The key to understanding something is to start with the definitions. "Wrong" must be defined, and that is usually the hardest thing for anyone to do.
The key to understanding the rightness or wrongness of anything is to know what it means to be right or wrong. People have a gut feeling about what rightness or wrongness is, but most people never actually bother to define it. Some people say there is no right or wrong, just people making arbitrary definitions and that's what we live by (which is a common view of government). Others say that there is something intrinsically right about some things and wrong about other things. Others claim that rightness is a universal standard but that it can change and others claim that it is simply a reflection of the society where that standard is implemented (this argument largely boils down to the arbitrary definition idea.
After defining wrong, there's still the definition of murder. Most people agree that there's a difference between killing in self defense and killing to rob someone. Is it possible that people can kill in self defense and still murder? It probably depends on how you define the word. While there are lots of ways to define murder, I personally define it (and note, this this not the legal definition of murder - legal definitions are a whole other beast all together) as "killing another for personal gain". With pure self defense you don't gain, you simply keep what you already had (your life). "Gain" can mean anything from money to power to revenge. Sure, there are a bunch of potential exceptions to this definition, but I won't go into them.
Now, then, why is murder wrong? For murder to be wrong, killing someone else for gain must include some aspect that satisfies a definition of "wrong". Pick any of the ways that I've indicated on how to define "wrong" and then explain what wrong is and then explain why murder is then wrong.
Now, I'll give my simple definition for "wrong": rejecting truth. Truth is knowledge of things as they are. I could explain more, but I won't for now.
For murder to be wrong, then, it must reject some truth. The truth that murder rejects is that a person is one individual among many - that person-ness (what makes a human a person) is dependent upon others to exist. By killing another for gain an man is rejecting his dependence on others for existing and in the process eliminates a part of what makes himself a person.
Why, then, is murder any worse than simply running away from and abandoning everybody else. For one, it is because murder is permanent while simply distancing relationships is temporary. Secondly, murder is also worse because it affects more than just the murderer. If John runs away from everyone he knows, he affects himself the most and then he also affects the people who knew him. If John kills Bill, then John affects Bill completely and irrevocably and also the people that know Bill - his actions are no longer limited to himself. Finally, there's the influence of government, which is a completely different topic.
So, that's my short answer on why murder is wrong. It's not my only answer (though it is the one I find the most convincing), I also enjoy attacking the problem from other angles (including the arbitrary definition angle).
Hopefully, if anyone actually reads this, they will disagree. I really like to hear different viewpoints and I would love to see some better answers.
6 comments:
So if killing is "wrong" if it is done for gain, then would the gain in eternal souls (which is the assumed purpose) which will increase His happiness and glory (a personal gain) mean that God killing people on Earth (such as in the flood of Noah or Sodom and Gamorah) mean that God has "murdered" or done something wrong?
Bingo, José...an omnipotent being doesn't need any gain.
I tend to take a gospel-centric view of the immorality of murder. It cuts short the super important mortal probation of an individual and thus his agency.
And if one individual kills another for no reason, a person that is independent of that person?
For example: Person A goes from New York to China and kills Person B, a small handicapped child.
Where is the gain and what dependency did Person A have on Person B?
The gain that person A gets could come from any number of things - a personal ego trip, praise from someone else, a personal sense of power, or simply a momentary sensation of pleasure.
The dependency that person A had on person B arises from the fact that person A is who he is because of interaction with other people. By intentionally killing person B, he is now living as one among some, rather than one among many - he has, in essence, willfully chosen to limit his own potential. Simply ignoring someone has the same results, but it's not a final result - murder is a final result. This means that the murder will be wrong for him and for others, too (others, for example, will miss out on the murdered persons potential contributions). The important difference, though, is that only the killer had the choice to kill.
Think of it in terms of who a person is. For example, I am who I am because of other people. I have learned, positively and negatively, directly from other individuals. I am what I am because of those that have lived before me and beside me. By murdering someone, I am claiming my independence from other people by permanently limiting what I can learn from that person. That means, instead of being one person with many to learn from, I have permanently chosen to limit my options - I am now one among few. I have chosen to limit myself. Since humanness is composed of the interaction between and exchange of ideas amongst people, I have taken something away from myself. I am now less than what I was before I murdered. That makes it wrong.
I think that real world experience makes this apparent. Many murders have claimed that the first murder is the hardest. Once they've killed someone for gain, it gets easier until, for some people, they have no feelings about committing another murder. Once you have started, you've lost something - you have rejected the truth of your interdependent relationship towards others.
You're speaking in too many generalities, absolutes, and assumptions for me to take what you're saying as any less arbitrary than any idea you've been exposed to already. I'm sure many people have given reasons for why murder is wrong; you just don't accept their reason.
Your definition of wrong is arbitrary. Your "truth", that one's personal existence is dependent on others, is not so. One can exist in isolation. Just because a person exists in a different manner than your ideal does not mean that person's existence is invalid. If one person had the ability to wipe all other people off the planet this instant, that does not stop that person from existing as a human being.
You are arbitrarily saying that humanity is dependent on social interaction. What does that say of the hermit or recluse? Are they inhuman because of their behavior?
Returning to your idea of "gain", You are making assumptions about killing. One defending oneself by killing another may have a boost of ego just as well as person A might have it from killing person B.
Perhaps someone who kills in self defense may gain pride in defending oneself or others. Are you to elevate that instance of self-defense to murder in that case?
Just as well, a psycho-path may kill because it is "natural" thing to do. Perhaps there are those who exist who think of killing as a neutral pass time. Do you dismiss such a person as a killer but not a murderer?
The recluse who lives a lifetime of seclusion takes potential from society. Is that person's action similar to murder?
Most people will never come into contact with most other people on earth. For most, the odds are next to nothing that they will ever run into a small handi-capped child from China. That hypothetical child will just as likely never run into a psychopath living in the United States. Considering this example, how can you say deny the existence of cases in which traditional murders would be labeled differently?
A person would be a different person without people, but that person would still be a person. You have put an arbitrary value on humanity's current existence. As you said in the beginning of your article, the golden rule does not appeal to all people in all situations. There are people who believe people's current existence is less than optimal. Who are you to suppose a golden rule of existence?
I think that Jay_MMS Has refuted your answer- or possibly what you think is an answer to a question that while you have defined very nicely, really have left us with no answer. He said " Who are you to define a golden rule..." I continue his thought if I may.
You said - "The way I see it...": I ask you before you came along was murder wrong?
Also, there are societies that don't agree with "Murder is wrong"- There are many examples - The terrorists that brought down the twin towers- Or the Jihad in general.Look at the Kamikaze pilots. There is also cannibalism in Africa and so on and so forth.
They don't believe as we do that survival is the "Human" definition.
(besides - your answer doesn't address a person who is a "vegetable" and to pull the plug would cause more relief than pain- to him and his family)
Had you been born in any of these societies than your outlook would be different- You may or may not believe that murder is wrong, but it CAN be justified.
Therefore with no frame of reference- or someone or something that CAN define this "golden rule" you are just justifying what your societies norms are, and again I ask; what happened before this society?
You are trying to answer a Moral question rationally, and you have left the question unanswered - in this particular case rational and morals aren't equal. actually those who think that they are the same- meaning to say if murder was based on reason or rational, here are some examples of what happens if I CAN somehow make murder rational... well then I can do it: Let's just look at the past century and bring a small amount of examples... Hitler Killed 6 million Jews. Stalin killed how many? Africans are still being butchered as are kurds under muslim regime.
Yet here we stand although some believe that they can kill. (Also in american society not too long ago- the murder of slaves was acceptable- but let's not get to close to home for comfort.)
I can't agree more with Jay_MMS... "you" have decided... well what if I decide differently?
While your answer may be more eloquently written than my objection, that's all there is to it.
I appreciate your effort, but it gives no substantial answer. Also, I found I must object as you might have caused more harm than you could have foreseen.
I would also like to add that a real and substantial answer to this particular question has affirmed many peoples belief in a higher power- call him God or whatever you like.
As only an entity that is timeless can make "Golden rules".
If you don't believe in God well then disregard this past paragraph, but your disregard in essence isn't much different than those who have used even better "rational" to justify Murder.
I just hope that you don't take this as a personal affront to you, but if you are to try and answer a question such as this - well citing a source, bringing some evidence would be appropriate... again... WHO ARE YOU???
Post a Comment