Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

[Scott]

I try to often say that I adamantly oppose all murder. To me, murder and the threat of murder is the epitome of archism, oppression, infringing on one's freedom, or whatever you want to call it.

I define murder as the offensive, intentional killing of another person regardless of whether it happens to be legal or not in that jurisdiction.

There's already a thread to discuss why people murder. I can understand that. People get angry, greedy and so forth. People do many things they say they never would and regret doing later. People can be hypocrites. For example, I can see why in a fit of rage a person who walks in on a cheating spouse might commit murder and then regret it later. But I don't support it, I want that type of murder to be prohibited, and I want the murderer to be incarcerated until, if ever, rehabilitated.

What I do not understand is people who actually support murder in theory. They support certain type of murder. They think it is desirable, and they can think of hypothetical situations in which they hope it murder would occur. That's what I want to discuss.

Do you always oppose murder? If not, when would you support murder? Under what circumstances would you want someone to commit murder?

Please note, I am talking about murder specifically, not about homicide in general. I firmly support self-defense. For example, I support the use of lethal defensive force to stop a murderer or rapist from murdering or raping when non-lethal means of defense would not be as effective. Remember, there is a difference between murder and defensive homicide.

Also, I am an amoralist, so I try to avoid moral terms because I believe they are unclear. If you are not an amoralist, and you want to make the argument that murder is always immoral or that sometimes murder is morally acceptable, then please first briefly and clearly explain what moral code you are using (e.g. is using Kant's categorical imperative, utilitarianism, a religion, etc.) so the rest of us understand what you mean by 'immoral' and 'morally acceptable.'

I am also not interested in using this thread to discuss what types of creatures/things are considered people. For example, I am not interested in discussing whether or not abortion is murder or whether or not eating animals is murder. For the sake of simplicity, let's keep this discussion limited to actions that are clearly the murder of born human beings who are not braindead.

Thanks,
Scott

We murder what we don't respect. There are those people we respect so wouldn't murder while others we do not so we are open to murder. It is as simple as that. As usual Simone Weil sums it up free of any cutsey pooh rationalizations:

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder."

Murder refers to those whose life we value while elimination is acceptable for those whose life has no value.

This is why a fetus killed through attack is considered a murder while abortion is considered elimination by choice. The fetus in the first case is considered a person with value while when abortion is chosen, the aborted has no value.

Scott said: "Remember, there is a difference between murder and defensive homicide."

In some instances, you cannot separate the two: in war, for example.

"I want the murderer to be incarcerated until, if ever, rehabilitated. What I do not understand is people who actually support murder in theory."

Well, aside from the "murder as a deterrent" argument, which I believe has been shown to be invalid, proponents of "legal" murder decide, by whatever means, who can or cannot be rehabilitated. If it is decided that they cannot be rehabilitated, they are considered a dispensible detriment to society.

Now, if we had reliable scientific means to determine who or who not can be rehabilitated, this argument would have some merit. But as it is, the decision as to who should die is made primarily on moral, political and economic grounds, e.g., how despicable the crime was and how many criminals we can afford to incarcerate.

However, as Nick suggested, when a superficial value is placed on life, the decision to take it is easily made.

Hi Scott,

Once we define murder like this: any killing in Hate or any intention to kill in Hate:, then we can adamantly oppose all murder, committed or not, while allowing or supporting all killing in Love or any intention to kill in Love, whether carried out or not.
That definition covers any and all scenarios.

Then we also know that when others say they support murder, they really mean that they support the killing, but do not really suppoet the Malice-afore-thought which is the spirit of murder that makes any killing murder by conferring Hatred on or by applying Hatred to the killing.

Example:
God killed JC in Love, using those who hated JC to do the killing.
So for **the same act,** the haters committed murder or a Hate-killing and so were glad at the killing, while God committed a Mercy-killing or a Love-killing and so was sad at the killing.

Example:
I am as guilty of murder for hating and NOT killing any person as the terrorists who hated and killed Americans on 911 are guilty of murder.

If I am to understand you correctly Scott one who in defense of his property kills another person would be guilty of murder?

Further, if a person who commits an egregious enough offense against society or more intimately against peaceful members of society and society so determines that the offence that individual committed warrants that persons permanent removal from society as punishment for those offences then that would also be an act of murder if that person is legally put to death?

So that if a person who murders either in defense of property or as punishment for the committing of egregious offences such as unwarranted murder itself would also be guilty of murder, in some form, as legally defined.

Therefore in so doing any act which falls under the heading of murder, so determined, is equally and demonstrably equitably responsible for murder under any circumstance.

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.

What I do not understand is people who actually support murder in theory. They support certain type of murder... I support the use of lethal defensive force to stop a murderer or rapist from murdering or raping when non-lethal means of defense would not be as effective. Remember, there is a difference between murder and defensive homicide.

There isn't much difference to the dead guy, (the only difference is the definition) why is there difference to us? I think you should be asking your self the question you have proposed Scott.

Other wise this is just semantics. "lethal defensive force" is still murder.

I believe that killing,murder, whatever; is always wrong because by killing anything you reduce(pretty much eliminate) the chances of knowledge coming from it. things will always "die", there are other goods that can come from them other than death.

I agree that you're kinda mixing up definitions here. I'd guess that someone who supports what you call "murder" wouldn't call it "murder" in the circumstances where they support it.

I'd say killing a person is only morally acceptable if there is no other way to prevent an extreme amount of harm. I do not think, for example, protecting one's property is a sufficient reason to kill a person--unless that property is most likely necessary for the continued health and survival of others.

However, there is an argument to be made, as I can see it, as to the protection of the principle of property rights. If there is legitimate reason to think that killing the thief is the only way to prevent general loss of property rights, then it is morally acceptable if those property rights, in turn, are necessary for the continued health and survival of others.

My moral code here is essentially that people's evaluations or value assignments should be respected. The reason killing a person is wrong is that it is, at bottom, a violation of the value that person holds for their life. So, to rephrase the above, you had better be protecting something more valuable to yourself, the person being killed, or others if you kill a person.

[Scott]

There's a huge difference between murder and homicide, even though they both result in the death of the victim. If someone tries to conflate the two, it is that person who is mixing up definitions, not me.

In almost any court I know of, if you can show that you killed an attacker out of self-defense, you won't and can't be convicted of murder. Nor can you be convicted of murder (or any crime for that matter) without intent.

I of course don't oppose all forms of killing human beings. I don't oppose all forms of homicide. And while I wouldn't like to see accidental homicide, that also is not murder seeing as it lacks intent.

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.

There's a huge difference between murder and homicide

Because the judge says so? What's the "huge" difference?

Essentially what you are trying to do is make an absolute statement (murder is always wrong) from limited definitions(define murder, but more importantly how is it really different from other circumstances of killing).

Essentially you support the kind of murder that protects another person.

So what you don't understand seemingly, is how people have different definitions for things, this is simple because all people are different, and words are not the idea.

Scott, You don't call "homicide in defense of self" murder. Would you call "homicide in defense of property" murder? Or would that be only "defensive homicide"? What about "homicide in the defense of one's honor"?

See where things get confused? At one point, you are talking regardless of legal definition, but now you sound like you're referring to legal code again. Hence, I don't think we can make headway until we specify what "murder" means to you.

He defined what murder means to him Alun.

I define murder as the offensive, intentional killing of another person regardless of whether it happens to be legal or not in that jurisdiction.

I see now that there may be some authority fallacy at work as well.

Scott is trying to make the legal definition into the definition which can not be done.

What he has trouble seeing is that other people have different definitions for the same thing.

More in my previous post.

I saw that. What I mean is that his definition is not specific enough. "Offensive" is the problem here, which is included rather prominently in that definition. I mean, what are we allowed to defend by killing, and what are we not allowed to defend by killing, for that killing to be termed "murder"? I don't think anybody is going to say that they want to kill people for no reason at all; and it'd be possible to formulate any reason as something to "defend" by killing.

E.g. I killed you to defend my access to the strawberry pie, which you were going to eat, therefore it was not murder.

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).

I think the definition may be too specific, we are trying to define murder in absolute terms; the more specific we get the further away from absolute we get.

I think we should wait for Scott before going much further though.

Basically the question should be.: When is it ethical to kill? Which is what Scott wanted to avoid, but it cannot be.

My answer would be that killing can easily be justified but is never ethical.

Yes, Scott has given contradictory statements. He said he "adamantly opposes all murder," which he defined as "the offensive, intentional killing of another," and yet later he said, "I don't oppose all forms of homicide." Ergo, some offensive intentional killing is acceptable?