Is Murder Wrong?
First, we must start with a definition of murder, and since I am a barrister, I will provide a legal one:
"The killing of a life in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought."
Oh yeah.
It may sound like nonsense, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, especially the 'Queen's Peace' bit. This part effectively removes war from the equation. This is naturally essential, not just for practical politics but also for popular morality.
'Life in Being' means that foetus' don't count. This too is helpful as it means abortion is not murder. Again, a reflection of popular morality.
'Malice Aforethought' is just a daft way of saying that the potential murderer intended to kill. This part allows for an array of possible defences such as insanity, accident, intoxication and provocation (the morality of which I discuss here). All of these defences, I might add, lead to a finding of manslaughter, rather than a straightforward acquittal. But the point is, they are not, in the legal sense, murder. This reflects the final part of the governing popular morality, namely that one must be responsible in mind for one's actions.
In other words, popular morality has decided the following:
- Killing a foetus (or other non-human creature) is not murder.
- Killing in war is not murder.
- Killing without intention is not murder.
So, all other types of intended human killing are murder. That is our definition, and it is a useful one, because it counters most of the obvious scenarios in which killing a person could ordinarily be justified.
Is this type of Murder wrong (immoral)?
Again, as with all these types of arguments, it rather depends upon your framework.
Is it wrong in the Christian framework? Yes - It is against one of the ten commandments.
Is it wrong in the English Legal System? Yes - It is against the law.
Is it wrong in the American Legal System? Apparently not always: The Death Penalty is an example of killing a human being with intent. Of course proponents of the practice could always argue that it's done in a form of 'war', but they'd be fudging the issue.
Is it wrong in the Darwinist framework? Probably not. Taking 'right' as meaning 'fit for survival', and 'wrong' as meaning 'unfit', one can imagine many situations in which 'murder' could be 'good', or at the very least, 'not wrong'. In case you totally lack imagination: think of the terribly ill man who stands to inherit millions. If he kills the person whose will it is he will inherit enough money to cure himself. If he doesn't, then he will die. Alternatively, think of the man who has his sights on one woman alone in all the world. She is married to another man and would never consider an affair. If he kills her husband he can be with her (and reproduce, or be 'fit'); if he does not kill the husband he will be forever in a state of unrequited love (and not reproduce, or be 'unfit'). Clearly murder can be 'not wrong' in the Darwinist framework.
The problem comes when you apply the neutral framework. The 'neutral' framework is really the absence of a framework. It is the absence of a code of morality or 'correctness'. Trying to place murder anywhere without a framework, well, it's like trying to give the co-ordinates of a point on a Euclidean plane without any axes. In short, it's as impossible as asking someone to tell you where space ends, and what lies beyond it, and beyond that. Or asking someone to tell you who or what created the Big Bang, or God, depending on your beliefs.
The key, then, is to try to establish the 'best' possible framework in which to consider morality 'objectively'. In my view, law and religion do not achieve this. Darwin is perhaps closest of those considered above.
Well, I went off on a tangent somewhat, but it leads to an interesting sub-discussion which I shall continue another time: What is the most objective framework?
posted by Matt McGrath at 4:03 am
15 Comments:
It all depends on the definition used which will differ depending on the individual and their relevant society.
The use of the word murder implies subjectivity. If we use the term "to take life" then it becomes more objective.
My personal opinion is that only Allah should give and take life. However, there are always interpretations of this which allow exceptions. Taking life may be justified when required in defending your own life, or as a punishment for those that unjustly take life.
The problem with the former is that the prevalent law systems decide 'just cause' which may depend on who can afford the best lawyer. The problem with the latter may depend on the validity of that law/political system and the rationale of those that decide this.
Therefore it is just best to try to avoid taking life unless the need arises as one must remember that 'what goes around comes around' so any unjustified intention in 'taking life' could result in the same happening to you. Furthermore, it is paramount that the basis of the intention is valid.
The 'not in war' bit is surely political, whereas the 'life in being' bit and 'with malice aforethought' bit are moral.
I believe it is only acceptable to take someone else's life in self defence(one's own or one's 'group'). This means there may be cases of a just war, though I doubt there have been any for a long time.
Interesting comment Jamal, you devious bastard. How dare you have a blog for this damn long and not mention it to me... It's like some horrible twist at the end of a thriller. Although something sits uneasily about the lot of it. It's almost as if you're not you... Or perhaps it's more like suddenly discovering your best friend is spiderman...
Thro: Great, no problem, thanks!
Jez: Killing in war can be a question of ethics and politics, I would've thought... The politics can mask bad ethics, or bad ethics and destroy politics. Anti-symbiotic?
If you understand Darwin as survival of the fittest, then yes murder may be justified (after all it was such a view which ‘justified’ the Nazi eugenics programme). However, I fear that may be simplifying the point somewhat. My personal reading of Darwinism is that it refers to ‘survival of the fittest’ only in a biological sense.
Survival of the fittest may apply to animals which lack reason (strongest / most intelligent will survive), but I think to apply such a rationale to humans cannot work. Humans live in a society controlled more by rationality than biology; as such any human which did attempt to live by the maxim ‘survival of the fittest’ and killed people for their own gain would end up being ostracized.
In short, I don’t think murder can ever be justified in the Darwinian framework merely because the framework does not explain how humans live in a rational society.
I should have said 'in most societies throughout history and the world' the legal definition that killing in a time of war is not murder is quite clearly political, in that it serves the ruling elites in their unjust wars.
For many people killing in time of war is just as much murder as killing in time of peace.
By the way, does anyone like my cow?
Within your words, sad Wonko, lies either the destruction of my site, or its purpose...
My friends, while your intentions are good, I am afraid to say you are asking the wrong question. You ask, "Is Murder Wrong?" I ask, "What defines wrong?" What are the motives behind an 'evil' thought, and what defines evil?
Is murder an act of impulse?
Or is it a well thought out scheme?
I shan't be rude - I shan't be cold - I shan't be the one to tell you that your life has no meaning, until you give it one. You must find your purpose in life on your own, not ask questions like, 'is murder wrong?' before you understand what you are asking. You have no understanding of right or wrong, no understanding of life and death. To kill someone is not possible- death is an ascension. Is murder evil - or is it an act of great good?
Your feeble attempts at understanding life are not uncharacteristic of the human race, I understand the reasons behind your questioning, I was in your place once.
If you wish to speak with me my aim is... Th3 Alchem1st
Mr Alchemist, you appear to share some traits with another recent commentator on my site, Mr Demosthenes. What an incredible coincidence it all is!
You pose some interesting questions at the beginning of your post. I shall and have consider(ed) them. As for whether murder is impulsive or planned, that clearly depends on the individual event. It is, perhaps, of relevance to the degree of evil or 'wrongness' involved, but it may not be decisive.
The bulk of your middle paragraph is senseless waffle frankly. First you patronise me absurdly by pretending you're not about to offend me and then trying to do exactly that. Then you make some sweeping assumptions about my state of mind, which incidently is quite open. In doing so, you criticise but fail to argue your points at all. Where would we be if debate in society consisted merely of one side telling the other "you don't understand"?
The end of your paragraph is, I'll say, interesting, as opposed to pointless drivel. It would appear to be based upon some kind of spiritual belief. I'd be interested to know what that belief is. You call yourself an 'Alchemist'. Are you like the 17th Century Alchemists searching for the spirit of God in material form? Or are you like Paulo Coelho's Alchemist? Or do you just simply like turning lead into gold?
I would converse upon the subject with you over 'aim', but I'm not tempted right now since:
a) You are potentially a dangerous freak (I'm not saying you are) and I don't want to give you any more idea who I am.
b) I really wouldn't want to deny any of my readers following this discussion the opportunity to learn from your evident wisdom.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Some other views: murder (or the taking of life), if done painlessly and quickly, is, at least from an atheistic viewpoint, a victimless crime, because the dead person is not aware he is dead. So the victims are the dead man's friends etc., and, arguably, the murderer. So murder in itself, excluding things such as pain, relatives, etc., is not wrong, at all.
And the view that life is not "inalienable," but is only deserved by those able and willing to accept the responsibilities of life.
I found this site while looking for some intelligent discussion on the view of life, and i don't know how recent this post is. But any discussion, or link to a site that'll be useful to me, will be appreciated. If you (any one of you) do reply, could you reply on my own weblog? I'll never find this place again.
All concerned,
This has been a fascinating read. I was searching for the simplest answer to the most basic of questions, and, instead, I find this drivel about personal opinion, social setting, culture, norms, conjecture, and overall philosophical sub/objectivity. At the end of the day, should one go out and commit murder or is my question not in the proper context? For, as I have just been reminded, it depends on who you ask.
Life is "inalienable," even for a fetus that is not to say that im not pro-choice. The most objective system? cant be an all powerful word of G#d , becuase ultimatley it is subjective purley his whim and his or hers particular knowing. Thats what muslims believe. But darwin? As the ultimate Objectivist , no not a chance, if what you claimis true our transendance of this rule negates him, and leads us past this for better or for worst. reasonably the intellect of men can overcome the burdens of contigencies of nature to support and endless population. But really? Survival of the fittest isnt even what Darwin thought. No it was more survival of the lukiest those who could continue when a disaster of some sort occured or mutation etc. The strong as it may seem could have deid earlier on. It was stronger than say homosapian man and perhaps had the capacity for greater reason but was not able to survie in those contingencies, man after all mght be a weed species, this hypothetical of course...but id imagine this not far from darwins mind.
And evolution on earth is particular and subective to itself and thus not really objective,
There is nothing wrong with murder. Killing is not wrong. Half the people in this world deserve to die anyway so who cares. Society is evil which all who participate in society should be systematically tortured and killed until they admit their own evil. I hate people so much. Murder is a good thing what we need a few less idiots in the world. Killed people is always right because dying is the best thing that could ever happen to anyone. Isn't death wonderful I wish to God I could kill and kill some more. Happiness is another dead man who will rot in the grave. I love funerals and cemetaries are my favorite place. There is perfect peace and harmony in a cemetary with no hate or malice and no greed and evil. Death is the solutiont to all problems so make the world a better place and KILL YOURSELF!
Extinguishing a life is one of the most obvious and basic forms of evil. To me, evil is defined by "something that inhibits the free will of another living being". Sometimes you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils - murder one man to save a thousand - but the act of killing is still and always will be evil.
In our world, we are often forced to commit evil acts in order to prevent even greater future evils. Animal experimentation strips them of their freedom and is undeniably evil, yet it is necessary to prevent many more deaths. The nuking of Japan was an evil act which prevented even more evil from taking place. When a planet is dominated by creatures that do more evil than good, such is the case.
Great discussion. Thanks for the good read everyone! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home