Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#91
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
No you can't. Being imprisoned is an inevitable consequence of living under a functioning government. Being killed is not. 

It is also important to consider that if evidence ever comes out to suggest your innocence, you can go to trial again. You cannot un-die. 
#92
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Being imprisoned is an inevitable consequence of living under a functioning government.
Not if it’s for a crime you didn’t commit, if anything that’s the literal definition of dysfunction.

It is also important to consider that if evidence ever comes out to suggest your innocence, you can go to trial again. You cannot un-die.
That’s all true but you still can never get that time back, also I’m sure some would prefer death over prison.
#93
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I should rephrase: imprisonment must punish crimes for a government to continue to function. The mass application of this principle will inevitably lead to some false convictions. But just because a state inevitably must harm some people to sustain itself does not mean that the state can do whatever it wants to its citizens in service of some greater benefit. So in situations like these you have to choose between killing capital offenders or not doing so, and the choice is fairly obvious regardless of the preferences of some minority of people. 

#94
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
What is murder? A legal term for illegally killing someone.

What is wrong? A thought/action that isn’t preferable.

Why is murder wrong? Most people prefer not to kill innocent people under the law due to ostracism/guilt.
#95
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
But just because a state inevitably must harm some people
What do you mean by “some people” innocent people?
#96
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
What do you mean by “some people” innocent people?
Yes
#97
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
But just because a state inevitably must harm some people to sustain itself does not mean that the state can do whatever it wants to its citizens in service of some greater benefit.
Assuming that we must harm innocent people then yes it means exactly just that, clearly you disagree so please explain the difference.
#98
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Assuming that we must harm innocent people then yes it means exactly just that, clearly you disagree so please explain the difference.
The state needs to try people for crimes, and some of the people they convict may be innocent. Use the previous organ donor example I brought up with sadolite. The state should not rip someone's organs out and use those organs to save five people, even if that event would have positive utility. The state must harm some innocents by nature of its existence, but that doesn't give it the moral right to harm innocents in all cases. A similar example: Just because most people will do something that is unethical at some point in their life doesn't mean that they can go on a shooting spree. 
#99
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
The state must harm some innocents by nature of its existence, but that doesn't give it the moral right to harm innocents in all cases.
But I don’t think sadolite was in favor of the state killing innocent people, only what he alluded to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
#100
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
But I don’t think sadolite was in favor of the state killing innocent people, only what he alluded to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
That's not what we were talking about. I was explaining to you my ethical views: people, typically, should not be sacrificed for other ends, certain circumstances notwithstanding (one of which is keeping a functional state). Sadolite would get innocent people killed (but I also think that the state killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is wrong) for the sake of deterrence rates. That's what I oppose in his statement.
#101
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
@Username
Innocence....Now there's another can of indefinite worms for you to get your teeth into, Tarik.


So....Against what, do we measure innocence?

A measure of behaviour against collective expectation perhaps.


And selective morality rears it's ugly head once more.
#102
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
but I also think that the state killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is wrong
Why?
#103
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Innocence....Now there's another can of indefinite worms for you to get your teeth into, Tarik.
I was strictly speaking in the context of our current legal justice system (which some may say is more cut and dry) we haven’t even scratched the surface yet so don’t jump the gun here zedvictor4. 
#104
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Why?
Well, for one, the U.S. (Idk much about other countries) doesn't really have a good mechanism to determine who was a sane person that committed a terrible crime and who was severely mentally ill. In other words, the U.S. determines what your punishment should be for a crime mostly on what the consequences of your crime were, not how much agency you had when you committed it.

Also, rapists, murderers, and pedophiles are human beings. If someone's already permanently locked away from society, the state shouldn't be killing its own citizens. 



#105
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
There's also just no good ethical reason to do it. 
#106
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Username
it doesn't matter if I accept my death now or anytime in the future. I will absolutely die anyway
#107
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@sadolite
That doesn't answer my question. I was trying to see if you thought that dying under the aforementioned circumstances would be ethically just or unjust. 
#108
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Ok.

I will watch and wait with bated breath.

And just out of interest....Where is your current legal system?


And notwithstanding that, right and wrong are only concepts, and  therefore so are all derivatives, including crime and law.

So murder is not "actually" right or wrong, and the legal consequences of murder are not actually right or wrong..... How we address the matter of murder has simply become  an established social convention.


#109
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
who was a sane person that committed a terrible crime
Is there such a thing as a sane person that does those heinous acts?
#110
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
How we address the matter of murder has simply become  an established social convention.
And under that established social convention is what I was referring to when I brought up innocence.
#111
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Obviously.

Though if that is the be all and end all, then why involve yourself in what is clearly for you, only ever going to be a one sided discussion.

Other than for the purposes of preaching maybe.

Not  a particularly philosophical approach to a philosophical forum.

The other sides of the discussion are out there.


#112
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Is there such a thing as a sane person that does those heinous acts?
Yes, but you're saying that if there wasn't you'd be okay with killing a bunch of severely mentally ill people?
#113
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Though if that is the be all and end all, then why involve yourself in what is clearly for you, only ever going to be a one sided discussion.
You lost me here.
#114
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Yes, but you're saying that if there wasn't you'd be okay with killing a bunch of severely mentally ill people?
That’s an understatement, and I don’t assume to know the answers to these types of things I just observe from afar to and speak up whenever I detect any inconsistency, so let me get this straight your only qualm with the death penalty is the system being sloppy in determine who is and isn’t mentally ill? So (hypothetically speaking of course) what if they weren’t would you then be okay with the legally sanctioned killing of rapists, murderers, and pedophiles if the answer is no then again I ask why?
#115
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Philosophy

And you mentioned innocence 

And I responded, by seeking a definition of innocence.

A philosophical exchange.

Simple

And you question more that answer, so one has to make assumptions.
#116
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
That's not my only qualm. I oppose the death penalty because I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society. Can you tell me what is so inconsistent about my position?
#117
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
And what do you mean by "that's an understatement"?
#118
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And you question more that answer, so one has to make assumptions.
You don’t have to assume anything, if you have curiosities in regards to the law then Google is free dude look it up.
#119
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society.
So if murderers, rapists, and pedophiles don’t fit that description then what does?

And what do you mean by "that's an understatement"?
Because when you say that without mentioning the reason they’re being executed it’s misleading and fact of the matter is they’re not being executed for being “mentally ill” they’re being executed for being a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.
#120
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
So if murderers, rapists, and pedophiles don’t fit that description then what does?
They're in jail. 

Because when you say that without mentioning the reason they’re being executed it’s misleading and fact of the matter is they’re not being executed for being “mentally ill” they’re being executed for being a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.
But a lot of people end up killing people for example because their mental illness skews their perception of reality. Schizophrenia is the most obvious example.