Murder: A Philosophical Debate

[DaemonSeid]

It is still one of the most heinous, if not THE most heinous act one human can commit against another.

Yet. we still do it.

Not a day goes by without hearing about it somewhere and even by the time I finish writing and you reading someone will have committed or discovered one.

And with even greater technology to solve them, larger penal systems and penalties, it still happens.

Some believe that in a more enlightened society than what was in place hundreds of years ago it should be reduced.

So...why in your opinion do we still do it? Instinct? Mental defect? Wantonness?

Do you think it's committed more or less?

Are the punishments for murder enough of a deterrent?

[RU OX Alum]

actually, i think it happens about the same percentage wise, maybe even less now percentage wise, but there are more people alive now and news coverage so you hear about it more

also, no, no punishment for murder has ever been a deterrent.

Is killing someone else always wrong? What if you could prevent suffering/ further suffering? Would you go back in time and kill hitler? When? When he first took power? After he didn't get into art school? When would it be "murder"?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

This isn't a matter of opinion. Just check out UCR and NCVS trends.

Let's avoid stats for the moment and go just based on perception alone.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Let's avoid stats for the moment and go just based on perception alone.

my perception wasn't good enough?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Perceptions of crime suck and are always inaccurate.

But enjoy....

yeah really.

I wish we could all be less perceptive.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Let's avoid stats for the moment and go just based on perception alone.

Why? What does that accomplish?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

my perception wasn't good enough?

Your perception was fine, but I am asking people to look past numbers and stuff we can easily look up on the net and reguritate with cut n past; rather, use thier mind to give an opinion.

We can talk numbers all day...but how do feel or what do you think...hence 'philosopical' debate.

ok...let's try something....2 examples and let's see how it can be answered morally speaking:

I'm not trying to put any you on the spot here, I just want to move the conversation forward.

1. An elderly man they still let have a license but who drives only the doctor's office and the grocery store gives a ride to a friend who has a heart attack in the car. He heads for the emergency room, runs a stopsign he doesn't see, and plows into a group of schoolchildren crossing the street, killing two of them. Since it's undeniably killing but is neither self-defense nor state punishment under the law, what is it? Is it wrongful killing, or not?

2. An intruder breaks into your house at night. You have no idea if he's armed and dangerous, if he's so drunk he thought it was his house, if he's come to steal your property or to kill your family. You shoot first and ask questions later. Since there was no clear threat, just a presumed one, and therefore it was not direct self-defense but at most constructive self-defense, were you wrong or right to kill him?

[tld221]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

ok...let's try something....2 examples and let's see how it can be answered morally speaking:

I'm not trying to put any you on the spot here, I just want to move the conversation forward.

1. An elderly man they still let have a license but who drives only the doctor's office and the grocery store gives a ride to a friend who has a heart attack in the car. He heads for the emergency room, runs a stopsign he doesn't see, and plows into a group of schoolchildren crossing the street, killing two of them. Since it's undeniably killing but is neither self-defense nor state punishment under the law, what is it? Is it wrongful killing, or not?

2. An intruder breaks into your house at night. You have no idea if he's armed and dangerous, if he's so drunk he thought it was his house, if he's come to steal your property or to kill your family. You shoot first and ask questions later. Since there was no clear threat, just a presumed one, and therefore it was not direct self-defense but at most constructive self-defense, were you wrong or right to kill him?

hmm. ok. im gonna throw this out there:

murder (n.): the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

the first example, i think could happen to ANY driver. the fact that the driver was an elderly man has no effect on the scenario. that's careless driving - you dont just PLOW into a group of people. i dont care if it was an "emergency" or not. any accident can kill, regardless of the circumstances. and by definition there is clearly no malicious intent or premeditation, or any intent, to kill. i dont consider scenario #1 murder.

as for the second example, i dont believe that someone would instantly pick up a gun and shoot. there is some premeditation even if for a split second of "someone is here to harm me/my family and i need to stop them." now, if in your head, stopping them means ending their life, that's murder.

of course this all gets messy, with semantics and what not, because every scenario is different. i think pushed to the limit, one will kill. for parents, it could be defending their children (say, in the course of a kidnapping or a fight? a court battle?). for loved ones, rape or sexual assault is enough to take someone out. or perhaps there is a cause you feel so strongly about you would kill if it made the situation right, even for a second.

which is why i think people do it. countless stories of people getting shot in the hood over some seemingly senseless drama. in the killer's eye, for at least one second, getting that revenge and getting justice, taking matters in their own hands, means more than the consequence that may follow.

its all about power, isnt it?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Such philosophical debates as "has it increased or decreased" are better when rooted in the facts.

If you want to discuss perceptions and fear of crime, at least present the facts afterwards so that people can measure their perceptions against reality.

Thus is why I said, let's forgo stats for the present moment.....

[DaemonSeid]

Every animal possess the instinct to kill and we are animals after all. Each and everyone of us will kill under the right mental condition. Its in our nature. Its instinct.

Society has attempted to control the instinct by putting limitations and conditions on that basic instinct. But how do you control basic instinct. We also as individuals have tried to bind that instinct within and for the most part have been able to control our individual selves.

Humans have been killing each other from day one and will continue to kill each other till the end of their existance. Any attempts to stop all acts of murder is like trying to stop rain from falling. It aint going to happennor is that the point of this discussion.

I could really get philosophical and say, the universe controls all our temperments. Perhaps looking at the big picture there is a need for murderers to keep the population down as it is in every animal kingdom.

And let us reemember, there are all kinds of murderers. Just because you don't have the stomach for "wet work" does not mean that you haven't mudered anyone with your lack of concern for your fellowman.