Murder Is Always Wrong

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Murder is the non-self-defense premeditated killing of a human being(s) by another human being(s).

Murder is the moral relativistic violation of the foundational paramount inviolable right to life. Because rights trump moral relativism every time, murder is always wrong.

The commonly known truth of reality is that murder is not foundationally a legal term, but first and foremost a sociological term.

Murder only makes its way into statute when law-makers deem both 1) it, on a per-form basis, is not to be tolerated, and 2) to proscribe a penalty for the per-form behavior.

Murder, by its common foundational sociological definition, is still murder and just as instrinsically wrong, by appeal to foundational definition of the term, whether or not law-makers have subsequently stipulated.

It is not a matter of whether such is mentally “accepted”, by the killer, the killed, society, etc., as “acceptance” is irrelevant by definition.

Murder is what it is, sociologically, by definition, whether mentally “accepted” or not.

If not accepted, society enacts prohibitive laws against the sociological behavior of murder.

If accepted, such as in the case of our murderous oil thieving of Iraq’s oil distribution rights, situational abortion, capital punishment, Terri Shiavo-type euthanaisa, etc. then society does not enact prohibitive laws against the sociological behavior of murder.

But whether accepted or unaccepted, murder is what it is: the non-self-defense premeditated killing of a human being(s) by another human being(s).

And, from the most foundational and overriding argument we posses to determine value – the ontological state-of-being paramount and foundational inviolable right to life argument – murder is always wrong.

Merely ask anyone if they want to be murdered. Only the severely neuropsychologically damaged/overwhelmingly truly guilty will say “yes”, and, of course, they are too impaired to know the truth. Over 99.99999 percent of the population, those not so impaired, will speak ontologically from their heart and say “no”.

Thus murder is wrong, always, regardless of what laws do or don’t exist.

Because, as DNA and life science have proven beyond any rational conjecture, a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, if that person, from conception on, is pre-meditatively killed by another person for non-self-defense related reasons, that killing is thus, by definition, murder.

Hitler’s experimentation and slaughter of the Jews is another heinous example of murder.

Executing a prisoner who is bound and restricted and not in the immediate process of trying to kill someone is also a famous example of murder.

The list goes on.

In every case, murder is wrong.

:sunglasses:

2

I hope you don’t/haven’t reproduce(d).

This is where we differ. If I had the opportunity to kill Hitler before he ever did any of those things to the Jews, I would. It would NOT be in self defense, and it WOULD be premeditated, and would be for absolutely the greater moral good. You’re wrong.

3

Your statement is an ad hominemistic irrelevancy.

That is because you are a moral relativist and I am not.

By definition, thereby, – http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152932 – you are in the wrong.

Right and wrong are of great value, something the moral relativist is impeded by his pre-conceived “ideology” from grasping.

And, by definition, you would be in the wrong.

The hatred that motivated Hitler was rampant in Germany, laying “dormant” waiting for stimulation that many, not just Hitler, were fanning at that time.

What if the person who replaced him would have been just as bad, and put more emphasis on rocketry and nuclear weapons?! :astonished:

Would you kill every German that hated Jews to prevent the holocaust?

How many would you kill? Millions?

How would that make you “better” than Hitler?

It wouldn’t – you’d be just the same – mass-murdering out of fear.

Two wrongs never make a right. :sunglasses:

Best is to stump for rights and be right, and hold the moral relativistic violators accountable after the fact of violation.

That is what the allies did, when killing Hitler would be in self-defense of the defenseless Jews.

Absolutely true.

And thus it would be murder, and it would be wrong.

Crusaders, like you, who justify murder for the supposed “greater good” are often just as dangerous or more so than those they oppose.

They imagine that by their violational action they can “right some wrong”.

But isn’t that just what Hitler thought, that by moral relativistically violating the right to life of Jews he could “right” the “wrong” of economic dominance of indigenous Germanic people by the “immigrant” Jews who occupied positions of power in commerce in Germany?! :astonished:

Your self-righteousness is hideous and dangerous.

You would do well to take a long look in a philosophical mirror before spouting off who should die at your whim.

You’re ignorantly deluded by your own pretentious self-righteousness on that matter, pretentious self-righteousness that functions as a cover for your real motivation: fuk-and-kill funster utilitarian pro-abortion.

4

What right to life.

What is this “ontological state-of-being paramount and foundational inviolable right to life argument”?

Even if it were 100.0000… percent of the population - what does this prove? It only proves that that percentage of the population prefers not being murdered to being murdered; not that murder is “wrong”.

5

There is no such thing as an absolute moral good. Absolutely, it does not matter whether anyone (for instance, six million Jews) live or do not live.

6

No, murder is a good idea and that’s why it’s done so frequently.

When you kill a person you destroy the mind that has been creating problems for you. It will never bother you again, thus you’ve improved your life.

It is the time, place, and support that you have for murder that makes all the difference. With that in mind, very few murders should take place, because they more than not lack support.

7

D0rkyd00d there really is no need for that sort of comment.

Jenny- Here are your main points as I see them:

  1. Murder is wrong by definition.

  2. The right to life is inviolable

  3. Most people wouldn’t want to be murdered.

Did I miss any? There are three things I would want to add to this:

a) That we cannot define murder as wrong when our argument is about showing that murder is wrong.
b) That the converse of a right is a duty.
c) The majority appeal is irrelevant.

Do these three considerations mean anything for your thoughts on this issue?

8

I of course agree with you in the sense of the word “good” that most of the world uses, but I’m referring to what is better for our race overall on the path of evolution. It is worse for our race to suffer; we are not as efficient with our minds in states of suffering.

9

So, is the unspoken premise here,

“Doing anything to someone that they don’t want you to do is wrong”?

So far, I see reasons why murder might be undesirable, but not wrong.

10

If you think about people, or groups of them, as viruses then it makes sense to kill them.

By “people” I mean their minds and ideas.

For instance, when killing royalty you have to kill them all. They carry a viral idea with them that can infect the minds of others.

11

non self defenrse premeditated?.. well what if someone kills me in such a way, but I want to die with dignity and not frome something slow like an illness…

what if i’ve been tortured by someone and that person poses a threat to my future…it’s not immediate self defense… is it wrong for me to kill her?

12

Affective detatchment is no rights violating excuse.

And ignorance can be “cured” by education: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152932

13

It mattered to each and every one of those Jews, and those who loved them.

The fact that they were already alive means that it was right-to-life-respecting wrong that they were slaughtered, and such is not a matter of rational conjecture.

14

Regardless, with respect to rights, murder is always right-to-life violationally wrong.

And such respect for rights always trumps the moral relativistic “idea” of murder being “good”.

:unamused:

15

The purpose of a government is to make murder seem respectible and legal. Sorry

16

The idea of “rights” is hypothetical at best.

It can’t even be said that “rights” are protected by a god, because he does not appear to take any action to protect human rights.

17

Murder is extremely respectable if the object of the murder is very disrespectable.

18

Pretentious and irrelevant unless made sincerely in a post where only D0rkyd00d is being addressed. :astonished:

My main “points” were the substantive context of the entire post.

You may wish to either take a closer look … or simply openly, up front, admit to those behaviors you like to do that are rights violational, and spare us your sophistry.

Murder is wrong because it violates our intrinsically experienced right to life possessed by everyone.

I suggest you read up on the realities of rights – http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152932 – as it will benefit you in grasping the material in this thread.

It seems that you’ve missed the entire substance of the initial post.

There’s nothing you can add to the initial post.

Your comments are your own and they appear to be in conflict with the realities of rights.

Assumptively erroneous with respect to the initial post.

Your statement with respect to the meaning you wish to make is mental mastubatory sophistry of the most tail-chasing kind.

There is simply no being real with you until you stop trying to remove yourself from the ancient oriental finger puzzle by brute pulling force. Only when you are ready to face reality outside the limits of your irrationally excusive mental paradigm will you begin to push away from your trap.

Irrelevant.

The rights I speak of are rights, not duties.

Your implication that I appealled to a majority is evidence that you did not read for comprehension.

I cited the vast overwhelming majority statement as evidence, and as a word to the wise.

Merely because some people are too damaged to recognize their rights does not mean they don’t have them.

The right to life is universal.

The universality of the paramount inviolable right to life is the appeal.

Yes.

Taken in your true meaning and usage intent, they mean that you are a moral relativist, sophister, and, a pro-abortionist.

:sunglasses:

19

This implies that, considering that they did not exist before they were born, their birth was right-to-non-existence-respecting wrong.

20

Again, what rights? Please answer my question.