Jump to content

Is murder bad?


CkyBlue

Recommended Posts

Guest Positron

Your TOK teacher seems to be a type of person, that TOK course was designed for - ignorant, that do not think critically. This is why:

To be more clearer, I'd like to rephrase 'murder is bad' with 'deliberate illegal killing is ethically wrong'.

Now consider this example: There is a religious-fanatic terrorist, which is convinced that his God(s) want him to destroy a city of 10 million people. He's just about to push a button that will detonate a bomb, that will completely destroy the city. You're the only one around him, pointing a gun at his head. There's no way to talk him out of it, he's not afraid to die and you're the only one who can stop him. If he pushes the button, you both will blow up together with the city. Don't you think you're not only justified, but morally obliged to kill him, since he's about to commit something far worse than you're and your own life is in danger?

First of all, murder is not the same as "deliberate illegal killing". For a killing to be a murder, it has to be an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. The killing you described above is not a murder for two reasons:

1) It does not fill the requirement of malice aforethought.

2) And more importantly, it's not an unlawful killing. You'd be working perfectly within the law, if you shot someone who is trying to set off a bomb.

I'd like to rephrase 'murder is bad' with 'deliberate illegal killing is ethically wrong'

Ethics is moral philosophy (the study of moral). You cannot say that something is ethically wrong, even though this expression is widely used. Things can be morally right or wrong, and we use ethics for studying these situations. You can state that according to a certain ethical theory something is wrong, but you can’t state that something is ethically wrong. That statement would imply that there is one definitive answer, an absolute truth; as if ethics was like physics or mathematics.

If killing one person illegally is wrong, that means that killing two people is even worse, right (ceteris paribus)? If you disagree, you're basically saying that there is no difference between a murder and a genocide, no difference whether you kill 10 people or everybody on this planet. SO, I'll assume you agree :D

There’s a difference between a killing or multiple killings and a genocide. A genocide isn’t just a bunch of killings. It is an attempt to destroy a certain nation or ethnic group. That’s quite a different thing than just a certain number of killings. Ceteris paribus, right?

Murder is an unlawful killing, with malice aforethought. Because of this, murder is always wrong, no matter what. A killing which was done under such circumstances that it would be viewed rightful, wouldn't be a murder since it wouldn't be unlawful. The requirement of malice aforethought rules out all the "killing the killer to save others" etc. So, your TOK teacher is right, murder is always wrong. And this is not a matter of opinion.

Edited by Positron
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar discussion in our TOK class the other day. The conclusion I came to was that we cannot take into account an individual's justification for his/her act. Obviously, any person is going to try and do only what they feel is justified, be it giving food to the needy or flying an airplane into a building. What we have to do is see if the act by itself was morally good or bad. Hence, according to me, since murder is morally and fundamentally wrong, it is definitely bad. No matter what justification has been offered for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with anyone who has said that such a question is very relative. Murder by definition is unlawful killing, however does that mean that there is such a thing as lawful killing? Well yes, in a sense it does. Under law there are certain exceptions to murder, self defense being a widely used example. So by lawful definition murder can be and is currently justified. However anything put through the legal system is debatable Some people strongly believe in the use of capital punishment while some people are completely opposed to it. And yet we still see cases of capital punishment being used. So in a sense generalized public opinion is what influences the laws and what is widely believed to be acceptable. So, in quick response to your question, by law murder is always bad but in certain cases it is acceptable. Basically this is saying that your personal opinion on the issue is always accepted and easily debated but that the masses have decided to reach beyond the basic moral issues of murder and looked at the causes and effects

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Now, before I start, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here so I mean no offense to anyone (and please no hate mail/message/whatever) :surrender:

I will be talking in a typical TOK-ish sense so please bear with me.

Murder, in any political system, is bad.

First of all, that is an absolute statement and a generalization. (therefore false in terms of TOK)

Also, "bad" is relative. Bad for whom?

It is obviously too bad for the dead individual, but in the case of the perpetrator, who has now derived from the murder wealth, respect, revenge, satisfaction, or whatever the perpetrator had hoped to gain from the murder, this individual is clearly better off than before and so the murder is "good" for him/her.

If this "bad" is in a moral sense (the typical contemporary human moral sense of the western world I am assuming, as individuals and cultures are known to have different morals), we must remember that "morals" were developed by humans so that the majority may benefit, or so that the weak do not suffer (too much) by the strong.

But even so, most Political systems' primary aim is to benefit as many citizens as possible, and provide peace and stability.

This also means, for the greater good, some people may need to perish.

If a terrorist were to threaten the lives of a thousand people, it is obvious that that person must be "removed" from the society, one way or the other.

In said circumstances, murder of the said person by the state or whomever happens to be there can be justified.

Actually, in the democratic system at least, if government officials or police/security forces were unable to make the decision to kill the terrorist, they would be ridiculed and criticized.

Since "morals" are the invention of the people, the judgement of the people is what counts. Therefore in this case, the terrorist is "bad", and the murder of the terrorist is "good"

This is because you are depriving the person of life, and you do willingly.

Think of this. If I kill you now, even if it was just an accident, will it be fair? Not at all, right?

So, putting it all together, murder, the willing deprivation of person of his life, per se, is bad. If it was unintentional, then it would become a homicide case, a lower form.

even if we are "willingly depriving the person of life", that itself doesn't mean it is universally "bad".

In the case I've presented above concerning the terrorist, the deprivation of life is in fact "good", both in terms of the society and morals, and recommended as per the public opinion. Unless the entire public was deluded, that is; in which case this murder still wouldn't be "bad", as morality would no longer exist in the same way it had before the public became deluded.

Of course, this isn't to say that murder is necessarily "good" either, as both your example and mine are merely extreme examples of the opposite kind.

In consequence, I would conclude that murder, even in terms of moral sense, cannot be regarded as absolutely "good" nor as absolutely "bad"

Edited by Zenith
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In consequence, I would conclude that murder, even in terms of moral sense, cannot be regarded as absolutely "good" nor as absolutely "bad"

Have you actually developed anything with that conclusion?

Haha well, in a way, yes. ;) in the sense that it is wrong to hastily generalize all murder as ethically(or otherwise) "bad".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

We had a discussion about this yesterday, while talking about morality :D

What I think about the topic - the morality of murder:

Murder is always immoral (therefore bad). This is "murder" defined as "taking one's life without the one agreeing to it - acting against his (free) will"

Killing however, can be moral (and therefore good). "Killing" defined only as taking one's life. It is moral if the one getting killed agreed to it (in that case not killing him would be immoral as that would mean acting against his ( free) will)

An example of this would be capital punishment; if in some society the law is that if you kill someone, the punishment for it is capital punishment - then everyone living in that society agrees to such and exactly such consequences. So for example, in that case, if the murderer was punished by 30 years in prison such a punishment would be immoral and capital punishment (a kill) would be moral.

Ofcourse the question of people's rationality and ability of choosing societies comes into question here but that is another topic.

Edit: As for killing someone for whom you know is going to kill millions of people (assuming that you are right), that is murder and therefore immoral since you are acting against his (free) will. Unless you both are living in a society in which (freely agreed upon by all parties) law states that you can kill someone on the correct assumption that he is going to kill millionsof people.

Edit 2: This is based on a view that intuition tells us what is moral and not. (For ex.: I reject a relativistic view of morality because my intuition tells me that not everything considered moral from that point of view is really moral)

Edited by Jozha
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it is a good debatable topic as morals are bonded with it. There can be different interpretations of "murder". I wouldn't really call it murder when soldiers fight on the border in order to protect their country and may not be considered "bad"...

Edited by shad0wboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Kantian ethics, it's not always bad. If you knew that a person was going to himself murder thousands of innocent people, and murdering him is the only way to stop the massacre, it is your duty to stop him and murder him in turn.

I think you've misunderstood Kantian ethics. Kant isn't concerned with the consequences of an action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure a misunderstanding. Kant's goal was to create a universal system of ethics. Making it okay to kill someone during a certain situation, and then not okay during another is not universal. In that situation, he wouldn't suggest you harm or detainthe future murderer in any way. Most likely, Kant would say it is your moral obligation to tell the people who he plans to kill, that their lives are in danger.

The categorical imperative is key the key bit. This video although slightly silly, actually does a great job of describing his ethics... Enjoy!

Edited by Luka Petrovic
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is a lot of difference between murder and killing. Murder is the surprise killing of victim with a certain intent which is unethical. Whereas killing can be of either self defense or can be committed by mentally challenged person is ethical. Imagine what you will do if a band of armed robbers come and threaten to kill you. If you have a pistol will you kill them or will just surrender just because you think that killing is unethical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it depends on your philosophy. If you go for the greater good or live in a southern state with "castle laws" fire away at the armed robbers. Kant would argue that you are not responsible to correct their morale wrong doings, only to defend your own. You could also martyr yourself in the name of pacifism... Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, sometimes it's better to terminate someone's life than not. Look at McMurphy from One Flew, I think it's better to die in dignity rather than in shame.

I mean, depends on what you define by murder, it practically happens everyday in hospital, yet it's not always bad or intentional. You should probably look at the reasons behind the act, and wether it's premeditated or holistic, and give a holistic judgement;

Well, you can't really classify one thing broadly, especially when you're saying that murders are always bad, it's the same as saying all games are bad, or all blonds are dumb

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that death is ever "good" Sure you have protected yourself from an attacker, or you gained 120 pounds of meat to stash in the freezer and sustain your family, but I don;t think that necessarily justifies the death or makes killing "good." it's kind of an necessary evil in those cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Murder is and always will be bad. It is not a human right to kill someone. In my opinion, even those of the armed forces (military) are wrong for killing the people they kill. Unless the death was a COMPLETE accident with no intentions of death being the outcome, it is not concidered murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it is a good debatable topic as morals are bonded with it. There can be different interpretations of "murder". I wouldn't really call it murder when soldiers fight on the border in order to protect their country and may not be considered "bad"...

Why not? Are they not technically premeditating taking the life of another human being, then executing that intention? How else would you define murder, that malice needs be involved? In that case, explain why so many soldiers on the front lines (in particular, fanatic sects such as the Taliban) passionately hate their enemies, and likewise with numerous American (just an example) soldiers who detest the idea of terrorists and have signed up specifically to kill them. I'd say that that, categorically, is a malicious, premeditated killing - fitting under basically anyone's definition of a murder. Armies are just groups of patriotic, legalized, state-sponsored murderers who murder other countries' patriotic, legalized, state-sponsored murderers.

I don't agree that there can be different interpretations of murder, I'd contest that strongly in fact. The way I've seen it (maybe I've misinterpreted), this thread is about whether the act of murder is morally wrong, not what murder is. Now that is conditional - open to different interpretations, as you put it - as a few posts above have mentioned. There are certain cases where a murder could potentially be justified - the case of the bomber and whether you are justified or even obliged to stop him/her through murder - and cases where it cannot - some guy pushed you in the queue at KFC and you dropped your wallet. Those are two obvious extremes, though, and to define the first example through the above applying to soldiers, it isn't malice driving the killing - it is necessity, or rather, necessity derived from one's personal moral code (the assumption one is morally obliged to prevent mass murder at any cost), thus I would not class it as murder, it's just a kill. I'm not a law student so I dunno if that's what manslaughter is, whatever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, murder is the taking of someone's life, when they were not in direct threat of taking yours or you have their life in your control, say like an inmate or an unknowing soldier in the cross-hairs of a sniper. So yes the soldier takes that responsibility in my opinion despite the "patriotic" intentions. With the exception of someone shooting at you, so you open fire in defence. You took their life, but only to preserve your own, not because it was convenient, state sponsored or any other excuse.
Going even less lethal, you don;t always need to meet with equal violence. You can incapacitate someone or prevent them from achieving their lethal goal through non-lethal means. Death really solves little except letting you free of paying taxes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing soldiers and police have right to kill criminals and terrorists. Whereas if a civilian kills some one during his self defense anyways, a case would be filed against him ( with a light punishment.). The government gives right to kill terrorists for police and soldiers whereas it is discouraged for civilians. So are we treating government as some sort of god, because it allows soldiers to kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...