Why is homicide bad?

[The Man]

From an evolutionary standpoint, homicide is "bad" because it is not conducive to our survival as a species to condone it. Any tribe or group that allowed or encouraged homicide would quickly find itself lacking not just in numbers, but also in certain talents and skills. Killing someone removes that individual's contribution to society, as well as your own. Such a group would die off or be overtaken by its more sensible neighbors. It's not a force of nature that you have no control over, rather your decision to act on the desire to go out and murder someone is something you have complete control over, thus it's a preventable form of death.

Unfortunately survival is not addressed on a species basis but more limited to your local tribe or gene pool. When confronted with other tribes or gene pools vying for the same limited resources homicide is just the evolutionary result of survival, it is really just a matter of whom and how many you kill (usually the most disagreeable). Displays are fine and might intimidate some for a time but the need for perhaps limited resources like water would eventually force a confrontation. In a kill or die situation you are left with limited choices. Their can be additional survival benefits as well, those not killed can add to both the gene pool and skills of your tribe. So perhaps both homicide and a healthy distain for it are both evolutionary traits developed to maximize limited resources and force the integration of isolated gene and skill pools.

 

[Nogbad]

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

Stop tempting fate!

 

[The Man]

Yes.
So what?

“So what?”

Did you forget your topic?

Why is homicide bad?

So what now?

 

[rocketdodger]

What if human life were indefinite?

Because I think a good argument for why homicide is bad these days is that there is a good chance anyone who can hang around for another 30 or 40 years might be living for a very long time after that.

 

[phantomb]

Does not seem to work, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You tried to argue that because people die in the universe, and because you don't call the universe bad for this, people dying is not a bad thing and neither is homicide. I disagree. If there were a point to criticizing the universe, for example, if we could somehow change things about the universe and nature by majority vote, I'm sure that many people would want to get rid of natural death and homicide, because in general nobody wants to die.

 

[LostAngeles]

Well, who are you to decide that person should die? What criteria are you using? What is your justification?

Death is a pretty permanent thing and you're taking out a cog of the social machine. If you're going to do it, I would think there should have to be a very good reason.

 

[UserGoogol]

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?

The thing is though, if I was murdered I wouldn't be around to be upset about it. (Of course, the proccess by which I am murdered might be rather unpleasant.) Therefore, through a naive sort of logic, it doesn't seem logical for me to not want to die. If I don't experience the harm, then how am I harmed?

That said, my desire to continue living is strong enough (among the other issues involved with murder) that I'll certainly try to err on the side of believing that murder is bad until I can be shown otherwise. One line of reasoning is that even though I don't experience death, I do experience living. Each moment of living is good, and therefore to artificially shorten my life is to remove some of that goodness, which is something I have a legitimate reason to not want. But I don't think that argument knocks the first argument out of the park per se, it just provides me with something to cling onto in my desire to justifiably argue that it's bad to be murdered in my sleep.

Of course, even if murder isn't intrinsically bad in itself it certainly has negative side effects that make it worthy of avoiding. [EDIT](As LostAngeles said in the post before mine)[/EDIT] It's hard for the living to form long-term social relationships if they have to worry about everyone else dying. A world in which murder is common is a very chaotic world, and this seems like something worth avoiding.

 

[triadboy]

Stop tempting fate!

New Thread: If Herbert Hoover could have inflated his neck like a bullfrog, how would history have changed? Discuss.

 

[bruto]

Not true. From a species ` survival it may indeed be beneficial the removal of individuals who are handicapped or have deficits of any sort..

It may or may not be beneficial. You'd need first of all to demonstrate that point and carry that argument on its own, before it is useful for deciding on the usefulness of homicide. It might turn out that killing all red haired males born on alternate tuesdays would benefit the survival of the species too, but few of us would accept the idea without a clear and convincing explanation of why.

 

[Whiplash]

In addition to the fact that most people do not want to die, it also causes extreme suffering and mental anguish to friends, family and loved ones. A natural reaction.

I've feel that peoples desires and life choices should be freely open to them, so long as those choices and actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

On this basis I will always feel that things like murder, theft and rape are absolutely wrong.

I think this post has the question wrong. I don't think it's a matter of justifying why murder is wrong. I think it should be justified why someone who wants to murder has the right to assert his desires over the rights of the other people invovled.

 

[gdnp]

The universe cares nothing about morals. I would thus like to suggest that homicide is wrong, or we think it is wrong, because societies that hold this belief have outcompeted societies that did not. The belief has evolutionary benefit.

This also explains why sanctions against killing within the clan are much stronger than sanctions against killing outsiders. Plundering foreign lands was considered perfectly acceptable for centuries. Killing foreigners and taking their stuff was OK, but the same behavior would not be tolerated at home. Even today, if an American soldier were to intentionally kill a member of his patrol he would be dealt with severely, but if he were to intentionally kill an Iraqi civilian it would be swept under the rug.

 

[Richard Masters]

The universe cares nothing about morals. I would thus like to suggest that homicide is wrong, or we think it is wrong, because societies that hold this belief have outcompeted societies that did not. The belief has evolutionary benefit.

This also explains why sanctions against killing within the clan are much stronger than sanctions against killing outsiders. Plundering foreign lands was considered perfectly acceptable for centuries. Killing foreigners and taking their stuff was OK, but the same behavior would not be tolerated at home. Even today, if an American soldier were to intentionally kill a member of his patrol he would be dealt with severely, but if he were to intentionally kill an Iraqi civilian it would be swept under the rug.

I agree with you, but I'm having trouble formulating an elegant rule and putting it into words without relying on evolutionary terms or discussing other consequences.

In general, I think that any irreversible act with negative consequences is to be avoided (unless it outweighs alternatives). But defining weights and taking everything into account gets complicated from this point.

 

[gdnp]

I agree with you, but I'm having trouble formulating an elegant rule and putting it into words without relying on evolutionary terms or discussing other consequences.

In general, I think that any irreversible act with negative consequences is to be avoided (unless it outweighs alternatives). But defining weights and taking everything into account gets complicated from this point.

We can come up with whatever handwaving arguments we want, but since every human society I know of seems to have prohibitions against murdering members of the group, there must be an evolutionary advantage. This is not unique to humans, either. Chimps will occasionally kill members of their own clan during power struggles, but they brutally kill members of other groups that stray into their territory. Chimps need a group to survive: individual males are easy targets for large clans. Thus it makes evolutionary sense to refrain from murdering members of your group. We most likely inherited this trait from our pre-human ancestors.

 

[Richard Masters]

We can come up with whatever handwaving arguments we want, but since every human society I know of seems to have prohibitions against murdering members of the group, there must be an evolutionary advantage. This is not unique to humans, either. Chimps will occasionally kill members of their own clan during power struggles, but they brutally kill members of other groups that stray into their territory. Chimps need a group to survive: individual males are easy targets for large clans. Thus it makes evolutionary sense to refrain from murdering members of your group. We most likely inherited this trait from our pre-human ancestors.

Again, I agree with the evolutionary explanation; but it is not satisfactory at the proximate level.

For example, how does an individual rationalize killing or not killing, without the context of society? If evolution is responsible for empathy (and I think that is the case,) and feelings of remorse, how do we logically convince an apathetic individual incapable of empathy or remorse? My point is, the evolutionary argument only makes sense in the long-term, and that's not even true in the case of overpopulation.

It's like saying one should have sex because it protects the survival of your group/species in the long run, but in the real world that's rarely the proximate reason why it is done.

In the case of homicide, the reason most people avoid the homicide of those in their in-group, is then because it feels wrong. And that's also a logical fallacy.

But to the self, there is rarely any immediate risk outside the context of the contemporary societal rules.

So the next question is, if morality is guided by evolutionary rules that translate into drives and feelings, how are we to know that our feelings are optimally fine-tuned to do what is right or what is wrong?

Given that our eyes are not optimally "designed", and that our feelings are often wrong, how do we reach a more enlightened understanding of what is right and what is wrong?

I know I'm ruminating, but I am genuinely interested in finding out how to refine my sense of morality; and evolutionary psychology can only offer a partial (and self-referential) answer.

 

[LostAngeles]

Again, I agree with the evolutionary explanation; but it is not satisfactory at the proximate level.

For example, how does an individual rationalize killing or not killing, without the context of society? If evolution is responsible for empathy (and I think that is the case,) and feelings of remorse, how do we logically convince an apathetic individual incapable of empathy or remorse? My point is, the evolutionary argument only makes sense in the long-term, and that's not even true in the case of overpopulation....

OK, there's a problem with the very first sentence. Society is a part of our evolution. We're poorly equipped to live outside of society. We're a social animal and the group has a large influence on our behavior whether we admit it or not. Our evolution has generally moved from being biological to cultural. We adapt to environmental changes culturally and change our environment through uses of culture. I question being able to separate the human from the society.

...I know I'm ruminating, but I am genuinely interested in finding out how to refine my sense of morality; and evolutionary psychology can only offer a partial (and self-referential) answer.

I try to use two rules as best I can: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Leave it better than you found it.

I should probably learn the rules on semicolons as well.

 

[Richard Masters]

OK, there's a problem with the very first sentence. Society is a part of our evolution. We're poorly equipped to live outside of society. We're a social animal and the group has a large influence on our behavior whether we admit it or not. Our evolution has generally moved from being biological to cultural. We adapt to environmental changes culturally and change our environment through uses of culture. I question being able to separate the human from the society.

In other words, morality only applies to human societies and similar biological organisms? Then the concept of "right and wrong" is necessarily relative.

I'm trying to understand the morality of four hypothetical scenarios:

(1) C.E. 2054 - Machine claims to be self-aware and wants to run as U.S. Senator; activists question the national origin of its various hardware components and set out to destroy it. Assuming this machine has no owner (i.e. it was granted freedom), is it wrong to destroy it?

(2) I'm hungry and I want to eat my pet. The kitchen shelves are full, but my pet's genetic legacy is safe (it had puppies). Wrong? Why?

(3) A Buddhist monk in Nepal poisons an amnesic child whose parents have passed away, in the forest, and there are no witnesses. Child didn't feel anything and won't be missed by anyone. Wrong?

(4) An extraterrestrial civilization has been traveling in our direction for 378 earth years. When they realize how stupid and primitive we are, we are placed in zoos and domesticated as pets. We communicate so slow, that even their children consider us retarded. It's not unusual for a stray human to get crushed, slammed and incinerated by their passing vehicles, as they are too fast to be noticed by us. Sometimes we are placed in holographic environments for their entertainment, and other times we are injured by our aggressive young owners. On occasion a human will retaliate and be subjected to amputation, torture by microwave weapons, radiation poisoning, and other imaginative punishments, often resulting in death. Wrong?

 

[gdnp]

Given that our eyes are not optimally "designed", and that our feelings are often wrong, how do we reach a more enlightened understanding of what is right and what is wrong?

I know I'm ruminating, but I am genuinely interested in finding out how to refine my sense of morality; and evolutionary psychology can only offer a partial (and self-referential) answer.

From an evolutionary sense there is no "right" or "wrong". There is only "that which increases the probability that certain DNA sequences will survive and multiply in a given environment" and "that which decreases the probability that said sequences will survive and multiply." Thus morality changes as environments change. We in the Western world now live in a time of relative plenty, where killing people and taking their stuff is frowned upon. As shortages of land, food, and energy worsen, this morality may change. If we don't decide to invade the middle east and steal their oil, the Chinese or the Russians may. If they are successful, then their culture and morals may replace those of the West in the coming centuries. The universe doesn't care if we think this is moral or not.

In other words, morality only applies to human societies and similar biological organisms? Then the concept of "right and wrong" is necessarily relative.

As I said above, "right" or "wrong" is not relative, it is irrelevant.

Here is another scenerio for you: A comet strikes the earth, which is now going to enter a new ice age. Global temperatures fall, sunlight is decreased, there are massive crop failures, and it becomes clear that there is going to be massive starvation. Riots break out. Scientists predict within 5 years North America will be uninhabitable. Tropical countries close their borders.

The society that survives will have significantly different morals than the one we have now. Those who sit back passively will die. Those who take the food and land of others will live. Children with birth defects will be euthanized for the good of the group. To say that this is "wrong" is meaningless. It is the moral code that optimizes survival for that environment.

 

[The Man]

In other words, morality only applies to human societies and similar biological organisms? Then the concept of "right and wrong" is necessarily relative.

Somewhat true but “applies to” is a probably a poor choice of words, we can apply our morality to anything we want, including your hypothetical situations. The concept of right and wrong is certainly more relative then it is necessary (for non-social creatures). Social creatures must conform to the rules of the society to remain a part of it, in some cases this conformance is a simple matter of genetics (like insect colonies) while others the more “conceptual” elements of societie's "right and wrong" might outweigh some genetic drive (a non-dominant male not being able to mate). In the latter case the non-dominate male would generally not kill the young of the dominate male, however should the non-dominate male obtain dominance, killing the young of the pre-dominate male has genetic and sociological benefits (causing the females to ovulate for mating and reducing competition for the offspring they do sire). What was sociologically “wrong” becomes sociologically and genetically “right” with a change in dominance.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Panthera_leo.htm...

Male lions are conspicuously large and showy because they have the opportunity to control the reproduction of many females when they rule over a pride. Males form coalitions with each other to increase their chances of pride takeover. The fierce competition among males and the social structure of a pride have led to infanticide by both males and females. Successful males that takeover a pride have about 2 years before another younger, stronger coalition will replace them. Pride takeover battles are often violent leading to severe injury or death of the losing lions.
It is to the successful male’s reproductive advantage to kill the suckling cubs of the defeated males. A nursing lioness that loses her cubs will come back into estrous within 2 to 3 weeks. The normal time between births is 2 years, which is the typical time for a male to rule a pride. Therfore, by killing all unweaned cubs at the time of pride takeover, males can ensure that they have some opportunity to father offspring of females who would otherwise not be available to them during their tenure as pride leaders. Females vigorously defend their cubs during a takeover and are sometimes killed also. (Estes, 1993; Packer and Pusey, 2001)

Although males do not directly provide care for the young in a pride, they are important in the protection of the cubs from rival males. So long as a male maintains control over a pride, preventing another male from taking over, the cubs he has sired are at lower risk of infanticide. (Packer and Pusey, 2001)

 

[gumboot]

Why is homicide bad?

After all, people die all the time for natural reasons, rich and poor, old and young.

Putting aside those that frankly we're better off without, most people would agree that someone dying by any cause is bad. Yes, it's bad if someone murders my Dad. But it's also bad if he dies in a car accident, or of a heart attack, or even of old age.

This is a stupid thread.

All dying is bad.

 

[Richard Masters]

From an evolutionary sense there is no "right" or "wrong". There is only "that which increases the probability that certain DNA sequences will survive and multiply in a given environment" and "that which decreases the probability that said sequences will survive and multiply." Thus morality changes as environments change. We in the Western world now live in a time of relative plenty, where killing people and taking their stuff is frowned upon. As shortages of land, food, and energy worsen, this morality may change. If we don't decide to invade the middle east and steal their oil, the Chinese or the Russians may. If they are successful, then their culture and morals may replace those of the West in the coming centuries. The universe doesn't care if we think this is moral or not.

Agreed. Your answer was quite enlightening, actually. But it's creating too much cognitive dissonance.

As I said above, "right" or "wrong" is not relative, it is irrelevant.

Here is another scenario for you: A comet strikes the earth, which is now going to enter a new ice age. Global temperatures fall, sunlight is decreased, there are massive crop failures, and it becomes clear that there is going to be massive starvation. Riots break out. Scientists predict within 5 years North America will be uninhabitable. Tropical countries close their borders.

The society that survives will have significantly different morals than the one we have now. Those who sit back passively will die. Those who take the food and land of others will live. Children with birth defects will be euthanized for the good of the group. To say that this is "wrong" is meaningless. It is the moral code that optimizes survival for that environment.

I completely understand what you are saying, and I can agree with the logic (assuming the given constraints), but it SEEMS so wrong.

Evaluating the morality of behavior based only on its survival value is a little foreign to me, right now.

I'm going to have to go think about it for a while. Same thing happened when I was halfway through the Philosophy HPC thread. I look forward to more of these paradigm shifts.