This question has really been bothering me, and I can't figure out a satisfactory answer for myself. Here it is: Is murder wrong? And if so, why?
(By this I mean is murder immoral, and if it is immoral in your opinion, support your argument.)
(P.S. I am a Christian, but even so, I'd like to leave the Ten Commandments and God out of this discussion.)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
36 comments:
depends who you're asking kevin.. but if you want my opinion, it depends on who you kill. Like, I'm for the death penalty cuz those people earned their death (in most cases). But if it's an innocent person, then murdering them is wrong.
Thats my opinion for now
I understand that murder is wrong, but I'm asking why. Why is it wrong to kill someone? (Excluding cases of war, death penalty, self-defense, etc.)
You really can't figure out a satisfactory answer? You wouldn't like it if someone murdered you or someone you know, so you shouldn't murder anyone else, that's a simple way to show that murder is immoral. Of course one could justify some murders as being indirectly in self defence of for the purpose of saving others (assassinating Hitler for example would have been justified) but I don't support the death penalty in most cases, as unless they escape the prisoners usually aren't a threat to anyone.
I wouldn't like it if someone murdered me, that is true. Does that sentiment make you a supporter of the 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' philosophy, John?
I still don't consider that a satisfactory answer. That doesn't tell me why it's wrong to take another man's life. It only tells me that I, myself, wouldn't like it. There are a lot of things I wouldn't like done to me that I do to other people, and I don't feel bad about doing them, why is murder so bad?
I don't find John's answer satisfactory either. That isn't particularly important, though.
Yes, in just about most cases, I do believe murder is immoral. It comes down to, I believe, your values and morals. Man, in my opinion, has a fundamental right from which all others are derived: the right to life. He has a right to live his life to the fullest. This right can be attributed, I believe, to nature itself, in that we were put on this earth to live. Now, having said this, one does not have the right to violate the rights of others (it would be non-recognition of their rights or, possibly, the denial of the existance of the right to live). As alluded to earlier, denying another rights is to devalue life (and their right to it) and/or is a denial of its existance. Denying rights, be they your own or those of another person is also irrational, and, as such, murder would be irrational.
It would also be immoral in that it devalues human life, which most likely--though not certainly--goes against one's values.
Incidentally, you say that you understand that murder is wrong, but not why. Can you understand (truly understand) that something is something, without understanding why?
x.x
Yes, I am a supporter of that philosophy in most cases.
Murder is a lot worse than other things, if you make fun of someone or steal something from them it isn't that bad, they'll get over it, but if you kill someone, they're dead.
Also murdering someone can potentially scar you emotionally, and if others discover that you killed someone you'll be kicked out of society and imprisoned or killed, so there's a selfish reason for why we don't murder people.
Of course if you aren't affected by murdering and you don't really care about others then you wouldn't think it's immoral and there'd be no problem with murdering. It all depends on what your definition of morality is, but in most cases murder is immoral.
Colin, you don't know that man has a "right" to life, people only want to assume that man has a right to life because of the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' philosophy, and saying that there's a fundamental right to life is relying on religious beliefs. And you never explain why denying rights is irrational, again. The simple explaination of why one doesn't want to violate another's rights is because he doesn't want his own rights to be violated, making morals and laws prevents this and allows people to live in a society where they are relatively safe.
murder is wrong just like stealing is wrong. they're both wrong because you're taking something from them that never belonged to you. and you can't really give it back afterwards
Colin, I didn't say I didn't understand why murder is wrong. I did say I understood it was wrong, and I asked why was it so.
I have to say Colin's explanation is the most satisfactory so far. The whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' thing just doesn't cut it here.
But man does have a fundamental right to life. At least, that is what I believe. I disagree that killing a man is necessarilly irrational, because a man can form many reasons to take another man's life, and doing so (ie, taking his life) would be rational, but this does not make it right. This is an example in which just because something is rational does not make it right.
In response to AM's argument, I would ask why it is wrong to steal something which doesn't belong to you. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that it is immoral to steal and murder, I'm just asking your rationale for it being so.
But why does man have a fundamental right to life? It isn't natural, in nature killing is common, if it's ok to kill a cow shouldn't it be ok to kill a man? The 'fundamental right to life' is based on religion, and in that case you could just listen to the 10 commandments.
Ok. Fair enough.
That is not why man has a right to life John. I am not assuming man has a right to life. I said, "Man...has a fundamental right from which all others are derived: the right to life." He has such a right. It is granted to him by nature. There is nothing religious in there (although, notably, nature could easily be an allusion to God).
That is why he has such a right: nature. It is granted to him by nature. One does not violate it because one does not want to have his violated (although that could be a factor, but not the deciding one [one who violates rights is subject to retaliation]). The deciding factor would be rationality. If one voluntarily violates the rights of others, and has no negative feelings, he is denying the rights of the other people. In doing so, he denies the rights of all people, and, as such, denies his own rights and he has made himself subject to similar treatment.
And killing a man isn't necessarily wrong, but in the formation of reasons, I believe the only viable reasons would HAVE to be rational. One shouldn't kill a man, then rationalize his way to justifying the murder; rather, he would have to have a rational reason (and any punishment would have to fit the crime) and be consciously aware of the possible consequences, before killing a man.
x.x
John, it is natural in nature to kill an animal, but man is not simply another animal. Man is capable of the highest form of cognition. And what Colin said brings a valid point: we were born, were we not? This has to imply something. The very fact that one is on Earth implies (in my mind) that he deserves to be there, and that he has the natural right to be there, and therefore that right should not be invaded by his neighbor.
Ah, yes. I forgot to address that point of John's.
Yes. We kill cows. But you are equating man with cow. This cannot be done. With our far superior mind and reasoning skills, we are far above the likes of cow and other animals.
x.x
Can you prove that man has that right? Did nature specifically tell you that you have that right? Of course not, you're just assuming.
It's interesting what you said about how if one person violates another's rights then his own rights are forfeit. Why is this? The whole reason behind this is the 'do unto others...' philosophy, if you kill someone, it's more likely that someone will kill you.
We're just more evolved, that's all. Some other primates are as intelligent as a young human child, so do they have the same rights as children? Now, what about mentally disabled people? They don't have the highest reasoning skills and never will, so is it ok to kill them? Also, if another, more intelligent animal were discovered, would it have the right to kill us?
their life isn't yours to take. its wrong because you are controlling somebody elses life as opposed to your own. Its immoral because it is taking something from somebody else that can't be given back and is central to their life (aka their life)
Jake, your explanation doesn't cut it. You're equating killing with stealing (ie, killing is stealing a life which doesn't belong to you), but you did not justify why stealing itself was immoral.
John, it could be simplified to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' in a watered down version of morals. This is the version parents tell their children to make it easy to understand. But think about this, what if someone wants others to kill him? This logic would lead him to believe that because he wants it done to him, he is right in doing it to others. However, is he really in the right if he killed someone else? I don't think he would be, and I'm sure you don't think so either.
A primate does not have the same rights as a human child because a human child has the potential for so much more. A simple full grown primate is not capable of groing into an adult human. A baby, however, is capable of this, and thats why its not okay to kill a baby. (Although I also don't believe its okay to just go around killing primates.)
And as for the disabled person analogy, I'd rather not get into that subject at all. We are talking about fully functioning human beings, and whether or not it is okay to kill them, not disabled persons.
It isn't just a 'watered down' version of morality, it's one of the basic principles behind it. We have moral values because A: they prevent us from being harmed and B: they allow society to exist and ensure the survival of our species. On one hand we are consciously making decisions to protect our own interests, and on the other we have the instinct not to kill other humans, because we wouldn't last very long if we did. These two in conbination can create more advanced moral codes and phillosophies, but they are the basic foundation.
Kevin perhaps your problem is inside (subconsiously) you do not belive that killing is wrong (perhaps you point to early humans, before there was a very definite 'society', and how they would murder one another because they felt it was right and they would still honestly believe that they would end up in their equivalent to heaven) but you know society feels it is wrong and you also know you are a part of society so you know (or think you know) killing is wrong. Because you do not truly believe this, you do not understand why.
Everything you have said leads me to say that- it is not being mean (or being a Nazi as someone is likely to say). If you look back, every time you say "I understand that murder is wrong". This is you understanding, which is is different than you knowing or believing.
Anyway I am done now and I probably wont check the blog for another week so dont expect a rebuttal after Kevin denies this (which he is sure to do).
if you don't mind me asking, if it isn't wrong, is it right? stealing and killing are wrong because we tell ourselves and each other that it is. we believe what we say. no one likes being killed or stolen from, therefore those things are wrong. no one likes being blown up, therefore bombs are bad. it's perception i guess
Of course I'm going to deny that, Kelly. You basically just accused my of not believing murder was wrong.
I haven't said that I believe murder or stealing are morally right. If I have, I've made a mistake. If you think I have, but I haven't, you've made a mistake.
When I say "I understand murder is wrong," thats all I mean. No one knows murder is wrong, because the entire concept of right and wrong is strictly subjective, and it varies depending on the person, and therefore the notion that one can "know" that an act is wrong (even though whether or not the act is wrong will vary by person) is itself faulty.
You all, I think, misunderstood me. This was an inquiery in the foundation of ethics, not an inquiery into whether or not killing is wrong (I think we'd all agree that it is without much debate), but why is it wrong? That was my question: why?
but i just said why. because we say so. that's like the only reason. we (and God i suppose, but i guess we're just talking about man) say it's wrong, so it is. we say it's wrong cause we want to protect ourselves from it.
its an unwritten rule of society. i don't honestly say you can say its wrong without bringing religion into it. Its also natural for man not to want to kill other men.
I know murder is wrong. Whether the morals be subjective or not, one can still know.
I understood you. Hence the answering of the question.
"because we say so" does not make something right or wrong. That is erroneus; just because society says that something is right or wrong, the does not mean it is right or wrong. For instance, the Soviets, as a collective, said that communism was good (although they were forced to), but that doesn't mean it was. We, typically, hold the exact opposite. Now, you might claim that you meant when they say things by their own free will. This model would place the society over the people (for what if an individual disagrees? He must be wrong in such a system) although society draws whatever rights and/or power it has from the individuals that make it up. How, then, can it be more important? No. These kinds of things have to known in the minds of men. For reasonable, rational reasons; not because society says so (society also holds that altruism is good, but if one is truly selfless, one will not survive long).
Jake, I believe that it is actually a written rule of our society. You say 'of society' but I don't think one should overgeneralize. The Aztecs, for example, killed many people, as human sacrifices. One could certainly say that it is wrong because the government, within which we place our trust, has deemed it so, but this ignores the moral backing behind such a matter.
x.x
Once again, Jake, I'm disappointed in your argument (or lack thereof). You have failed to convince me.
Murder is, last time I checked, definitely written down as a rule to be illegal.
I think part of what you all have been hinting at is that, even though it would be more beneficial to oneself (in a 'society' in which there is no government except one's own mind and no laws except one's own morals) to be immoral (kill others among the immoral acts), one realizes that the advantages of being immoral and killing others are by far outweighed by the disadvantages. (The advanteges being less competition, the disadvantaged being that one may very well be killed also.)
Colin, saying that you 'know' murder is wrong is not something you can do and be correct. Because the opinion that it is wrong can change from person to person, it is not a 'fact' that murder is wrong, and you cannot therefore say that you know it is wrong. You could say you believe its wrong, and nearly everyone in the world would agree with you.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
Murder is wrong in most cases because it takes away the beneifts of that person's life unto the world. Now, if that person was doing things to harm the world, then it's justifiable to murder them, but it would ussually qualify as 'assasination.' And I mean big things that hamr the world, like Hitler or Osoma Bin Laden, not just somone polluting the world with their car.
And secondly, it's wrong becasue it intills fear in the other people's lives, the family, neighbors and comminity members can be scared for their iives if someone around got murdered. That is bad becasue when scared, one cannot produce as much good as ussual.
Yes, Kevin that's exactly what I've been hinting at, though not really hinting at since I pretty much specifically said it. And there are other disadvantages besides the danger of being killed, there can be psychological damages as well, even if one gets away with murder, most people will not be happier for having committed the murder. It's natural to feel that murder is wrong, but if one can completely control their emotions and feel no remorse, then well, they're a freak, and they don't count.
Of course one can also believe in an objective good and try to imitate that with their own actions, whether these actions are beneficial or not, I do agree with this thinking, but I would consider this to be more of a religious or at least spiritual belief, since it can't be physically proven and therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.
What do you think of the concept of a universal system of morality instilled in every person? It may be religion. This idea could lead to the conclusion of a higher being existing.
For example, everyone knows (when I use 'knows' I simply mean that he understands, or believes) that murder is wrong. This does not mean that murders won't be committed, because not everyone follows his instincts. Is it possible that if a child was born and the mother and father left him deserted in the woods, and he somehow managed to survive, that he would develop his own sense of morality, and come to understand that killing is wrong even without societal influences? (Of course I understand that a baby could not survive without society to bring up and protect him, but this example is purely for the purpose of wondering if a there is something subconscious that tells us what is right and wrong.)
i think that if he/she/it grew up in the wilderness it wouldn't have morals. being so consumed with its own survival, it wouldn't ponder its existence or the existence of others like itself
Oh, oh, it would have morals. You are right, it would be concerned foremost with its life. And thus, such is off what morals would be based. Things that are maladaptive to his life, he would not perform and would regard them as bad or evil. Such things would be immoral. Things that are advancing to his life, he would perform and regard them as good. Such things would be moral.
Such is the moral code based of the standard of life.
x.x
Obviously my example has absolutely no relevance, as none of you pointed out.
This is such because there would be no other humans around him, so he would not have an opinion on the matter. Killing animals would most likely not be a problem to him, but having never encountered a human, he would not know how to react to someone who looks like him and has a similar level of intelligence (though the new person's intelligence would be much more advanced, having had society to contribute to his knowledge.)
Once a human was introduced in order to determine the primitive man's opinion on killing the new creature, the primitive man would of course no longer be completely separated from society, and he would thus not have morals disconnected from those of society.
I think there might be some instinct not to kill other humans, so even if he'd never seen another he'd probably be willing to accept not killing another person if he ever found one, if he didn't feel threatened by it. And as Kevin said, I don't think the person would have even considered whether he would want to kill another human if he found one.
Depends on the gender of the finder and the findee, and their orientation.. I don't think you kill those you breed with.
speak for yourself
... I think he was, although its not really as if Eric would know. I assume he's never breeded. Which reminds me of a part of an episode of Boy Meets World (the second greatest show ever after Happy Days).
Its wrong to kill someone because it's not your place to determine when to end their life.
Post a Comment