Why is Murder Wrong?

I've read books by philosophers and I've had the conversation with as many people as will talk to me about it, but very few people actually give a reason. The golden rule is nice, but I don't think it really applies. Take shopping, for instance - the whole point of shopping is to get as good of a deal as possible. If it's okay for me to get as good of a deal as possible, why is it not okay for the online stores to get as good of a deal as possible, too? If we can basically rip them off, we do. Why do we cry foul if they do anything like canceling an order that they're about to lose money on? Life isn't about perfect reciprocity (think "a tooth for a tooth"), so I want an answer that actually reflects what it is.

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.

College Football Does Not Depend On Tradition

People are constantly arguing that the tradition of college bowls is such that they can't be eliminated. Yeah, and Army is still a force to be reckoned with.

College bowl games were established as glorified exhibition games to end the season (ever heard of the Pro Bowl?). In fact, until 1968, the National Champion was crowned BEFORE THE BOWL GAMES. If we really want to get back to tradition, shouldn't we start voting on teams as soon as the season's over. Congratulations Ohio State on winning the 2007 National Championship!

I guess tradition didn't matter so much in 1968. I wonder why it matters so much now? Might be because the people directing such endeavors didn't do their history. Or maybe they're still living in a delusional world where you can't double the number of competitive football teams in 50 years even though the population of the country doubles. Or where we can't easily travel long distances to play outside our conferences even though we have easy access to charter jets. Or where all you have to do to be the "best" in the country is beat up on some lower tier non-BCS teams and then only lose once or twice in your conference.

What we want is a champion - forget the so called tradition of playing games in certain stadiums (half of which need to be razed anyway) and let's get to the matter at hand. People might resist change, but give it two years and new traditions will already be solidified. If we want a champion, we need a winner of the winners. Let's turn the debate to how we're going to implement the playoff rather than if we need to.

Or, I suppose we can return to tradition and say that the bowls don't actually matter - that keeps the regular season important where each game counts as a playoff. And then we can trust the pollsters to choose the national champion who can't name a single player on half of the teams in the country.

Unless, of course, you don't happen to be coming from a team that is a member of a BCS conference, then you can win all the games you want and still won't be in the mix.

Health Care in America

The major issue with American health care costs is that the majority of people in America are not healthy.

Politicians often paint a picture where a hard working, low-income, father of four breaks his back and without insurance his family is stuck on welfare, but that's not where all the money goes. Most money goes to pay for the palliative care for obese, 60-year-olds with a thirty year history of smoking. People expect that when they are in the hospital absolute phenomenal care is used (and such care typically happens) and the cost of such care is very high.

One way to limit the actual cost of health care is to change the way we live as a society.

Another way to limit the cost of health care is to actually make people pay for care they receive. If an uninsured person needs to be in the ICU for a week, guess who foots the bill? All the people who actually pay their bills.

The way to limit the costs of health insurance is to either sell more plans with limits on self-inflicted health costs (aka an unhealthy lifestyle) or actually come up with a way that people are responsible for any care they receive (whether or not they are insured).

Forcing people to carry health insurance is only going to anger the people who take care of themselves and are willing to live without insurance by giving them a perceived "tax" that they are stuck paying that will then just help pay for the health costs of those that don't take care of themselves. I personally have and pay dearly for comprehensive health insurance even though I have never had any major health issues - but that is my choice. Mandating health insurance means people are required to prepare for the possibility of an emergency.

Rather than instituting a state-mandated health insurance modeled after the inept Social Security system, we need to figure out a way where people are responsible for themselves. The government's job is not to insure that all people are the same because the simple truth is that people are different. Some people will spend their lives smoking and never get sick while others will try to take good care of themselves and wind up with cancer. The role of insurance is to allow those that are risk averse (and life is full of risks) to pay to avoid some of those risks.

People in America have many, many choices to make. If John decides that he'd rather party than go to classes in college and ends up dropping out and working construction, who's fault is it that he can't afford insurance? If Matt grows up under the poverty line but then starts his own restaurant and decides to pay for health insurance for his employees, why should he have to help cover the costs when John gets emphysema?

If people have to live with the consequences of their actions then they will actually be better able to judge how much "risk" they are willing to take. Right now, though, there's a safety net where uninsured people are not expected to foot the bill for care they receive.

The American dream is that with enough work, people can reach their goals and live the way they want to live. Conversely, the dark half of the American dream is that some people will work and as a result of decisions they make, they will fail. The role of the government is not to step in and act as a safety net for everyone but to provide an opportunity for people to make their own choices in life. Insurance is simply a way that people can minimize the cost of potential future problems but, as desirable as it may be, it should still be a choice.

Time For a New College Football Division

With the close of the season, it's time for some drastic changes in college football. I'm not talking about instituting a playoff, I'm referring to the need to create a new division in college football.

If Hawaii can go undefeated in a season like this (sure, LSU "might" have gone undefeated with Hawaii's schedule, but that's all speculative) and not even get a whiff at the national championship, they need their own division. If BYU can win 10 games and the best they can hope for is a bowl game with a barely bowl eligible Pac-10 team, we need a new division.

Since non-BCS teams don't have a chance at winning the national championship, they should simply create their own division. They can have a playoff and crown a national champion while the BCS teams continue to argue about who looked prettier in September compared to someone else in November. Unless the BCS monopoly is eliminated, this allows non-BCS teams to actually HAVE A CHANCE at winning a championship.

Strength of Schedule is Garbage

There's no clear cut top college football team in America, so people are going to be splitting hairs to pick two to play for the national title. The one thing that should not affect the pollsters decisions, though it most surely will, is strength of schedule.

Sure, playing harder teams might indicate a "better" (the least defined, most subjective term in college football) team, but guess what - the schedule is the one thing the players and the coaches don't control. Other than a coach possibly speaking with an AD about an opponent several years in advance, there's nothing you can do about your schedule except win or lose your games. So LSU played against a bunch of SEC teams who beat up (or in Tennessee's position - lost to) crappy out of conference teams. The only way we have to judge a conference is to then see how teams play against each other (and a conference magically always appears to win half of its intra-conference games). So, the SEC has a lot of bowl game eligible teams thanks to beating up on the likes of Gardner-Webb and Northwestern State. Good job - it must mean that you're the toughest conference around.

People will argue that team A could have been undefeated with team B's schedule, but must I remind everyone about certain HOME games involving Stanford, Appalachian State, Pittsburgh and even Arkansas? What team A would have done in the same place as team B is a bunch of garbage - there's no basis for it and it only further screws with peoples understandings of what "better" actually means.

If you want to have a true strength of schedule that matters, you'll have to disband conferences and have teams play NCAA defined schedules where teams play a sampling of all teams in America so that a statistical analysis can actually be done. Until then, steer clear of the SOC (strength of conference) or SOS (strength of schedule) debate focus simply on how teams performed with whomever they stepped on the field with. If you pull out the SOC or SOS card you're just going to trying to pound in a square peg in a round hole.