• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Philosophical Argument?

S

Sauwan

Active member
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
275
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Can anyone give me a philosophical argument where they can defeat the claim:

Justified murder is still murder.

It seems like you have to start with the claim "Murder is bad". But then somehow it needs to turn into "Murder - in some cases - is good". I'm defining murder as simply "The deliberate infringement on anothers right to life".

To do this philosophical leap though, one almost surely would need to take a nihilistic take on morality and claim there is no "true morality", only a strong subjective claim where at least %50 of the population would need to agree.
 
The pro-death penalty argument states that someone commiting a death-worthy crime has given up their right to life of their own violition.
 
Thelost1 said:
The pro-death penalty argument states that someone commiting a death-worthy crime has given up their right to life of their own violition.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I forgot to address that.

How does one go about giving up their right to life? Is that a contract they sign and agree to? Why can some people do that and not others? (Consider Dr. Kevorkian's case...who actually is in the process of being released right now)

To make this claim that someone has their basic right to life....except when they do ______ is doing no more than making the interesting normative claim that "Everyone should be allowed to live, unless they do something we, as society, see unfit". That is, of course, unless you want to make the claim that when someone commits a crime that is "death-worthy" they consciously make the choice to lose their right to their life.

However, this again is no better than the judgment which these people most likely have made themselves. They have made a subjective judgment as to who they feel have the right to live, and who do not.

Again, by making this subjective claim, a commitment to Moral Relativism or Nihilism must be accepted.
 
Sauwan said:
Justified murder is still murder.
Click to expand...

It's impossible, no matter what definition of "murder" you use.

However, can you philosophically demonstrate how all homicide-- or even all intentional homicide-- is murder? I maintain that there are many situations in which homicide is morally justified, and several in which it is morally obligatory, and in those cases homicide is not murder.

Some folk just need killin'.

Sauwan said:
To do this philosophical leap though, one almost surely would need to take a nihilistic take on morality and claim there is no "true morality", only a strong subjective claim where at least %50 of the population would need to agree.
Click to expand...

One need not accept your notion of "true morality" in order to believe that it exists-- one need only believe that your understanding of this "true morality" is flawed.

A believer in subjective morality need not accept majoritarian morality, either. Because I define what is moral and what is not-- not only for myself, but for everyone else-- other peoples' subjective notions of morality are meaningless whether it is one person's vision or shared by every living human being save myself.
 
Murder is not the taking of the life of another. It's the unlawful taking of the life of another. Taking the life of another with legal justification is not, in fact, murder.
 
Patrickt said:
Murder is not the taking of the life of another. It's the unlawful taking of the life of another. Taking the life of another with legal justification is not, in fact, murder.
Click to expand...
You're both just debating the definition of the word murder here. I explicitly defined it in the first post. If you are more comfortable using a word like killing or homicide, with the same definition as I outlined previously, feel free. Again, I don't care what you call it, or how you justify it. It just demonstrates a incoherence within your viewpoints...which is something I see deeply afflicting many political stances.


One need not accept your notion of "true morality" in order to believe that it exists-- one need only believe that your understanding of this "true morality" is flawed.
Click to expand...
Explain how.

I don't believe I was asserting this at all.
 
Sauwan said:
You're both just debating the definition of the word murder here.
Click to expand...

Because the definition you provided is flawed. It assumes the objective existence and definition of human rights, including the "right to life"-- and probably includes hidden assumptions about what actions might lead a person to forfeit that right.

For instance, do soldiers in war forfeit their right to life? What if they are killed by their own comrades? Do murderers forfeit their right to life? Anyone currently acting in aggression?

We're debating your definitions because they're too vague.

Sauwan said:
It just demonstrates a incoherence within your viewpoints...which is something I see deeply afflicting many political stances.
Click to expand...

My viewpoint is clear. It just does not include beliefs you assume to be true. You are welcome, at any point, to demonstrate how human beings possess a right to life... and any particular details about that right that would help clarify your position.

Korimyr the Rat said:
One need not accept your notion of "true morality" in order to believe that it exists-- one need only believe that your understanding of this "true morality" is flawed.
Click to expand...
Sauwan said:
Explain how.
Click to expand...

If two men believe that there is an objective, true morality but disagree upon the details of that morality, at least one of them must logically be wrong. Since each man believes that his own understanding of morality is correct... that must mean that he believes that the other man is wrong.

Were I to ascribe "objectivity" to my own set of moral values, I could point out the areas where they differ from yours-- such as the inclusion of the "right to life"-- as errors and in most cases demonstrate inconsistency.

Of course, you could probably return the favor fairly handily.
 

I don't like the term "murder" but I will go for killing is killing is killing! And when it comes to one human killing another it takes alot for me to justify the action but if I kill someone, even with justification, I still killed someone.

However while the act of killing is the same "act" (the terminating of a human life) I would feel differently about the act depending on how it happened. I wouldn't hesitate to kill a man or woman who was actively in the process of trying to kill me. However I would refuse to kill a man or woman when no immediate danger is evident. I don't like "revenge" killing. I find it distasteful and void of honor.
 
Last edited:
Oh an on the nihilistic thing I disagee. Though killing is killing the how and why are important to morality and good vs evil ect. Anotherwards a man who goes out to kill someone because he enjoys killing is not operating on the same morality as the man who kills defending his child's life. Even if both men take action that results in the death of another they are operating on different moral codes and good vs bad or however you view morality remains intact.

Another example would be a man who accidently runs over a small child who ran out in the street unexpectedly. Let's say the driver is completely not at fault and the child ran into the street from between two cars and there is nothing the man could have done to stop. The child dies. The driver basically killed the child with his car.

Now take another man who drives around intent on finding a child to run down and kill with his car on purpose. If he succeeds the result is the same. A driver killed a child with his car.

But those two men were clearly operating on different moral principles and while the actual "act" and "result" is the same and in both cases a child is hit by a car and dies the behaviors are not comparable. And calling one evil while viewing the other one as not evil can be done while keeping your moral consistency completely intact.

Does that make sense?
 
Killing is simply an act. Intent and context mean everything. All animals have to kill to survive or let something else do the killing. Nobody blames the wolf for eating the deer or the deer for eating the grass. Therefor, you should have first stated that you were talking about humans.

Among humans, context and intent means everything. Humans can kill each other purely by accident. Humans can be put into situations where one must kill the other to survive. Humans can be put into situations where killing is the only way of avoiding serious consequences (like slavery or rape). Few people would call such acts evil. Morals are relative, considering that you can't really find any sort of innate universal code. That said, many people can find some common ground in moral codes. That is where things like law come from.

As far as your argument, "the justified killing of humans is still the killing of a human" I say "the act of killing another human being is not wrong." The intent of the killer and context of the situation decide right or wrong.

Making a fire can save someone from freezing to death or it can burn someone to death.
 
Big Fish Little Fish

"Big Fish Little Fish"

Morality is subjective, relative, it does not exist ab initio or ex nihilo, it is not inalienable, period.

Homicide is one person killing another, under any condition.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Guilt only exists for the institution that can enforce a decree of law.

Saddam Hussein retaliated against those that tried to kill him.
Saddam is guilty because an institution exists capable of exacting its decree of law.
George Bush, et. al. could be found guilty of wrongful arrest, or murder based on a war of false pretenses; that is, if there were an institution capable of enforcing a decree of law.
Were Saddam's weapons of mass destruction more catastrophic than a MOAB?

Draconian law, where capital punishment is implemented for minor infractions, is not unlawful killing, unless another institution capable of enforcing a decree of law exists.

Given the war and rules of engagement between Shia, Sunni, and other tribes, in that it is a primal free for all, it is pompous tripe that Saddam is found guilty. After all, there is no law except that of power over another.
 
Easy. Murder, by definition, is not justified. Therefore, once murder is justified, it is not murder. Squared circles are no longer circles, brightened darkness is no longer darkness, and justified murder is no longer murder.
 
This is probably a shock but you don't get to initiate a discussion by creating new definitions for words. Justified killing is in fact killing. That's true. And, justified killing is justified. If I kill in self-defense, it's justified. If I kill to protect another innocent person, it's justified. Your question is, "Is executing a person for murder justified?"
 
Sauwan said:
Can anyone give me a philosophical argument where they can defeat the claim:

Justified murder is still murder.
Click to expand...

Easily. The death penalty, being legal, cannot be murder because murder is defined as killing not sanctioned by law. Hence, you cannot call the DP murder in any shape or form. Attempting to use the term 'murder' where it so clearly doesn't apply is an emotional appeal, not a rational one.

It seems like you have to start with the claim "Murder is bad". But then somehow it needs to turn into "Murder - in some cases - is good". I'm defining murder as simply "The deliberate infringement on anothers right to life".
Click to expand...

Then you are misusing the term and assuming that anyone has a 'right to life'. Obviously, that is untrue. No one has an absolute right to life. Go into war and get killed, so much for your right to life. Commit a crime so heinous that you get the death penalty. No right to life. The fact of the matter is, everyone dies, there is no inherent right to life whatsoever.

To do this philosophical leap though, one almost surely would need to take a nihilistic take on morality and claim there is no "true morality", only a strong subjective claim where at least %50 of the population would need to agree.
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective, no one can demonstrate the existence of an objective morality that holds true across cultural, ethnic and national lines and across time. I doubt you can find any moral value that everyone has always agreed with.
 
You are all forgetting why we kill those who kill. Regardless of the definition of murder, Those who take life do not deserve life. This is the basis of several codes of punishment. It is very effective in what it does. It eliminsates undesireables from the nation it is effecting. It keeps dangerous people out of the lives of the citizens. It also shows the nation that they are doing something about crime, instead of crowding criminals into already crowded jails. If there is anything wrong with the death penalty, it is that it does'nt work fast enough.
 

Oh, please. Have you ever seen the news stories or read anything about people who are on Death Row and what they think about their impending death? They're relieved.

People who kill, generally, aren't so afraid of death. They don't hold delusions about their punishment. They know they'll be killed. For most people, it's a relief to be killed, rather than to have to live in a prison for so many years. Hell, it doesn't even matter what they think anyway. The point is that punishment is in the eyes of the punished.


Anyway, if we reciprocate killing with more killing, where do we draw the line? Do we kill the executioner? He killed someone, he injected the person with poison. "Those who take life do not deserve life", you said. I don't see how you could rationalize that.
 
Gunface said:
Oh, please. Have you ever seen the news stories or read anything about people who are on Death Row and what they think about their impending death? They're relieved.
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop them from filing an obscene number of frivolous appeals to stop themselves from being put to death though, does it? That's why the death penalty costs so much, not because it's expensive to put someone to death, but because of the ridiculous amount of legal wrangling that is done to stop the penalty from actually being carried out.

If we limited appeals to only those that actually sought to prove INNOCENCE, the whole legal system would be immensely streamlined.

And no, why in the world would we kill the executioner? Murder is defined as killing *NOT SANCTIONED BY LAW*. We don't kill soldiers that kill for their country, we don't kill those who kill in self defense, since enforcing the law is not illegal, what idiot would say we should kill the executioner?

Some people are just not clear on the concept of justice.
 
Cephus said:
-snip-
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but he said that "regardless of your definition of murder", "those who take life do not deserve life". The executioner takes a life. And thus, he doesn't deserve a life. I'm not criticizing what you believe, I'm criticizing how he worded his justification of the death penalty.

Anyway, I *was* being sort of vague. When I said that, I meant like the serial killer type, the really "undesirable" part of society, who weren't afraid of the death penalty so much. Not everyone on death row. Sorry.
 
Gunface said:
Excuse me, but he said that "regardless of your definition of murder", "those who take life do not deserve life".
Click to expand...

It's not my definition of murder, it's *THE* definition of murder. You can't redefine terms as you see fit. Since the OP's definitions were completely ridiculous, the argument that followed was invalid.
 

Says who though? I gave several examples of people who take life and do not deserve to be killed, in fact they are considered heroes. This whole thread is really ridiculous because it starts with a very basic error, a complete misunderstanding of what murder is.
 
Gunface said:
I'm with Galen. I was only trying to point out the incredible ridiculousness of the statement that death should be responded by more death.
Click to expand...

And what's wrong with that? It's called justice, maybe you've heard of it? Those who violate the law in such heinous ways deserve nothing less than being removed permanently from the air-breathing population of this planet.
 
...that's what I was trying to point out. Don't make me go through this again.

He said that "regardless of your definition of murder", people who kill don't deserve a life.
Under his logic, the executioner should be put to death, too? That's ridiculous.

That's all I was trying to say.
 

The whole thread is pretty ridiculous, I think we're all pretty much in agreement anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…