Morality on Murder/Death

Effluo

Hi
i'm not a big reader of philosophy but i do think quite a bit about "philosophical matters".

For the last few months i've been debating with myself and a few friends about death.

I don't see death as something all bad.
It is unknown and life isn't exactly easy!

Whether there's a heaven or indeed just that hole in the ground, i don't see a major issue with it.

Death in general is quite a bit of a taboo, especially when discussing this type of view. A lot of people would see this as a suicidal view and it's really not, i'm not on the cliff edge.
I'm just looking for other peoples opinions on it.

Also something which would lead on from this kind of conversation is the morality on a "painless" murder.
Emphasis on the word painless

cheers

Joe1919

Effluo wrote: »

Also something which would lead on from this kind of conversation is the morality on a "painless" murder.
Emphasis on the word painless

cheers

There is no such thing as a painless murder or death. Someone who dies or is murdered nearly always leaves a loss behind with their friends or family.

The point about murder is that 'what type of life would it be for the living if murder was legal.' This would give the powerful absolute control and power over the lives of the non-powerful . Absolute power corrupts and hense life would be intolerable if we lost our concept of our right to live.

Your idea is not new. During the French revolution, the guilettine was meant to be a painless death and was used in the reign of terror. Some argue that this 'Terror' that was brough on by the devaluation of life was so depressing and heavy that when it was lifted, Paris erupted in joy and estacy from its liberation.The tragedy of the holocost was not only the suffering of the jews but the loss of many millions of them. Similarly, in the world wars, the troops suffered death but those at home also suffered the loss of loved ones, husbands, fathers etc.

I definately dont agree with you. I would hate to live in the 'Reign of Terror' that could result from your thinking.

Offalycool

Life is not black and white, death is a fact of life and some people believe they have a right to die, painlessly. In some instances I would agree.
Some people will tell us that we should live this life in accordance to some rules so that we may prepare for the afterlife. Others believe that coming to terms with death, the acceptance that our existence is finite justifies living a full life in this world. I know what I believe.

Effluo

Hey Joe1919

Right you seem to be getting into the reason why murder is illegal. And yes you make good points i agree, but what i was getting at was more about the morality of it all!

You speak about the pain which family members would go through, and also yes that's what i've figured to be the main "problem" with death. Depriving them of their life.

Also i didn't say this in the first post but how about "the greater good?"

Dexter style rather than Hot Fuzz obviously.
Example, say Hitler is standing there in front of you in the 1930's. Is it morally wrong to kill him?

I don't think so, but then I would have to consider the fact that he could change, become someone good and help others.

Joe1919

I suppose we need to be careful about what exactly we mean by murder. e.g execution, assisted suicide, unlawful killing etc. Murder is generally defined as unlawful killing, hence my response.
One of the absurdities of the holocost was (afaik)that it was perfectly legal by the law of the state and all kinds of new legal concepts (e.g. crimes against humanity) had to be thought up to justify the Nuremburg trials.

I dont personally think your question can be answered in a absolute or metaphysical way. Its more a question of wise judgement. Saadam Hussain probably deserved his punishment but I would not call this murder but execution.

DadaKopf

You could say that choosing to end one's own life is not a moral dilemma. But choosing to end another's life is a moral dilemma. Albert Camus, in his philosophical work The Myth of Sysiphus and his novel The Outsider, reflected on this dilemma. He felt the universe to be meaningless, and that that found its expression in people as absurdity. Samuel Beckett was a contemporary. An existentialist, he was an individualist who embraced, logically, the idea of absolute freedom of choice. The moral dilemma: what prevents free-choosing individuals from committing suicide? While an ultimate individual choice, even he felt that suicied was not 'right' as it negated life, negated the essence of the human condition. The point of existence is to live. But in his book, The Outsider, a man chooses to kill an Arab man, he is arrested, and in 1950s Algeria this would not have been a serious crime, but he is condemned because he shows no remorse. He did it, he will live with it. And so he is condemned for not 'playing the game'. But was the murder immoral?

But others, like Christians, see every life as sacred and so it's a sin to commit suicide and to murder. Philosophically, Immanuel Kant followed this line: human being has intrinsic worth. But it is arrived at through rationality. His moral law was this: whatever you decided to do, ask what effect that that action would have on the world if everyone did it. In other words: what would happen if you universalise a concrete action. If the outcome ends in 'logical inconsistency', it is immoral. For example: what if I killed someone?; what if everyone killed each other?; logical inconsistency; therefore it is immoral to commit suicide. Well, this is a basic version of the theory - his 'Categorical Imperative'.

Anyway, pay attention to language. Die, suicide, kill, murder. How do the meanings of these words differ? What do you mean by them?

Effluo

DadaKopf wrote: »

You could say that choosing to end one's own life is not a moral dilemma. But choosing to end another's life is a moral dilemma.

When people die they leave a trail of pain and grief.

Surely then this is has something to do with the morality of suicide and murder!
For suicide they take their own life leaving a lot of grieving parents, relations and friends.
For murder it is the murderer who inflicts the grief on the relations and friends.

Surely this is a morale problem with suicide and murder!

deereidy

Whether you think death is a big deal right now is irrelevant. Fact is, people are hardwired to be afraid of dying,that's why you don't put your hand in the fire or stand too close to the edge, at least not without sweaty palms.

dreamlogic

Effluo wrote: »

When people die they leave a trail of pain and grief.

Surely then this is has something to do with the morality of suicide and murder!
For suicide they take their own life leaving a lot of grieving parents, relations and friends.
For murder it is the murderer who inflicts the grief on the relations and friends.

Surely this is a morale problem with suicide and murder!

What if a person is killed(by whatever means) who has no family or friends? Is their death morally wrong?
Not saying you're implying it's not; just throwing in the question.

Effluo

dreamlogic wrote: »

What if a person is killed(by whatever means) who has no family or friends? Is their death morally wrong?
Not saying you're implying it's not; just throwing in the question.

I would say it depends on what type of person they are.
If they were a good person with potential to do good things for other people then yes i would consider it to be morally wrong whether they had relations/friends or not.

However if they were a cruel, ignorant and general menace which would inflict pain & suffering onto others, then it would almost be a morally good thing to "do the deed" if they had no friends or family.

However if they did have friends and family i believe the morality of their "killing" would come down to the greater good, which i was talking about previously.

Joycey

Someone dying is neither good or bad in and of itself. It can only be good or bad to the extent that the one about to die or us remaining beings on earth perceive it as such.

If there are people who think that dying is inherently bad and feel regret, sadness, remorse, grief, guilt or whatever as a result of that person dying, then the death is bad. If there is no one to feel this way about it then it is neither good or bad.

Effluo

Joycey wrote: »

Someone dying is neither good or bad in and of itself. It can only be good or bad to the extent that the one about to die or us remaining beings on earth perceive it as such.

Please read the previous posts before posting in the future...

cheers

Joycey

Effluo wrote: »

Please read the previous posts before posting in the future...

cheers

Im not sure I understand why you think I didnt.

Dying is not good or bad or moral in and of itself. If a human being or any other entity capable of doing so perceives it as one or the other, then it is good or bad to the extent that they feel it to be the case.

This is, course, only an opinion. How would I know if theres some kind of metaphysical worth which attaches to the loss of life? Personally I doubt it though...

dreamlogic

Effluo wrote: »

I would say it depends on what type of person they are.
If they were a good person with potential to do good things for other people then yes i would consider it to be morally wrong whether they had relations/friends or not.

However if they were a cruel, ignorant and general menace which would inflict pain & suffering onto others, then it would almost be a morally good thing to "do the deed" if they had no friends or family.

However if they did have friends and family i believe the morality of their "killing" would come down to the greater good, which i was talking about previously.

Obviously the whole thing is a difficult question but you give quite an interesting and thought-provoking answer here it has to be said.

One thing your answer prompts me to wonder about is what it would imply for the future considering the growing trend for smaller families(less children, more divorces), people staying single for longer, more likely to live alone, less likely to mingle with neighbours or get involved in community, more likely to spend their free time with distant/online friends than old-fashioned in-the-flesh(easier to define?) friends.
So if a person keeps very much to themselves, who is to say whether they are a good or moral person if they don't really interact with anyone?
Or maybe this very fact that they are not a people-person is in itself enough to not make them a good person? Or is more evidence and further investigation required?

Which in turn leads me to wonder whether a person's life is considered more valueable if they are well-known, in the public-eye maybe? Or do they have to be well-liked also?
For example if someone assassinates a corrupt, "cruel, ignorant" president of a large country, does the fact that he is so well-known make his life more valuable even though his death really is for the greater good because of the thousands of lives that will be saved by wars he would've waged etc.
When you think about it, the answer to this is almost implicit in the fact that the word "assassinate" is reserved for such "special" killings. Similar to how people never talk about the life of soldier being taken as "murder". He or she was merely "killed". Or in war a civilian death is "collateral damage". There are many more examples...