Murder
 

I was reading the abortion thread here and I was wondering:

What is murder and why is it wrong? I realize that there is probably a standard definition of 'murder' out there, but I'd like to get a little more personal.

So, what is murder, to YOU and why do YOU feel it is wrong to commit murder?

Also, is 'murder' different in *your* mind then killing someone?



I'm curious about this, so thanks for your participation...

Murder is wrong by definition, since 'a murder' simply means 'a wrongful killing'. As to why killing is wrong, well, it's not. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not. And there are cases where, IMANHO (In My Almost Never Humble Opinion), its wrong, but shouldn't be illegal (like self-defense). Why is killing sometimes (well, okay, usually) unjustified? I could give countless answers. The maxim "You should kill" is not unversalizable, since no one wants themselves to be killed. Because God says so. Because the ending of a life is generally not conducive to the greatest overall happiness. Because killing someone makes you less virtuous. I have more...

Well *murder* is overly unspecific in the fact that if you are using it as a discription it is difficult to use as a correct truth...
By this i mean if i said that one guy called jack killed a guy named jake. jakes mother would say it was murder...while of course a person say...a freind of jacks would say it was a totaly justified killing...

*Hope that i made clear my point* :hmm:

Well, there your just talking about point of view, the mouse thinks the cat is evil, but the cat is just eating to survive.

As to what is murder, it is the taking of someone's life for a purpose other than protecting your own or other's physical(and sometimes mental and financial) well-being. If someone is trying to hurt me or my loved ones, then I consider it well within my rights to cut their head off and shove it up their ass. As for jack and jake themselves, it depends on what they were doing, was jake trying to hurt jack or was jack assaulting jake.geez couldn't you have picked names that weren't so ease to mix up?

Society determines what murder is... it is the classic foregone freedom-to right for the protection of all. I give up the right to kill in order to be protected by society. The freedom-from murder laws vary widely from culture to culture, and from time to time. Personally, my standard for when killing is ok is when it is in self-defense. Otherwise, if you are willing to kill and face the consequences for society's laws, then I guess in some way you are beating the system somehow. Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves when killing becomes necessary even if in the face of laws.

I think that there are some reasonable standards such as: <i>don't kill someone who did nothing to you</i> and <i>don't kill someone if there is an alternative</i> that we should abide by. Ideally, killing should be a last resort.

Murder, to me, is a legal term not a moral one; it's the intentional illegal killing of another.

To me, murder is the planned, intentional killing of another human being, and it is a negative, immoral term. Killing is simply one person taking the life of another and is amoral in itself. I don't think murder is ever justified since it necessitates aggressive and harmful feelings toward another human being, and the denial of their right to live. I think killing is only justified when self-defense, but like wilbjammin, I think killing should be avoided if at all possible.

OK...let's say the mother is a drug addict and/or drinks...or maybe the mother is a prostitute with barely any money and no interest in becoming a mother...or how bout a mother that has a disease that would give her child a huge risk of giving the child a very painful/deadly disease...there are lots of bad scenarios that would give the child a bad begining in life...

Would you want the mother to have the child? If the mother of a drug addict decided to have a child would you want a mother like that to have one? What about a mother with an abusive husband? Would you want to have that mother bring a child into that environment?

What if a mother in that situation said that she'd have the child and give him/her up for addoption? That too is a bad life for a child to go thru...the life of the child before s/he gets parents is not very nice...

Would you want a child to go thru any of these situations? They either grow up with hate and become bad people themselves or they die from the disease that the parents gave them...

I think that there are some situations that it would be in the childs best interest to not be born in the environment s/he would be born in...

- Undercover_Man

P.S.: And I'm tired of all these pro life groups...they disrupt the community and make threats to doctors and parents and around courthouses...they make their statments and all that stuff but when it is decided that the child will be born then they could give a shit and go to another mother who wants to get rid of her preganency...have you seen a pro life group actually HELP children besides trying to get the mother/law to let the child be born and live?

Couldn't that rationale be applied to any child in a bad situation? Why not kill children that are in bad situations after they are born. By your rationale it will spare them a bad life. I don't see the difference between abortion and this, at least in terms of how you are rationalizing it.

From a religious basis, I am against abortion. But, outside of that I really could care less. I'm actually a ZPG proponent, so i'm generally apathetic about abortion (from a secular standpoint). My only problem with abortion (outside of religious reasons) is that it promotes a general lack of dicipline and responsibility. With all the birth control methods, and the amount they are promoted, there really is no logical excuse. Unless a woman is raped, only reckless behavior can result in an unwanted pregnancy. I've always thought that any abortion not the result of rape or saving the life of the mother should come with a tubal ligation.

As for just murder, that is more a legal/societal definition to me. Personally, outside of religious beliefs, there is no innate basis for the sanctity of life. So killing for one reason is just as equal to the next, and none need justification.

Not quite sure how it is where you live, but I know in many places across the US there are multiple-year-long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt children. Chances are the child isn't going to be without parents for too long...

Not all kids in who are waiting to get adopted are little and cute...they go up to the age of 18...the older you get the less likely it is that you'll be picked

Murder is the willful violation of another person's right to life in a situation other than self-defense or defense of another.

That's the answer to all of the questions in one sentence.

Murder, to me, is the intentional killing of an innocent person. An innocent person, in this situation, is one who does not pose a direct threat to the well-being of others.

It's much more complicated than that though, as there are intentions, circumstances, and other things which make the philosophical discussion of murder (with me anyways) a little too complex for this kind of thing. As to why I don't think it should be committed, why would you commit it? Anger, hate, jealousy, envy, psychosis, disregard for others? There is no logical, mindful, and emotionally sound reason to commit murder, which is depriving someone of something that most hold as sacred, and therefore it is wrong.

What about an 'innocent' person who were about to kill another person unknowingly? If someone kills this 'innocent' person, is this murder?

Sorry, I didn't see the earlier posts.

^^^
If this "innocent" person was unknowingly was going to kioll another person then that is called an accident. If you do something that results in an unexpected or undesirable event then that is called an accident. If the person who saw this "innocent" person about to kill someone had killed the "innocent" person then that too would be an accident unless he was gonna kill the person anyways then that's plain murder. And by accident I mean accidental murder.

- Undercover_Man

Two topics in one question.

Topic One: Murder vs. Killing. Murder = The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. (I looked it up) The key word here is "unlawful". This may vary from country to country, culture to culture, but I think we can all generally agree, that killing sombody for personal or financial gain, or out of anger or retribution, would fit the term "unlawful" and therefore qualify as murder. However, a soldier that kills in the line of duty, is protected by the law, and is not a murderer (regardless if you are FOR or AGAINST the war). Same goes for killing in self defense or defense of another (and in many places, the defense of property). So, in answer to part of the original question, Yes, Murder is very different in "MY" mind than killing.

Topic Two: Abortion (is it murder?) Currently, abortion is protected by law (see Roe v. Wade), and therefore, by defination, is NOT murder. A better question might be, "Should" abortion be classified as murder? Ie. Should the lawfulness of abortion be recinded? That is a very personal question, that the nation is very evenly divided over. At what point does a cluster of cells in a woman's uterous become a "human" and therefore applicable under the above defination. The pro-life folks would say at conception. The pro-choice folks my say not until delivery. My own personal view is, I am against abortion, but I am also against legislation to prevent it. So, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I know, I am sitting on the fence here, but at the end of the day, I am only accountable for my actions, and therfore must act according to my own value set. I am not going to force my value set on others (at least not through the use of legislation)

I think it's worth questioning whether 'murder' should be unlawful killing or immoral killing. I'll leave abortion alone. Is the soldier fighting in an unjust war a murderer? What about the soldier who is ordered to kill a large group of civilians? These are probably two borderline cases; I wouldn't want to call the soldier fighting in an unjust war a murderer, even though he is engaged in immoral killing. On the other hand, I would want to call our second soldier a murderer, even though he is engaged in lawful killing. How would you parse this, Borg?

Not entirely true. It depends on who the soldier kills and when they kill them.

Actually it IS murder. It is a person ending the life of another. Only thing is it is justified murder.

I think that the motive behind the killing is what determines whether it is murder or not. I think that hate is the deciding factor (check out Jesus' teaching on hate and murder). I light of Jesus's other teachings it may be more accurate to say that the absence of love (sometimes called hate or indifference) is what makes it murder. Jesus said that the greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor (other people). He also commanded that we love our enemies. In my mind, I'd have a hard time feeling love for someone while putting a bullet in their head or a knife in their back. Or, the other way around, I'd have a hard time putting a bullet in someones head or a knife in their back if I feel lovingly toward them. Of course this brings up all kinds of questions like, what about assisted suicide or euthenasia. What about war, or justice? I think these questions would be (have been) great for another thread.

There's my 2 cents.

Depends on your definition of murder. The legal definitions that I've seen all involve the terms "malice and aforethought". I think it's pretty safe to say that on average, a soldier killing other combatants is doing so out of self-defense, rather than malice (whether it be preemptive self-defense or not).