No, it is merely my opinion that it is a useful thing to say in this context. Whether that is equivalent to “truth” or not is your opinion. Useful language cannot avoid contradictions like “this statement is false” - we can only limit the confusion they cause by ‘getting by’ with what we parse.
Quite right, not all lawful killing is morally correct, and I suppose some unlawful killing is morally required. Still, all in all, murder is wrong in that the society of time and place made it unlawful.
(I am not ignoring you, I am about to leave on my semiannual migration back to Saudi Arabia.)
That’s a good point, but as a nitpick, I wouldn’t say “lawfully killed”. Just because a government does something, does not ipso facto mean it was lawful. I would bet that if you looked at your average despotic regime’s laws, they would appear more or less reasonable. They probably don’t have anything written down that says, “The leader can kill anybody at will”. They probably go through some sort of token motions - a kangaroo court or what have you, but it wouldn’t stand up to objective scrutiny.
Here’s another view, not exclusive to those mentioned above: society can only function when we don’t run around killing each other; it is to our long term benefit to not kill.
Assuming ‘inherently’ means strictly genetic and with no socialization, then no it is not inherently wrong. If it were then murder would not have been such a normal factor in human government and human relations since time began.
From what I can tell murder is only wrong when those ‘inside’ your cultural unit are murdered ‘unjustly’. Aside from that murder is ok. Like in our society those ‘inside’ the culture include humans and some animals, all other forms of organic life have an open season target on them. And even those forms of organic life that break the rules are killed justly (criminals & warriors).
Finding a culture where it was ‘ok’ to kill those inside the culture for unfair reasons could be hard though. To my knowledge the only times this happened (and i’m no historian) was when powerful dictators killed everyone irrelevant of what was considered moral in public opinion like Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. Its in the best interest of the cultural unit to keep the obedient members of that culture alive, but everyone/thing else is fair game.
Your society, yes. But assume the person was a member of another society or was not considered relevant to society or considered a threat to society.
No, because morailty, ethics, right and wrong, are not based solely on logic. They can’t be: logic can’t tell you anything unless you have some givens, some first principles, some axioms or assumptions to work from. And philosophers and religious teachers down through the ages have debated what these first principles should be (e.g. Kant’s categorical imperative; Utilitarians’ greatest good for the greatest number).
Things like “every person has a right to life” is essentially a religious proposition. It seems self-evident to some people, but I don’t know how I’d prove it to you if you don’t already believe it, at least not without finding out what you do believe and somehow working from there.
And yes, the question of whether/why murder is inherently wrong does, or at least can, relate to other questions: whether/why abortion is wrong, whether/why capital punishment is wrong, whether/why killing people in war is wrong, whether/why euthanasia is wrong, whether/why killing animals (for meat or fur or sport or whatever) is wrong; and what, if anything, we owe to our fellow human beings even if we don’t go so far as to murder them.
There are five reasons that I can give you for why different people think killing is wrong, choose one that you think is the most reasonable and rational. Just don’t say that they all could be true depending on your beliefs. If ethics were relative, then no one could tell anyone else what they did was good or bad.
- Self-conscious beings can have desires about their own future. So killing them would be wrong because you are thwarting their desires.
Though if you kill someone painlessly, would they be upset?
- Killing is wrong because of the side-effects.
Then would it be wrong if I kill a Hobo (no one cares about him and nothing would really change)?
- A direct wrong is done to a person that wishes to go on living, because his interests are overridden and his preferences are ignored.
This means that if a person does not wish to go on living it would be ok to kill him. This also means (and this it true for number one) that if you are not conscious or self aware then it would be ok to kill you.
- All persons have a right to life.
Where does this right come from? Do we have other rights? What happens when rights conflict with one another? Why don’t I have the right to sexual intercourse every Friday?
- Principle of Autonomy. The autonomy of a rational and self-conscious being is always a reason for respecting its preferences.
Why should we respect autonomy?
Killing is as natural as fucking. It has everything to do with instinct and should have nothing to do with morals. Humans use to kill to survive, and in some cases they still do. We’re smart creatures, so we may even kill for revenge or some other purpose, the only reason our society doesn’t allow it is that it’d be hard to build a system around it. You can’t make big companies if the Boss gets killed every week out of the desire of a lower employee to become top dog.
I’d say that in the OP’s hypothetical situation, it would not be wrong to kill the infant.
I should probably explain. My system of ethics is based on happiness. An act that causes happiness is good. An act that causes unhappiness is bad. To the victim, murder is a neutral act, because when one is dead, one can no longer feel happiness or unhappiness. Murder is usually bad because it affects other people too. Family and friends of the victim will mourn and be unhappy. Since in the described situation, no one else cares about the infant, it is morally neutral.
So according to your ethic, Strinka, there’d be nothing wrong with destroying the entire world?
The first two inhibit trade (and therefore profit) between societies. As for the last, remember the Precautionary Principle: one day it might be me.
I thought I’d just pop in, write “Yes” and leave. The more fool I.
Another prize-winner from the author of “How Is A ‘Wet Willy’ So Different From Rape?” Yes, murder is wrong even if you’ve decided your baby is an inconvenience to you.
Strinka, I will say with total confidence that you don’t have a system of ethics. You have selfishness. If your ethics extend no farther than your own happiness, they’re worthless.
So you’re saying only something that causes happiness right now is good, right? Because by killing the child, you’d be robbing it of all future possibility of happiness, or put another way, the ability to experience happiness. Obviously your logic is fatally (no pun intended) flawed for reasons beyond this, but I’ll try to meet you on your level right now.
Bippy the Beardless nailed it.
The right to life is something we grant each other…it is something we want for ourselves, and we gain it by granting it to everyone else. Of course the right to life is meaningless in a universal sense, no one literally has a right to life. But if we agree to act as though we all have a right to life, we all have a much better chance of living. I don’t so much care whether you meaningless zombies live, but MY life is incalculably precious, so it is a deal I’m willing to make.
If everyone died painlessly, yes. Nothing right with it either though.
I had thought that I made it clear. Let me revise that. My system of ethics is based on veryone’s happiness. If you were to painfully kill the child, it would be an evil act. The OP specifies a painless killing.
One (I’m not killing anyone and not planning to) would also rob the child of the possibility of unhappiness. The problem with the future is that it is unknowable. One can make good guesses but there can be no certainty. If one were to give flowers to one’s new SO without realizing that s/he was allergic to them, would it be evil?
Have the other flaws already been stated or are there other ones? If the latter make a new thread; I’ll answer any questions and if you convince that my system is flawed and that there is a better system, I’ll convert.
Reminder:
Never turn your back on Strinka after you’ve stubbed your toe. After all, according to her values a quick death is better than experiencing pain.
You’ve given me no reason to revise my comment.
:: sigh :: OK, I’ll answer this and then start a new thread. (Maybe in a couple of hours; I can’t do it right this moment.
Your death would cause grief and sadness in friends and family. Surely more unhappiness than your stubbed toe. Of courseone could get an icepack, or…something…to reduce the pain without grief and unhappiness.
And BTW, FTR, I’m male. 
But if I have no friends or family, we’re okay. So as long as you pick people without friends and kill them painlessly, that’s morally neutral. Unlike hurting someone without killing them, which is bad.