Murder is wrong because...

by logansrun 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  Some of my classmates chose to go with an "intuitionist" argument, ie "Everyone feels it's wrong, so it must be." That doesn't cut it. Not only have there been societies which condone murder but there have been societies that feel eating pork is a grave sin. So the intuitionist argument is a poor one.

  Like I've said, I don't see how it is possible to prove that murder is wrong. Even if one believes in God you can always ask, "Well, why should I listen to God or think His opinion is better than mine?" It's a slippery slope.

  B.
• 

  avishai

  Seen on a bumper sticker "The only reason some people are still alive is because it's illegal to kill them."
• 

  MerryMagdalene

  Define "wrong"...
• 

  MegaDude

  Murder is fine....as long as you write the history books.
• 

  Utopian Reformist

  In my opinion, murder does exist and is a valid classification to categorize the unprovoked, pre-meditated, conspired action of physically and fatally harming another human(s) until death ensues.

  For example, not all murder is illegal. Take the recent hostage tragedy in Russia, the russian authorities are just as guilty of murder as the 28 terrorists. Knowing hundreds of children are at risk should cause any trigger happy military or police to give pause and search for other options. In this isolated case, storming the school and causing the terrorists to start killing hostages was in fact legalized murder.

  Thus, murder was committed on both sides of the law. Is there a legal, moral justification for murder? If war criminals are executed, or terrorists are executed, I believe murderers should receive the punishment they have committed against others.

  Is self-defense murder? That is a very tricky question.
• 

  czarofmischief

  For example, not all murder is illegal. Take the recent hostage tragedy in Russia, the russian authorities are just as guilty of murder as the 28 terrorists. Knowing hundreds of children are at risk should cause any trigger happy military or police to give pause and search for other options. In this isolated case, storming the school and causing the terrorists to start killing hostages was in fact legalized murder.

  Actually, on television, the explosion occurred inside the school while negotiations were underway. The hostages panicked and fled, the Chechnyan / Islamist scum started shooting, and everything went to hell. The authorities are absolved, and I'm just thankful people like you aren't in charge of dealing with scum that take hostages. You are hopelessly cuddle-bunny on the inside. It's sweet. As long as you don't vote. Why are the police automatically "trigger happy" in your book while the actual murderers, the islamo-fascists, are merely "caused" to start killing hostages? Does your screen name that demands the impossible, indeed, the undesirable, say it all? Go find Utopia. I dare you. You won't make it last. You'll either starve to death or live out Lord of the Flies in nightmarish agony. Stop trying to reform my life and get your Care Bears theology to some little cult in Great Plains. Stop daring to judge the world based on your fear of pain. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS! If we give them what they say they want they will just come back, take more hostages, and demand MORE next time! Like the militants daring to dictate policy to the French, holding those two journalists hostage until the Muslims have the right to not adapt to French culture... Either we find those kidnappers and kill them, or those journalists die. Or the French change their culture - but that will only buy a little time. Until the islamo-fascists find something else to kidnap and kill over. YOU AREN'T PLAYING CANDYLAND ANYMORE!!!

  Anyway - there is no definiton of murder that everyone can agree on. That's why there are different degrees of murder in law. However, killing is generally considered wrong, even unforgivable, except for various mitigating circumstances.

  So, let's define "murder" as picking out a person who has not harmed you and is not a threat to you or your property and injuring them so as to cause permanent cessation of life. An "innocent". Why would that be wrong? Well, if the victim is to be innocent, compeletely inoffensive, then you probably don't know them. All human contact creates offense, requires readapting our personal boundaries. Random killing causes uncertainty in society. "Am I safe?" becomes the paramount question. Just look for the next serial killer and the effect such a person has on the local society - it's pretty amazing how paranoid and frightened people become. (What options would you like to present UR? Nothing? Okay, then.)

  So random killing merely creates uncertainty and makes commerce, development, anything like that, impossible.

  Now what about personal killing? Some level of contact between killer and victim creates mitigating circumstance, without fail. "She made me do it," etc. Why is it still wrong to kill those you know without sufficient provocation?

  I'm too tired to finish.

  CZAR
• 

  Cygnus

  I guess that's why the Commandment says "thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Some killing is justified. Murder isn't, I suppose.
• 

  myauntfanny

  How do you define "wrong" in the discussion? Because if "wrong" means "illegal", then murder is wrong by definition, since murder is illegal killing.
• 

  dh

  My prof just gave us the task, "Give me a proof why murder is wrong"

  there is only opinion, this is not something that can be defined in an absolute sense, you prof must know this.

  the only way to 'prove', is within a defined set of parameters.

  if the parameters are defined, then finding a proof to fit within them is easy, but leaving them open is asking for an absolute statement, and this is not possible because it boils down to individual opinion on everything.
• 

  Abaddon

  Okay, simple definiton;

  To kill: to end someone's life either inadvertantly, by mistake or as a result of negligence, or to end someone's life because they are threatening to end the life of others and one believes them capable of carrying out the threat, or to end someone's life whilst they are actively attemping to physcially harm or end the lives of others.

  To murder: to end someone's life deliberately or in situations where no form of self defence is arguable, or to act with such incompetence or lack of concern for others they are killed (skimping on safety rules, driving whilst intoxicated, etc.).

  It is generally accepted humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Murder is a violation of someone's human rights without any justifiable cause. Other violitions of other human rights are considered wrong, and such violations are often capable of remedy or restitution. Murder alows no such remedy or restitution to the victiom, and thus can be argued as 'wronger' than other human rights violitions.

  Obviously that arguement is based on supplied definitons of word like murder and kill and acceptance of certain principles regarding human rights, but given that, it's pretty obvious murder is wrong.

  Of course, if you're a rational egoist, then murder is only wrong if you suffer from committing it, so there is no absoilute answer to the question, it's an opinion based upon point-of-view.