Note: This thread is meant for discussion ONLY, and should not be misconstrued as advocacy of murder. Please do not kill anybody.
I’ve witnessed several discussions as to whether or not killing is always ‘wrong’, but these discussions almost always involve either people who are terminally ill or people who are trying to defend themselves. However, I don’t see how these situations are relevant to the underlying issue: if a healthy person is painlessly murdered in cold blood, and they are not going to be missed by anyone, how can doing so be labeled as ‘wrong’?
Here’s an example:
Suppose a mother gives birth to a child and the father of the child is no longer with the mother and wants nothing to do with his child. Suppose after giving birth, the mother realizes that raising the child is far more unpleasant of an experience than she had anticipated.
Furthermore, let’s assume that the mother has not developed any special feelings for this child, and that no one else has any feelings of love for the child. Also, the child is too young to have any real understanding of its existence. Is there any logical reason why it would be wrong for her to kill the infant in a manner that did not cause it to suffer? If not, one can only conclude that murder isn’t inherently ‘wrong.’
I suppose one could argue that killing the child might deprive would-be adopters of having a child, but what if there wasn’t anyone willing to adopt? Is it still ‘wrong’ then??
Yes, it’s wrong, because every person has a right to life, whether or not anyone else thinks that person is worth living.
So, in your example, maybe Mommy and Daddy don’t want little Tiffany around anymore. But Tiffany herself, even if she cannot express it, has a right to life and to grow up. It’s not always about what Mommy and Daddy want.
Zev Steinhardt
Empathy for our fellow human beings is a critical part of our emotional development. I think it would take someone without that empathy to commit a murder because the task of raising a child is “unpleasant.” I’ve heard some serial murders described as not believing that anything outside themselves is real. An infant may not be as self aware as an adult but I don’t think that excuses a murder any more than shooting someone in the head while they slept because they woudn’t anticipate or feel the act. How would you feel if you knew that someone considered murdering you as an infant for the same reasons you gave?
That seems a little circular. Saying that everyone has a right to life, is pretty much defacto saying that murder is wrong. I think the question would be, why does everyone have a right to life?
(By the way, I’m not saying that they don’t. I think that they do…but why?)
I believe I should have the right to life in any and all situations.
Empathy and observation tell me that other humans are like me, and I assume that they also believe they should have a right to life.
So if I propose that everyone should have a right to life, the majority will agree with me, because they like me would recognise that claiming their right to life by their own individual force is weak, but as a combined force of many people protecting the right to life of each other we as a group have a strong ability to protect all our individual rights to life.
Therefore my best strategy to protect my own right to life, is to proffess and protect the righ to life of everybody in the hope that they will in turn protect my own right to life should it become endangered.
Why make this assumption? Babies certainly perceive things. Their perception may not be as cerebral as an adult’s, but that doesn’t mean they have no understanding. Even if it’s as simple as the child thinking, “I like shiny pretty things”, that’s still an awareness of being alive and having emotions.
Nothing is inherentlyanything. One could propose a formulation of morality in which murder was not wrong. I don;t think many people would ascribe to it, but one could propose it all the same.
Why do I get the impression that the OP might be trying to start a slipery slope argument about abortion? If a killing a child of age 1 hour is murder (by definition wrong and illegal), why not a child of age -1hour or -30 days, etc?
You are correct as ethics is a philosphical construct but you may only be able to do that by redefining murder as someting other than an intentional, unjustified killing of a human.
msmith537, I don’t think the OP intended that and after all you were the one who brought up abortion. Don’t expect any ethical debate to be free of conflict. If you afraid of the answer don’t ask the question.
I was dubious a bout the premise of new book Generation Kill but I’m thinking I should read it now.
But I’m going to answer the question on it’s merits. I’d say the main problem is that muder is basically defined as ‘killing when it’s wrong’ so this is a bit circular.
Comparing to the OP’s example, why should killing someone instantly, who has no-one who will be upset by it, so bad? I can’t explain it, it’s just something I believe. And that applies to things which can feel, if not think, like babies too.
To murder someone in cold blood, even if they will not be missed, denies them all of their rights. A dead person can no longer pursue freedom or his/her right to happiness. I'm trying to use different words than "right to life" here.
To kill a child, simply because it is an inconvenience eliminates that childs potential to be happy and contribute society. As a rule, all children are an inconvenience, albeit some more than others. At what point is a child too troublesome to be worth it? To me, this leads down a slippery slope towards euthanasia of blind or disabled children because they're too expensive or too much work.
I guess to sum up:
Who is the murderer to decide that the victim has nothing to contribute?
You know, this does feel like an abortion-trap; especially since the OP went straight to the mother/child scenario.
Because we live in a society, not in the jungle like a bunch of savages. The whole point of being in a society is creating a reasonible level of safety and security so that we don’t have to spend all our energies defending ourselves against others.
I’m hoping you parsed my meaning first time round, but the formal logic of the sentence is not “-A=A”, but “There is no A for which B is an accurate description”, where A is thing and B is “inherently”. I tried to make that clear with the bold face.
This response gets to the heart of the question. “Human Rights” are an artificial construct defined by us on the basis of utilitarian ethics. It isn’t inherently wrong for me to shoot you in the street because I don’t like the colour of your hair - you have no more “right” to life than I do, or than does any insect you should happen to step on. Life is what it is - there are no “rules” save for what is possible versus impossible, and also for those “rules” which we choose to impose upon each other. In order to make a society which is sustainable, however, we must necessarily impose a system of ethics to govern our behaviour. More fundamentally, we have the ability to recognize that all of our actions have consequences, and it is by taking those consequences into consideration that we determine what is ethically permissible.
Killing a single unwanted child may not have far reaching consequences, but try to imagine what the result would be if everybody did it? We need ethics to function effectively.
I’ve mused about the computer simulation stuff. But then wrote it off as an instance of, in the spirit of Xenophanes “if cows had gods they would look like cows”, if computer nerds had gods they would look like computer nerds and creation like a computer simulation. It’s just too much in the time, is all.
umm…
I meant if nothing is inherently anything, that sentence is not inherently true. As in A=”Nothing is inherently anything“, B="inherently truth”. Yet, you apparently believe “Nothing is inherently anything” is “inherently true”?
