I think this is where you’ve gone wrong. “Rational” and “moral” are distinct concepts. If I want $20, and you have $20, and I kill you and take your $20, that was a rational solution to my problem of not having $20. On the other hand, if I kill you because I want you to stop beaming radio messages into my head, that’s not a rational solution to my problem, because you aren’t beaming anything into my head, and my actions not only do not resolve my problem, they’re entirely unrelated to my problem.
Yes, this. Murder is illegal so we can lock up, kill or medicate into a stupor those who do it. Which we do depends on why they murdered.
Which makes it very different from the current push to make all or more guns illegal, which is where I expect the OP is going with this, so I’ll just set up that straw man now. That one’s stupid, because not everyone who owns/uses a gun needs to be locked up, killed or medicated into a stupor, only those who use guns aggressively to terrorize or murder other people. Terrorism and murder are already illegal.
Murder is inherently wrong, and, even if it’s not possible to stop all murders through the law, any functional society will still want the ability to punish those who have committed murder. This does not map on to “means to an end” laws such as, to pick a surely random example, laws against gun ownership.
Yes, and I believe that the OP is trying to make that false equivalency. The gun owner argument that he is playing off of is basically:
“If someone is going to commit murder, a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, why would he care about violating a gun law which would prescribe a penalty far less than that?”
The analogy breaks down if there are no laws or punishments against gun possession OR murder.
Murder, by definition, is an illegal act. Perhaps the OP wants to ask: why is it illegal to kill someone? And the answer is: Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. Well, why is killing someone illegal sometimes? Answer: We are a country of laws. You can’t arrest someone for something unless there is a law against that something.
In societies that lack laws, there is still tradition and custom. Generally speaking, if you kill someone in those societies, you pay whatever price custom dictates. Whether that is exile, giving the family compensation, or marrying the dead guys widow. But custom and tradition can be interpreted different ways by different people.
I think most of us prefer the rule of law rather than the rule of man.
I am not sure that that is accurate.
I seem to recall from an ancient* anthropology course that murder and incest are two actions that are prohibited in all societies. The definitions of murder and incest can differ in very wide scope, (OK to kill someone outside the tribe, but not inside the tribe; OK to expose a baby but not to smash the head of a three-year-old; royalty may marry siblings to keep the crown line “pure,” but commoners are not accorded the same rules; OK to marry paternal cousin but not a maternal cousin or the reverse, etc.), but all societies have a tabu against killing some people as variously defined.
- Meaning I took it in my youth, a very long time ago, not that it was a course specifically on prehistoric societies.
I think this is the ultimate answer. Murder is against the law not as a deterrent, but as a means of defining just what exactly constitutes murder as opposed to another form of killing, and to spell out the penalties for committing murder. The common definition and penalty provides for some approximation of uniform justice within the society.
Murder as I understand it is non justifiable killing. if you kill somebody and are charged with murder, if they find out you acted in a way that you had no choice, you may be let free or lesser charges: manslaughter and different degrees of murder..
Think of it that you did something to someone that they didn’t give you permission to do. If you take something from someone without their permission that is a universal crime which anyone knows by instinct without laws.
Same as if you stick a needle in someone. when a doctor does it it is usually by consent or necessary. If someone comes to you and does it, it is a crime against the person. You didn’t give them permission. Same as murder you stuck a bullet in someone without their permission which resulted in the taking or removal of their life from them without their consent. You STOLE from them so to speak. So without laws this is a universal crime against the person.
Punishments/consequences were set to discourage inclined persons from doing this.
vyVY
I honestly can’t believe this is a real topic. Y’all are getting your leg pulled.
[MOSTLY IRRELEVANT DETAILS]
Also unclaimed by anyone is the Bir Tawil Triangle. Neither Egypt or Sudan want it. Bir Tawil - Wikipedia
The people you’re thinking of are called the Senitelese, and they are aware that other people exist. They do, however, attack anyone who comes to visit them, so very few people bother anymore. Sentinelese - Wikipedia
[/MOSTLY]
Because of the whole slippery slope problem:
“If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.” (Thomas de Quincey)
Ooooh, that’s how I got here…
:rolleyes: Are you really this naive? The law threatens to execute or imprison people who commit murders. Isn’t this obvious?
I can’t believe this thread is serious.
Yes I was trying to propose a (false) equivalency here … in case anyone was wondering about my motivations. Anyway the resultant discussion(s) are very interesting … but my intent was to propose that equivalency, not ask whether murder is illegal in other places, or imply that murder is only illegal in the US.
I never would have guessed your motivations, as I stopped following all the gun threads long ago.
Jesus. I think this place has the most literal-minded people on the internet.
And the analogy works perfectly, because you’re attacking the argument: that guns should be legal because a law wouldn’t stop people from owning guns.
Maybe they should be and maybe they shouldn’t, but the argument that they should be because people would own them anyway is dumb.
Love this board, just sayin’
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say if there were no consequences for murder, we’d probably see a lot more of it. So, in essence, Iceqube you’re wrong, homey.
There is no such thing as “inherently” separate and aside from a moral or legal (defined as “a set of rules governing people”) framework.
If I send 1000 newborns to a desert island with the means of growing and learning language but without any moral/legal/religious training, the society they develop may well consider murder acceptable.
Hell, how many times has someone “gotten away with murder” quite literally? I remember a case in the Ozarks 30+ years ago - small town with small town bully who lived just outside town. Despised by everyone in town. One bright sunny day he was in town getting supplies; as he was loading his truck, somebody did the town a favor and used a shotgun as an eraser. There was no police force in the town, so it fell to the state police. Absolutely no one saw anything - middle of the day, on the main street. Nobody. The only person who objected was his widow who just lost her status, if not her income.
Reading of boom towns in the old US west, the concept of “he had it comin’” seems to have been common.
See Post #24. The argument is not: “Laws won’t stop people from owning guns.” Many people want to obey the law, and a law against guns would keep them out of the hands of people who typically obey the law.
The argument IS that if you take person A who has no reservations about violating the most basic law of man, murder, which is punishable by death or life in prison, that same person will not be dissuaded in the least by violating a gun law which has a punishment considerably less than that.
Could you imagine one hypothetical person who would otherwise murder someone but say, “Gee, gun ownership is punishable by a ($500 fine/year in jail/$1 million fine/10 years in jail) so I had better not get a hold of that gun. My planned murder is cancelled.”?