Both emotional release and moral relativism are irrelevant.
Murder remains wrong with respect to the foundational right to life, regardless, which is the only valid orientation of discernment in the topical matter.
Murder is not a rights-respecting acceptable method of relieving suffering.
That your preoccupation with suffering overrides your better judgment is obvious.
What isn’t so obvious is why.
So why don’t you come honestly clean about the suffering you’ve experienced in your personal life.
Unrecovered suffering that merely psychologically-emotionally lingers is best relieved by working a psychological-emotional recovery process with the help of a competent therapist and recovery program.
Murder isn’t a part of that program.
You are merely asserting things. There is a forum called “The Rant House” for that on this site. This is the Philosophy forum.
No, the “unspoken” ( 
) premise in the initial post of this thread isn’t “doing anything to someone that they don’t want you to do is wrong”.
There is no “unspoken” premise in the initial post of this thread.
The clearly spoken singular premise here is that murder is a violation of the foundational paramount right to life possessed by all.
The conclusion is, therefore, that, being a violation of one’s right to life, murder is wrong.
It really is that clear and simple.
Sick.
Irrelevant …
… but sick.
Very well. But the existence of that right is a mere assertion on your part.
That’s not an argument and it’s a personal attack.
If you can’t support your ideas, then you need to go and think on them.
Moral relativism is irrelevant with respect to the rights reality and definition matters of the topic.
The reality remains that murder, by accurate definition, is murder without regard to the momentary opinion of the person being murdered.
You do not have the right to take from even yourself what was granted you by God … without having to answer to God for it. 
That is why we don’t allow definitively exclusive excuses for murder such as “he told me it would be okay to murder him”.
Such is simply absurd.
What if the murderer is lying?! What if the would-be murdered is lying?!
If you truly want to die with dignity, then let God take your life naturally, and dignifiably suffer the pain of death as we have since time immemorial, with only state-of-the-art pain killers for relief.
If you want to die an undignified coward, then take the easy way out, and implicate a friend or loved-one in murder.
If anyone is in the act of taking your life and you kill him in self-defense that is not murder.
If someone is not in the act of taking your life and you kill him, that is murder.
If someone is threatening to take your life within one second based on his obvious behavior then he is most likely concluded to be in the act.
If someone promisses to kill you one day in the distant future, then he is not in the act of taking your life, and if you kill him, you will have murdered him.
If a murderer is caught and imprisioned, then being bound and shakled and imprisioned has eliminated him as a threat. If he is then killed via capital punishment, that act is murder.
If someone is in the act of torturing you, they may indeed be in the act of taking your life. If so, you can defend yourself reasonably, and if you kill him in the act, that is not murder.
But if you are still angry with someone who once tortured you and presently is not torturing you, and you kill him, that is murder.
Emotional release is no excuse.
If a person poses a threat to you in the future and you kill him you will have to prove in a court of law whether that threat was real and imminent.
Usually you will be convicted of some form of homicide.
Because if the threat is believed to be in the future, not immediate, you are honor bound in a civilized society such as ours not to take matters into your own hands, but to seek out law enforcement to remedy the situation.
Yes, considering Bush’s behavior in Iraq, it would, sadly, seem that way.
God? What God!
You know, there is a Religion forum for things like this.
You are wrong.
It is only hypothetical to the minds of those who have something to gain by not recognizing the foundational existence of human rights.
Whether or not rights are “protected by God” is irrelevant to their existence.
And if it does not appear to you that God does not take any action to protect human rights, my question to you is in what ways do you expect God to take action to protect human rights?
Maybe God doesn’t want to take direct action to protect human rights.
Maybe God prefers that we be the vehicle in protecting our human rights.
Regardless, our rights exist.
And whether or not they are directly or indirectly protected by God or not is irrelevant to their existence.
Murder is never respectable, period.
No it does not imply your sophistrical premise.
“Already alive” means that they had been conceived and were still alive.
A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, this according to DNA and life science, the unquestionable presenter of fact in the matter.
the only rights that exist are those rights which one can take from others.
period.
if you can’t force others to “respect”, “recognize” or “allow” you the right to whatever- you don’t have it.
one can whine and cry about their “right” to whatever. until the guy with the gun comes and shows you exactly what right you have.
americans believe they have god given rights as illustrated in the constitution and declaration, but those “rights” are only as good as the police man with the gun who allows you to believe you have the right.
no police? (or unless one acts as police for his own rights) then there are no rights.
ask any criminal
-Imp
I have already pointed you to the realities of rights thread: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152932.
You will find your answer there.
I will not waste further time indulging your sophistry in this thread.
Everyone makes assertions here, Sauwelios.
What matters is if the assertions are true. 
My assertions on the matter are true.
If you wish to continue to rant against my true assertions, then why don’t you take your own advise and do so in “The Rant House”. 
Impenitent,
I would like to take many Americans to parts of the world that I’ve lived in. There’s places where the natives will smash your head before you even have a chance to say hello. There’s nothing to stop them and the behavior is culturally accepted.
That’s life, or not.
And, as I just pointed out to you, if a “mere” assertion is true, which your quoted statement of me is, then it’s meaning is paramount.
Your assertions are unquestionably laughable.
Cut the holier than thou crap, Mr. “Predictable”.
Your statement I quoted was likely written by you as a purposeful presentation of sociopathology, with your baiting intention that sane and healthy people would find it deplorable and take the “bait”.
The statement remains sick whether it’s really your belief for yourself or not. And I won’t be intimidated into self-censorship so as not to call a spade a spade.
But if you want me to put you on ignore, just repeat that baiting behavior, and I’ll start ignoring you personally faster than you can say Mr. “Flamebaiter”. 
If you post ideas you don’t truly believe in then you would do well to cut the pretentious outrage when someone authentically and sincerely finds them sick.