Make a case against murder

Great Debates
21

Of all of our moral rules, I think murder is probably the most basic and easiest to logically defend. There’s a couple of arguments that come to mind.

First, the simplest and weakest argument is the tautological argument. By definition, murder is the unlawful killing of a person. As such, murder must be illegal, otherwise the definition is violated. Yeah… it’s weak, and I’d doubt anyone would be convinced by it, but, whatever.

Second is the social contract argument. A society is, by definition, a group of people living together under some form of order. This order is a set of rules by which everyone in the society agrees to live. Of these rules, that murder is forbidden MUST be included, as any other rule we make to order a society becomes baseless. That is, any other rule can be superseded or trumped by engaging in murder. For example, if we agree that stealing is wrong but murder is okay, a person who is forbidden to steal can simply murder anyone who disagrees with his action of taking an object he desires.

Third is a combination argument of comparing rights as absolutes vs. social conventions. If we assume the first, like with the argument above, it follows that a right to life is the most basic because any other right we may have is meaningless if we’re not alive to enjoy it. Thus, in creating a society to protect one’s rights, it logically follows to protect the most basic rights first, and as the right to life is the most basic, if any rights will be protected, that one must be.

The second part to that would be assuming the opposite, if we have no rights and they only exist as a construct of a society. A society is only successful if it has citizens that are able to live, work, and trade to further the success of a society. A society that cannot protect its citizens is unable to be productive in work and trade.

22

As I recall, Jared Diamond describes a human culture where murder is commonplace in Guns, Germs and Steel. They were about to hold a tribal meeting of some sort and there was much tension since a gathering a dozen people was almost certain to end in violence, which it did.

I’m in a room right now with a dozen or more people. I’m reasonably confident emotions are under control. This is preferable.

23

That may be true for us, but we need to convince an otherwordly, amoral being that our logic should matter to him.

Say that you and I presuppose that it is necessary to wear red every day. As such, we will logically decide to stop eating plants that create red pigments, since that would endanger our source of red, and it’s a given that we need red dye.

Our decision to not eat red plants is logical, based on the shared end-desire. But that shared end-desire is arbitrary. To an alien - or really, anyone who isn’t you and I - it’s just arbitrary. The fact that you and I chose the same thing and through some logic came to the same conclusions about it does not mean that others have any reason to buy into what we’re selling.

If the otherworldly, amoral being is not of human biology, does not live on Earth, then our axioms are going to appear arbitrary to it, unless there’s an extra-human universal axiom that can be brought into it.

24

You’re in a meeting and you’re posting to an Internet chat room on your phone? You may be closer to a violent death at the hands of a dozen or more people than you may think! :wink:

25

My genes won’t propagate if I let myself die of boredom.

26

All logical arguments are either purely formal (e.g., given a implies b, show that not-b implies not-a) or they’re based on premises (assumptions given in the premise).

There is no such thing as a logical argument about the world that doesn’t include assumptions or unchallenged assertions.

Values are basically assertions: I value X. You value X. Given that we both value X, let’s agree not to take X away from each other.

It doesn’t get any more logical than that. True that it’s not pure logic. Nothing worth talking about in the real world is purely logical. Assuming our alien friend isn’t ignorant, he’ll be aware of that.

If he’s ignorant, then Skald the Rhymer’s argument should suffice.

27

You misspelled “threat.” Or perhaps “mockery.”

28

I don’t want to be killed. That’s good enough reason for me.

29

Most of you are making this way too complicated. Murder is a denial of all future experiences. Is locking someone in a comfortable room for the rest of their life wrong? They’re not suffering. Murder is just taking it one step further. Everything they ever thought they might do is denied. All hopes, all dreams, all goals, stolen. Of course it’s wrong. I think a logical being would understand that.

30

I agree with that, it’s the basis of my argument, I don’t think it’s enough. The denial of experiences, in and of itself, doesn’t inherently make something immoral. We do not, in general, consider it immoral to lock someone up who has committed a crime, nor do we, in general, consider it immoral to kill someone in self-defense or during combat, and to certain extents, as punishment for certain crimes or as euthanasia to prevent suffering. That is, killing a person, in and of itself, isn’t inherently immoral, it is the REASON that a person that is killed that makes it immoral.

Let’s consider the idea that our perfectly logical being is a computer that has obtained artificial consciousness. If this being has then decided on a course of action, perhaps deciding it wants to hoard resources to design and build improved versions of itself, then THAT is it’s goal, and unless it seems humanity as a means to an end, or at least certain humans, it may be apathetic to the demise or even genocide of humanity. In fact, there’s the whole idea of Asimov’s three rules as being a requirement to be programmed in, perhaps because morality may not be an emergent behavior inherent to consciousness, particularly artificial consciousness.

Or let’s consider potentially a race of super advanced aliens that have, more or less, Vulcaned themselves into being perfectly logical. Maybe they come by Earth, see that we have an abundance of some resources that we need. Does our life, in and of itself, inherently have value? Certainly WE respect life, but why? I can’t say for certain that an alien race wanting to harvest our resources wouldn’t show any more regard for our life than we might for the field mice, shrews, birds, squirrels, and insects that might live on a plot of land we intend to cultivate into a new Walmart or housing development. Hell, other than a few random wacky activists, you’re not going to see anyone protesting that, at least not on the “think about the field mice” reason, but rather because they do or don’t want those things for economic reasons or whatever.

As such, I think we can only really make a case for it internal to human societies, and even then, it’s in the context of what is best for society. The denial of those experiences, particularly to one person, could actually further other goals in and of themselves. Certainly, it is wrong because it denies the usefulness of any other right, but I think all that does is say that we should have certain rights or protections, but not really following through with why those are good things. After all, there have been societies that have existed more or less with the idea that might makes right, wherein the powerful can essentially murder others as they please.

31

I wouldn’t say its wrong to a purely logical being. In fact, I wouldn’t even get into the whole morality of it because such a being wouldn’t care or understand morality, I think. Instead I would argue that murder should be prevented because a vast majority of people don’t want that to happen and they have the means to enforce it.

32

Murder is wrong only because it’s in the self interest of all humans to not get murdered.

33

The word “only” dies not belong in that sentence.

34

Well, as a philosopher once put it…

…oh, you know what? Just watch the video for yourselves.

35

You mentioned the word “logical”…
If you’re looking for a logical explanation, there isn’t any, because the words *right * and wrong do not belong into the wold of logic. If logic, however, is not a requirement, you could just slap her/him and leave him the burden of explaining why slapping him/her is wrong. It should apply in the case of murder.

36

I don’t think it is too hard to find reasons to prohibit murder on a logical basis. The hard thing is to find reasons that prohibit murder but allow for war.

Saying I have the right to kill X to prevent him from taking my sheep, but X doesn’t have the right to kill me for my sheep, is going to be a bit harder to justify.

37

n/m

38

Just ask, “Do you want a society in which people are permitted to murder you?”

39

I’m not sure any of us could understand a purely logical being, and I’m damn sure it wouldn’t understand us.