strangers to feed 1 person one loves or who's of the same race/religion/country/nation.)

Let's say the U.S. military were to finally find Osama bin Laden. And let's say that he was about to launch a massive attack on innocent U.S. civilians (say, 20 times worse than 9-11 and you and your family were also a target).

The only way to stop him is to blow up the area where he is located and quickly. The problem is that there is one innocent child in that area and the only attack against bin Laden that would be effective would also take the life of that innocent child.

No, I wouldn't support murdering the child. Not in that unrealistic example and not if Osama was some child eating monster who said he'd murder thousands if we didn't cut out a little girl's heart and feed it to him. I would use other methods to stop him. In real life, we could find other effective methods, such as sending lots of soldiers in by foot. For the record, I'd rather send 10 willing soldiers and myself on a suicide mission to stop an attack than murder an 'innocent' child.

***

Alun,

No, I am not saying that it is desirable that we cause suffering to an attacker because it makes him suffer the consequences (which we thereby have created) of his actions. Again, it is not desirable in itself at all. In itself only, hurting the attacker against his will is undesirable in any case. Still, hurting the attacker is less undesirable than letting his attacks hurt others.

But when excessive force is used, i.e. violence against the attacker that doesn't protect others from his attacks, then it's offensive force and undesirable to me. The even less desirable option of letting someone else get attacked is no longer involved when choosing between using excessive force or only using 'necessary' defensive force. We are choosing between avoiding people being attacked and not causing more harm to the attacker (than has been or is already being caused to him because of our already agreed upon choice to use force to defend ourselves) or still avoiding people being attacked, except that we offensively attack the attacker to intentionally cause extra harm to him as punishment/revenge.

As for deterring violent crime, I do not believe the presence of the death penalty or other severe punishments deters violent crime. Nor do I think it is less costly than incarceration. Regardless, in discussing with people who support the death penalty and oppose many prison reforms (e.g. using rehabilitation and release rather than life in prison, or providing quality education, job training, therapy and treatment to inmates rather than trying to make prison solely a place of suffering), I have found they usually don't care whether these policies deter crime or cost less, they just want revenge. They don't want the single goal of the justice to be to protect the innocent; they want justice to be the hurting those who have hurt others as payback.

If it was shown that execution significantly deterred murder more than non-execution, sexually violating prisoners significantly deterred rape, or the use of excessive force as punishment significantly deterred people from committing crimes, then to me that would be a compelling argument to support these things against violent criminals (when they do not reform the offender who is being punished but merely act as some kind of draconian deterrent). But that still would not exactly be punishment for punishment's sake to me. It would be punishment of one murderer as deterrence to others. Still, I'm not even sure I'd support it. I suppose it would be a specific sub-category of what I labeled utilitarian murder. But I think it's a moot issue because I do not believe that the use of excessive force deters violent crime. In fact, I would think the common presence of excessive force and draconianism would increase violence in society. I thought it was well-known that the death penalty does not deter murder.

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.

What does deterrent mean? This is just more leftist social justice redirection to attempt to create an argument against "capital punishment" that makes no logical sense. The term is capital "punishment" not capital "deterrent"! The implementation of capital punishment statutes are meant to punish, lex talens, not deter. Whether or not it is or is not a deterrent is a sociological question rather than a concern of law.

The argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent is a tautology.

1. The murderer kills whether there is sufficient deterrence for him to kill or not.

2. The deterrence for murdering is not capital punishment.

3. Capital punishment is not a deterrence since the murderer kills despite any deterrence.

4. The deterrence for murder is a deterrence that cannot deter murder from deterring the murderer.

5. Capital punishment does not deter murder since it is a punishment and not a deterrence.

Besides the problem with capital punishment as a deterrent is not its feasibility, here in the states, but in the laws which prolong its execution. In Singapore where executions are carried out almost immediately after sentencing crime is extremely low.

I am not just talking about punishment as a deterrent, but as upholding an ideal of responsibility. I also don't really want to talk about the sociological aspects of the death penalty, I was just using it as an example of how punishment has implications for everyone.

No, I am not saying that it is desirable that we cause suffering to an attacker because it makes him suffer the consequences (which we thereby have created) of his actions. Again, it is not desirable in itself at all. In itself only, hurting the attacker against his will is undesirable in any case. Still, hurting the attacker is less undesirable than letting his attacks hurt others.

This still seems contradictory to me. Again, consider little Jerry at the daycare. More importantly, if employing punishment makes a difference to the desirability in a defensive circumstance, it seems to me that it must make a difference period, even if that difference is only infrequently enough to outweigh the suffering it involves. What my point here is is to say that your disagreement with Juice seems to be about how punishment is valuable, not whether it is valuable.

What does deterrent mean? This is just more leftist social justice redirection to attempt to create an argument against "capital punishment" that makes no logical sense.

I do not think the ideal of punishment is worthwhile outside of a social justice context. That is not to say that punishment is all about deterrence, but that we all want to live in a world where actions have consequences, as opposed to where people can hurt others without losing anything themselves. As such, anytime someone does not get punished, the ideal is degraded, and society as a whole suffers. That is my "leftist social justice context" for punishment in general. I think the question of the death penalty needs to be asked; who is to gain from capital punishment? How is punishment good, and to what degree is it still good if the punishment is death?

Sorry Alun I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was referring to your post, rest assured I understood your meaning very well.

The answer for Scott is extremely difficult compared to my easier answer that capital punishment is , morally right since the perpetrator forfeits his right by forfeiting the life of another.

From my perspective Scott wants to argue the constitutionality of capital punishment but can't do so unless he determines a moral rational against it. But, since Scott is a self professed amoralist he cannot argue against capital punishment, in context to its constitutionality, due to the limitations of amoralism. So Scott is in a quandary and attempts to argue it on legal grounds by adding and redefining terms. He considers punishment "revenge" but from an amoralist perspective I would answer "so what" it's revenge. I can either be disgusted by punishment or disgusted by revenge or disgusted by murder or disgusted by allowing a murderer the right to live after he has denied another the right to live.

Scott carefully steers away from using the term "kill" substituting that idea for the more egregious sounding "homicide" or "murder". After all few people will denounce me for killing a roach or a rat, after all doing so does not qualify for the legal definition of murder (comparison to some murderers intended).

For the amoralist "Live and Let Die", should be as credible as "Can't We All Just Get Along" chants.

I didn't think you were referring to me, but I'm glad you understand me.

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

"Tautology" just means an argument from definition. Since punishment is not the same a deterrent (even though it may happen to also be a deterrent), it is tautological to say, "Capital punishment is not a deterrent." This is saying the argument is obvious and just a matter of what the words mean.

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.

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.

The object of capital punishment is to punish.

Obviously. But what is the object of punishment according to you, Juice?

PJ-In context of the nature of this discussion "punishment" is "retribution". LEX TALENS