Why is homicide bad?

[Primus]

I have not heard of a human society where there are no sanctions when one member kills another member of the group without just cause: ie, murder.

I think one of the main reasons its hard to have a universal rule on when it is ok or not to kill people is the just cause varies so wildly from area to area.

For example in the UK its pretty hard to prove just cause to kill someone else in the UK. Occasionally you can get away with it (Charles De Menzies, Northern Ireland...) but not very often. Much easier if your in the army and the other person is in Afghanistan.

In the US its a bit easier as long as you can say you were defending your property and have a good lawyer its often OK

In places like Iran you can kill people for being homosexual fairly easily if you go through the right channels.

I don't know of many societys that outlaw killing people per se except maybe some of the neutral ones like Switzerland.
They mainly set out the rules for when you can or can't and the list of times you can't is called murder and no-one really likes to imagine the list of times when it is OK exists.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
I have not heard of a human society where there are no sanctions when one member kills another member of the group without just cause: ie, murder.

The point is just this: the whole concept of "just cause" is debatable.

 

[gumboot]

Why did you join a thread which you consider "stupid"?

So everyone would know how stupid it is. To be fair I don't consider the thread to be particularly stupid, and to be even fairer, you totally ignored my actual contribution to the thread; namely that your OP is built upon the false premise that people don't consider deaths other than homicide to be "bad".

Did anybody ask you to?

Yes, you did. In the OP.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Professor Hawkins is NOT mentally hanicapped (yes, I did not specify which kind of handicap I was talking about).

That's true, you didn't.

If you learn to say what you mean, you'll spend less time hauling goalposts around while wailing that what you said is not what you meant.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why is homicide bad?

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's true, you didn't.

If you learn to say what you mean, you'll spend less time hauling goalposts around while wailing that what you said is not what you meant.

Why so angy??

 

[Princess]

In Bellevue, NE, theres a somewhat prominent Planned Parenthood clinic built just down the street from a Catholic elementary school. Every Sunday, fail, you'll find Christians holding up anti-abortion signs and trying to prevent people from entering the building.

I've gone up to people in the group and I've asked them things like "why are you so opposed to abortion?". (Yes, you could call this trolling in real life.) They reply with their rehearsed answer, "because killing your unborn babies is murder!".

"Well," I reply, "its legal, just like murdering animals is legal. Why is it wrong to take human in the first place?" In a reaction that channels the spirit of some long-dead fundiegelical preacher, "BECAUSE GOD SAYS THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" So, I say, "alright then, why does god disapprove of murder? Why should I obey god in the first place?" "BECAUSE HE'S GOD!!!!"


I'm usually lucky when I get that far with people. Most of the time, when I ask the initial question "why is it wrong to take human life", people react with the most dogfaced, incredulous look of confusion.

Most people believe that murder is wrong simply because they were conditioned to believe that murder is wrong since birth; when you press them for an answer, you find that they can't actually state why people should refrain from taking human lives in the first place, they don't know why humans have any value, they can't even provide reasons for why their own live should be preserved.

We have an entire anti-abortion culture built up around the idea that its wrong to take human life, and an entire culture built up around the trajedy of 9/11 -- you'd think, more than any other group, these people would think about the morality of life and death more than any other group, and could state in clear, unambiguous terms why its wrong to take human life. But that's just not the case.

I'm not saying that there aren't any good reasons for valuing human life, just that its striking how objection to murder is so foundational to the operation of our society when no one even knows why its wrong in the first place.


I've been in this debate for a long time, and I am consistently disappointed with how little thought people put into such an important question. Most people have such contradictory or incoherent ideas about the value of human life that they end up vindicating murder on a massive scale more often than they realize.

[/misanthropy]

 

[Polaris]

Why is homicide bad?

I actually ask that every time I see a televangelist.

Or Hugo Chavez.

 

[Princess]

I normally don't write posts in this style, but I just want to run down some replies I've already seen in this thread:

This just has to be the most irrational thread I have ever seen.

Anyone who thinks that the value of human life is so intrinsic, so obvious that its doesn't even merit discussion is just being thoughtless. Case in point: people have fundamental disagreements about the permissibility of taking life all the time, have you never seen two people argue over abortion or the permissibility of war? If you acknowledge that your principles are different from the principles of the Iranian government on the value of human life, then there is room for discussion.

Other answers may come to you if you think about it this way: Why would homicide be bad for ME? What kind of laws would I want in place to discourage it from happening to ME?

I don't know if this is a good principle, because many people want to pass laws that are positively harmful to others. Homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran and the government sponsors the murder of 15 billion animals in the US every year.

I think it is the end of possibilities, so I condemn homicide because it takes someone's last chance to do something on earth.

An interesting point to make is that murder is circumstantially wrong. If we had a device that could instantly resurrect a person, murder wouldn't be especially objectionable at all. For now, we don't have the technology, so you're point holds.

Homicide causes the pain and suffering of not only the victim, but also the people the victim know. To know a person, then to find out he/she was killed. Would you like that? I wouldn't.

I don't know if I buy that. People still object to abortion even when the fetus has no friends and its family doesn't value its life; people criticize the Iranian government for killing homosexuals even though those victims have been completely ostracized from the community and disowned by their family; a teenage girl who abandons her baby in the dumpster has done something wrong whether she cared about her baby or not. What makes those behaviors objectional?

From an evolutionary standpoint, homicide is "bad" because it is not conducive to our survival as a species to condone it.

If you make any moral argument for or against anything based on evolution, then you flunk out of critical thinking class. I don't know how many times I've had to say this already on this forum, but evolution is NOT a moral theory

My current moral code is actually to do what is best for myself (positive consequentialism) and avoid what is bad for others (negative consequentialism). In that order and consistently when possible.

You're at least a vegan, right?

I have not heard of a human society where there are no sanctions when one member kills another member of the group without just cause: ie, murder.

I think this is actually a very good comment, although you don't really state what counts as a 'just' cause. I don't think I even need to comment on the enormous amount of literature written on the permissibility of abortion.



As an aside, one of the few books I've read that is consistently fascinating from cover to cover is Peter Singer's Rethinking Life and Death.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Why so angy??

Oops..
"angry"!!

What a gaffe!!

[..]We have an entire anti-abortion culture built up around the idea that its wrong to take human life, and an entire culture built up around the trajedy of 9/11[..]

That is an interesting point..
For example, you mention the horrible tragedy of 9/11 as it was a tragedy where Americans lost their lives (and you are Americans), but not a word about the other horrible tragedies that were caused by Americans..
You see, some lives are more worth than others.

I actually ask that every time I see a televangelist.

Or Hugo Chavez.

Why so angry with Chavez?
Is he worse than Kissinger?

 

[bruto]

Why so angry with Chavez?
Is he worse than Kissinger?

Why should that matter? Does Kissinger's nastiness immunize everyone else?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Why should that matter? Does Kissinger's nastiness immunize everyone else?

I was just pointing out that Americans seem always to point out at the "nastiness" of other countries` people.
Provided that I do not consider Chavez that bad.
He has the cojones to stand up against American imperialism.

 

[Richard Masters]

You're at least a vegan, right?

Yes, in the same way that I am a vegetarian. Also in the same way I'm a carnivore and a glacelactivore.

 

[Richard Masters]

If you make any moral argument for or against anything based on evolution, then you flunk out of critical thinking class. I don't know how many times I've had to say this already on this forum, but evolution is NOT a moral theory

Why are you assuming evolution is being used as a moral theory? And what precludes discussing evolution to postulate the ultimate origin of morality?

 

[Polaris]

Why so angry with Chavez?
Is he worse than Kissinger?

Because he's a budding little communist who is just dying to spread his fascism outside of Venezuela. The guy's turning back the clock in his country by decades because he is too stupid to realize communism does. Not. Work. Ever. And he's risking the lives and finances of some of my friends' families both in Venezuela and across the border in Colombia - both by seeming to be pushing for a war with the US, and funding FARC.

So the answer is yes, Chavez is worse than Kissinger. Because Kissinger did things for realpolitik. Chavez just does things because he's an idealistic power-junky who likes to wave his dick around.

He should be hanged from a lamppost along with Castro and Kim Jong Il.

He has the cojones to stand up against American imperialism.

There is no American imperialism for him to stand up to though, most certainly not in his case. It's manufactured by none-other than Chavez himself to keep Venezuelans' focus away from his creeping totalitarianism. Same as how the Middle Eastern potentates like to keep popular rage aimed at the Great Satan to keep the focus off how much things suck right there at home.

 

[gdnp]

Why are you assuming evolution is being used as a moral theory? And what precludes discussing evolution to postulate the ultimate origin of morality?

I agree. My hypothesis is that our current view of morality exists because societies with these views have been more successful than societies with other views. There is no more a "right" or "wrong" morality than there is a "right" or "wrong" skin color or nostril size. There are simply characteristics that supply an evolutionary advantage in a particular environment. Change the environment, change the advantage.

 

[bruto]

I was just pointing out that Americans seem always to point out at the "nastiness" of other countries` people.
Provided that I do not consider Chavez that bad.
He has the cojones to stand up against American imperialism.

That's playground polemics. Whatever you would like to say you were just doing, what you were actually doing was deflecting a criticism with an obviously irrelevant comparison instead of coming out and saying that you like Chavez. Kissinger is an old war criminal, and I despise him deeply, but this has zero bearing on any argument about whether or not Chavez is good or bad.

I'm willing to bet that you yourself would realize how absolutely ridiculous, not to mention immature, such an argument is, if someone you disagree with used it differently (and if you cared to think about it). Should George W. Bush's apologists be permitted to short circuit debate with, "yeah, but what about Pol Pot?"

 

[Matteo Martini]

Because he's a budding little communist who is just dying to spread his fascism outside of Venezuela. The guy's turning back the clock in his country by decades because he is too stupid to realize communism does. Not. Work. Ever. And he's risking the lives and finances of some of my friends' families both in Venezuela and across the border in Colombia - both by seeming to be pushing for a war with the US, and funding FARC.

So the answer is yes, Chavez is worse than Kissinger. Because Kissinger did things for realpolitik. Chavez just does things because he's an idealistic power-junky who likes to wave his dick around.

Chavez has been elected in regular elections.
Whether you like or you do not like his policies in Venezuela, it is not your damn business.
Got it?
Kissinger is just a war criminal.
He should be hanged according to any international crime law.
The fact that you call his policies "realpolitik" shows you that you are just an ideologically motivated person, a biased person, not that much different (maybe, even worse) than the people you say you despise

He should be hanged from a lamppost along with Castro and Kim Jong Il.

According to what you say here, I bet that were you the President of any country, you may do things for which you should be hanged there too, for exactly the same reasons you are talking here.

That's playground polemics. Whatever you would like to say you were just doing, what you were actually doing was deflecting a criticism with an obviously irrelevant comparison instead of coming out and saying that you like Chavez. Kissinger is an old war criminal, and I despise him deeply, but this has zero bearing on any argument about whether or not Chavez is good or bad.

The point I am making is very clear.
Americans (you are American, can I guess?) are very very quick to point out the bad things other countries` leaders do, even if they do that at home.
Americans are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

I am derailing, though..

 

[gdnp]

The point I am making is very clear.
Americans (you are American, can I guess?) are very very quick to point out the bad things other countries` leaders do, even if they do that at home.
Americans are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

Don't paint with too broad a brush. There are those of us who believe that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes.

 

[bruto]

The point I am making is very clear.
Americans (you are American, can I guess?) are very very quick to point out the bad things other countries` leaders do, even if they do that at home.
Americans are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

I am derailing, though..

The point was clear enough, and just as clearly irrelevant as yelling "so's your momma." It was a derail from the start.