Why Do You Think Murder Is Wrong?

[cjcampbell]

Unless a person is a pacifist, all of us condone "murder". We just contextualize it depending on the circumstances and situation, and we as a society murder in the name of justice, warfare, and self defense. Thus, murder isn't absolutely wrong, it is situationally wrong.

Actually, I think murder connotes taking the life of a human being illegally. That would be different than execution, accidental death, self defense, or war. The Bible has rules for seeking justice for murder by allowing relatives of the victim to kill the murderer. Such a justice killing would not have been considered murder or even vengeance, but fulfilling a commandment of God, who said "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." (Gen. 9:6)

[jadams_4242]

I am not saying those are bad reasons. However, in your mind, in what way is that a moral imperative? How are those not subjective

Where does conscience come from? What if your conscience is different from mine? Isn't this subjective?

Other animals kill without apparent conscience. What makes us different from other animals? If humans are of a higher order...what is the objective basis for that?

Regards,

Six

ssoooooo---excatly what are you eluding too?

[cjcampbell]

Murder is defined doctrinally as "shedding innocent blood." Executing a murderer is not shedding innocent blood. Neither is killing a soldier in war, or exercising self defense. Traditionally, executing a murderer is justice, not revenge. A murderer deprives his victim of life, stealing everything the victim has ever worked for and depriving him of all future opportunity. It deprives the victim of citizenship. Thus, it can be reasoned, that only capital punishment can be justice for the murderer. The murderer forfeits citizenship and all the rights thereof by his shedding of innocent blood.

Gen. 9:6 implies that God does not allow murder not because it is an attempt to thwart God's will, but because it implies a willingness to kill God. One who would kill a being who is in the image of God would kill God. It is the crime of Satan, who sought to dethrone God. Thus, murder is not so much an act against a fellow human being -- it is a direct assault on God himself. This would explain why the Bible demands the death penalty for the murderer. Anything less, even life imprisonment, would be grossly unjust. The sons of perdition were not allowed to come to the earth and receive mortal bodies because they sought to dethrone God. The murderer should not be allowed to continue to enjoy his mortal body, either, for the same reason.

[KDBowler]

"Every being in the universe knows right from wrong"

" You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of 'an eye for an eye', 'a life for a life' which is known throughout the universe for its stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision but nobody has paid much attention to them - not even your buddhists or your Christians."

Can anyone tell me who made this quote?

I begin with the premise that there is Good and Evil. (otherwise my case is over)

Anyway, I agree with the premise that every being knows right from wrong and I will call it the 'Light of Christ', but you can call it whatever. I think we are a higher life form than any other on this earth and therefore comparing humans and our behavior to any other speicies in the animal kingdom is irrelevant.

I think that the light can be dimmed if not extinguished by extraneous sources if we allow it.

I do believe this premise can be proven to some extent simply by looking at our species as a whole. I'd say that the statistics would show that in every society since the beginning of time, very few (by percentage of total population ever to walk this earth) people have commited textbook murder. (I knew you would ask, so here...)

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident.

[Mighty Curelom]

Please tell us why you think murder is wrong.

Because it is a commandment of God.

1- We don't know absolutely that it's a commandment of God. We have a very old book filled with obviously fictitious material and fanciful absurdity (The Flood, for example), myths that were written down after being verbally passed down through generations of primitive and superstitious people, and that book says God forbids murder. That's not exactly a compelling reason to believe murder is wrong.

2- Even if we knew with absolute certainty that there was a God, and we knew with absolute certainty that he disapproved of murder (however you want to define it), why does it matter? Why should we care what God wants? According to LDS belief, God didn't even create us--we're all immortal beings. So what gives one immortal being the authority to impose a "moral imperative" on another? One might argue that it's axiomatic that God has the authority to create and impose moral imperatives, but if we take that route can't we also apply the same reasoning to non-theistic morality? That is, couldn't we say that murder is axiomatically wrong, without appealing to the authority of a supreme being?

[Bsix]

One might argue that it's axiomatic that God has the authority to create and impose moral imperatives, but if we take that route can't we also apply the same reasoning to non-theistic morality? That is, couldn't we say that murder is axiomatically wrong, without appealing to the authority of a supreme being?

Six: That is an excellent question.

As a theist, I believe that God has the power and authority to declare certain acts as sins and thus deem them as immoral. I believe this constitutes a moral imperative. These Godly laws are are a part of the laws of existence. My belief in God may be ill founded, but that is the basis upon which I believe that murder is wrong.

Non-theists are perfectly free to declare that murder is wrong. However, I don't understand the authority upon which they claim that murder is "axiomatically wrong."

How is murder "axiomatically wrong" in the non-theist mindset? How are their reasons for deeming murder wrong any less subjective or less authoratative than the theist who believes in God's laws?

Regards,

Six

[bluebell]

2- Even if we knew with absolute certainty that there was a God, and we knew with absolute certainty that he disapproved of murder (however you want to define it), why does it matter? Why should we care what God wants? According to LDS belief, God didn't even create us--we're all immortal beings. So what gives one immortal being the authority to impose a "moral imperative" on another? One might argue that it's axiomatic that God has the authority to create and impose moral imperatives, but if we take that route can't we also apply the same reasoning to non-theistic morality? That is, couldn't we say that murder is axiomatically wrong, without appealing to the authority of a supreme being?

In LDS belief-we care about what God says for the same reason a child cares about what their parents say-we recognize His parental authority, His love and care, and our desire to obey out of OUR love for Him.

In mainstream Christian belief-they deny the pre-existence and therefore, they recognize His authority, not as a parent, but as a creator.

Atheists deny His authority completely-yet they still (in general just as with every other group mentioned) believe murder is wrong-not just bad for society etc., but wrong-and that i don't really get.

[Tarski]

The fact that the human race still exists is proof enough for me that murder is wrong. If murder is right, all mothers would murder their children out of frustration at some point before they reach maturity.

Thanks for stating the obvious-I guess it was needed here. As you know (and I wish other would take the time to find out), much of our moral sense is rather easily explained by a combination of biological and cultural evolution.

Dawkins has answered this question dozens of times on his book tour.

For who ever asked the original question; Asking me to prove that murder is wrong is like asking me to prove that sex is enjoyable. Morality is part of who we as humans are and it is not a matter of mathematical proof. If you murder, the rest of us will throw you in prison and you will have less chance at having offspring.

[Tarski]

Atheists deny His authority completely-yet they still (in general just as with every other group mentioned) believe murder is wrong-not just bad for society etc., but wrong-and that i don't really get.

Here is an answer that I bet you never thought of. What if I believe that the wrongness of murder just exists as a brute fact??? If you ask were that fact comes from, then I will just ask where your God comes from. Can't I just believe in free floating objective morality? You just believe in God after all--fair is fair.

This isn't my position but it goes to show that there are more answers and they work just as well as the

`God-says-so' answer.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I beleive most of us 'inately' understand that murder is wrong because of evolutionary programming.

Some others choose to call that the 'light of Christ' or something similar - but to me that's just Potato / PotaDo.

Since I am a Libertarian, I believe murder is morally wrong if the person killed did not give consent to be killed. I don't believe in relying on 'evolutionary programming' to tell me what is right and wrong, although it must have influenced my eventual desision -along with a whole range of other 'nurture', cultural factors. (Including my Mormon upbringing...)

And while my moral code is 'objective', I also don't claim to have found an 'absolute', 'perfect' moral code. I simply found a moral code that 'felt right' to me.

How is murder "axiomatically wrong" in the non-theist mindset?

This question (considering the meaning behind it) is like asking "How am I supposed to cross this chasm without magic flying boots?".

[Mighty Curelom]

How is murder "axiomatically wrong" in the non-theist mindset? How are their reasons for deeming murder wrong any less subjective or less authoratative than the theist who believes in God's laws?

How's this:

As an atheist, I believe that the universe operates according to certain inviolable laws. Among those are facts such as: the speed of light is constant; mass attracts mass; objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Also among the laws of the universe that just "are" is the fact that murder is wrong. There is no need for "authority" for murder to be wrong, any more than there must be an "authority" for gravity for operate. These natural laws are are a part of the laws of existence. My belief in universal law may be ill founded, but that is the basis upon which I believe that murder is wrong.

Now, I'm not really a fan of this type of argument, but it looks a lot like the thinking found in eastern religion. Non-theistic Buddhists don't believe in a God declaring actions moral or immoral. Their understanding of morality is that moral laws simply exist. They even include the concept of Karma, which more or less says that the Universe keeps track of your moral score in much the same way a spring builds up energy when compressed.

[KDBowler]

How's this:

As an atheist, I believe that the universe operates according to certain inviolable laws. Among those are facts such as: the speed of light is constant; mass attracts mass; objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Also among the laws of the universe that just "are" is the fact that murder is wrong. There is no need for "authority" for murder to be wrong, any more than there must be an "authority" for gravity for operate. These natural laws are are a part of the laws of existence. My belief in universal law may be ill founded, but that is the basis upon which I believe that murder is wrong.

Now, I'm not really a fan of this type of argument, but it looks a lot like the thinking found in eastern religion. Non-theistic Buddhists don't believe in a God declaring actions moral or immoral. Their understanding of morality is that moral laws simply exist. They even include the concept of Karma, which more or less says that the Universe keeps track of your moral score in much the same way a spring builds up energy when compressed.

Fair enough...

I'm going to keep adding this until someone answers!!

"Every being in the universe knows right from wrong"

" You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of 'an eye for an eye', 'a life for a life' which is known throughout the universe for its stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision but nobody has paid much attention to them - not even your buddhists or your Christians."

Can anyone tell me who made this quote?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

KDBowler,

Google is your friend

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272152/quotes

...second quote...

[KDBowler]

KDBowler,

Google is your friend

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272152/quotes

...second quote...

Very well played, oh wise and prudent one!! That was too easy.

[bluebell]

How's this:

As an atheist, I believe that the universe operates according to certain inviolable laws. Among those are facts such as: the speed of light is constant; mass attracts mass; objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Also among the laws of the universe that just "are" is the fact that murder is wrong. There is no need for "authority" for murder to be wrong, any more than there must be an "authority" for gravity for operate. These natural laws are are a part of the laws of existence. My belief in universal law may be ill founded, but that is the basis upon which I believe that murder is wrong.

Now, I'm not really a fan of this type of argument, but it looks a lot like the thinking found in eastern religion. Non-theistic Buddhists don't believe in a God declaring actions moral or immoral. Their understanding of morality is that moral laws simply exist. They even include the concept of Karma, which more or less says that the Universe keeps track of your moral score in much the same way a spring builds up energy when compressed.

C.S. Lewis pointed out the difference in the laws you have listed and murder (or moral laws)-moral laws are the only laws by which mankind is free to disobey.

We can't disobey gravity by choice-no one can choose not to fall if someone pushes them off a cliff. We can however choose whether or not to obey moral laws.

That means that murder is not a law at all-not the same way that gravity is. And if it's not the same kind of law, then it appears to be more like a rule than a natural law-but rules always come from somewhere. They don't just exist-someone puts them in place (at least, i can't think of an example that proves otherwise, maybe someone else can).

which makes one wonder where this rule, that says that murder is inherently wrong, come from?

[SlackTime]

I have heard various approaches to this question both from Christians (including LDS) and Atheists. I will not delve in eastern thought on this.

The typical Christian thought is that God by right owns and reserves to himself powers over life and death. He shares with man through procreation some power to grant life, but requires man to use that power within certain bounds, thus the strong biblical prohibitions on the misuse of sex. He also shares with man's society the right to kill when done in accordance with His law, thus just laws from Moses' day onward, instituted by God, that allow mankind to take the life of a man who kills. However, individually, man is not permitted to take the life of another except in defense of himself and family. In general, God has reserved judgement to Himself and the man who takes judgement unto himself treads heavily upon God's rights and perogatives. Of all the sins, this sin is one where no amount of restitution can resolve the loss, and thus considered the greatest of sins against God.

The typical atheist thought is that murder is a sin against the fabric of society, that there are ethical mores that strengthen society and unethical actions that diminish and weaken society. Murder is among those crimes most harmful to society and destructive of order in society. Thus society may choose to have rules by which one is deemed unfit for society and cause such to be isolated from society or even killed by society, but that must occur through the lawful application of rules, which rules must be created and applied to the betterment of all of society.

Be aware that these are generalizations. There are those in both camps who abhor capital punishment and would decry such social killing. In the religious camp, the laws of life and death stem from God's law. In the non-religious camp they stem from the needs of society and the benefit derived therefrom.

To the atheists, the religious deependence upon God is suspect for they claim they can never be sure when God, or one claiming to act for God, will kill, claiming it is "God's will". They point to wars between religious factions as proof that God is a poor foundation in which to lay ethical mores.

Similarly, in the religious camp, they are distrustful of the atheist's foundations for the needs of "society" can seem relative or even capricious, and can be seen as justifying "my society" against "your society" killings to "better" society. They point to "cleansing" actions by society to show that the "situational ethics" of the atheist cannot be trusted.

In any case. I hope this is of use.

-SlackTime

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

SlackTime,

I think that's a nice summary of the issue...

The only bit I'd add - from my point of view of course - is even if we knew for sure what such a being as God was commanding, it'd still to be answered whether those commandments would - of nessesity - have to be considered 'perfectly moral' commandments.

If we're using the thinking 'Their perfectly moral because God says so', then that's just as 'flawed' (imo) as the idea of knowing what God said in the first place.

I'm not convinced such a thing as 'perfect morals' exist. Regardless of the existence of God, nor our ability to 'understand' his / her / it's will.

[bluebell]

Here is an answer that I bet you never thought of. What if I believe that the wrongness of murder just exists as a brute fact If you ask were that fact comes from, then I will just ask where your God comes from. Can't I just believe in free floating objective morality? You just believe in God after all--fair is fair.

This isn't my position but it goes to show that there are more answers and they work just as well as the

`God-says-so' answer.

No doubt there are many answers to this question-but they don't all 'work just as well' as other answers.

If someone inherently believes that murder is wrong-then that belief has to come from somewhere. It had to have gotten into our biological make up somehow. The question then becomes, where or how?

One answer could be that it is part of our evolution-but that doesn't really work. We know we have instincts and a sense of the 'herd mentality', no doubt, but when we examine those instincts against moral laws, then we begin to see clearly that the moral law we inherently believe in is actually in opposition to many of these natural instincts.

For example-if we hear someone shout for help-our instincts will be to help them, but also to refuse to help because it may put us in danger. One instinct to protect a non-related member of our herd, against another instinct for self preservation.

If we were ruled only by our instincts then two things should happen. We should always pick the instinct that is stronger-and we should feel no guilt or remorse for that choice.

So, in our example-as in the wild, in a situation where a non-related member of the herd is in peril, the instinct is to choose self preservation over helping them.

But-that's not what happens with us humans-instead, something much different happens. We recognize that we feel one instinct greater than the other one-but at the same time we feel something else that tells us to choose to help the one in need anyway. Something tells us to go against our instincts-something tells us to make one instinct stronger than the other one purposefully.

So-our instincts cannot be the cause of our belief in moral laws-when so often keeping a moral law goes against our natural instincts.

So we are left again to ask-where does it come from?

For myself, it seems to make much more logical sense to believe that it came from somewhere outside of ourselves-since there is little evidence to believe it comes from our biological make up-and some kind of a supreme moral Being seems to be a logical source of that outside information.

So-yes, someone could say that it 'just exists' but it's a less valid answer than some others that could be given, in my opinion anyway.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

bluebell,

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your main point is. I 'think' you're arguing that a sense of morality couldn't have developed .via evolution because sometimes we are 'conflicted'.

...how is this an argument against an evolutionary-derived sense of morality?! You appear to believe that if we did have a sense of morality that was derived from 'evolution', then there would only ever be one clear 'instinct' in any given situation, and there would never be any 'internal conflict'.

I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. It actually makes perfect sense that behavioural mechanisms such as this would develop .via evolution. And the example you use - the need of the 'group' vs. the need of 'self' is pretty much the perfect example to examine in this context.

Evolution isn't 'front-loaded' design. And that's pretty much exactly why two often conflicting drives might develop, that sometimes contridict each-other.

No drive to defend one's self is pretty much a non-starter in evolutionary terms.

But for a 'social species' to survive, there also must be some drive to defend the 'group' as well.

These can develop independantly, and interact in 'hap-hazard' ways. In evolutionary terms, thats 'OK'. It doesn't have to work 'perfectly'. (i.e. never any conflict). They just have to work together 'well enough'. i.e. however a 'conflict' is resolved in any one case, it has to - generally, overall - be advantageous to the survival of the species. As long as that is the case, than 'conflicts' such as these are acceptable.

In fact, far from discounting an evolutionary source, such a 'mish-mash' of drives and instincts would be exactly the kind of result expected from evolution.

Or perhaps I'm not understanding your argument...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Because it "retards" the eternal progress of that person...who maybe would have repented (if needed) and recieved salvation. It robs him of "free will" and it is impossible to make restitution for such a grevious sin.

Pa Pa

[Bsix]

In the end, I suspect that the non-theist view of moral imperative is as subjective and unprovable as that of theists.

To me, biological morality is really quite abstract. If we were as biologically moral as suggested, we would have far less need for laws to regulate human behavior. If murder were not as natural as it seems to be, we'd have far, far less of it.

Societal fabric is a great reason, but completely subjective. Since what constitutes societal good varies from person to person, this ends up being sort of majority-rules morality...the will of the collective. How can this be any more objective than a religious or biological based morality?

I don't mean to be offensive. But I do believe that if there are no absolute moral imperatives dictated by God, a higher order, the supernatural...or magic as some call it...murder is wrong only by subjective preference.

Regards,

Six

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

In the end, I suspect that the non-theist view of moral imperative is as subjective and unprovable as that of theists.

If by 'moral imperative', you mean the initial 'source' of mankind's overall sense of morality - each side will see it in the way that seems most sensible to them I'm sure.

My idea of 'evidenced' probably won't be the same as yours.

To me, biological morality is really quite abstract. If we were as biologically moral as suggested, we would have far less need for laws to regulate human behavior.

Laws have been derived from culture. Culture was derived as part of our hightened awareness and intelligence. And those came from evolutionary development.

Societal fabric is a great reason, but completely subjective.

I agree. We are only talking about the initial source. Not nessesarily the ideal conclusion.

Since what constitutes societal good varies from person to person, this ends up being sort of majority-rules morality...the will of the collective. How can this be any more objective than a religious or biological based morality?

Talking about the evolutionary sources of morality isn't the same thing as discussing 'is objective morality possible'?

I don't mean to be offensive. But I do believe that if there are no absolute moral imperatives dictated by God, a higher order, the supernatural...or magic as some call it...murder is wrong only by subjective preference.

If no 'perfect' morals exists, then your own moral code - by nessesity - must be, in some way, subjective. Or at least have one component of subjectivity - agreed.

But that's a far cry from the kind of stuff that was being thrown about in the 'other' thread.

Then bring in the point that I'd beleive a thiest's view on morality to be just as subjective as mine, and - well - there ya go...

[Tarski]

So-yes, someone could say that it 'just exists' but it's a less valid answer than some others that could be given, in my opinion anyway.

You say that God just exists! Right? Why is that not a problem? Why can't morality just exist? (this isn't my postion though)

Furthermore, why does a declaration by God make something right? Would torturing little children be right if God declared it so? If he wouldn't do such a thing then it must be because he knows it's wrong no matter what he says. Thus even God would have to depend on the background morality that just exists!!

[bluebell]

bluebell,

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your main point is.

It wouldn't be the first time i said something that made no sense.

I 'think' you're arguing that a sense of morality couldn't have developed .via evolution because sometimes we are 'conflicted'.

Actually, all i'm saying is that frequently-moral laws completely conflict with our natural instincts-which seems to be a strong arguement that it itself, is not an instinct at all but something much more.

I'm saying that it appears that this moral law actually directs the instincts that we have-prompting us to choose one over the other, even prompting us to choose to work against our instincts from time to time.

There is something inside of us that judges between our natural instincts and tells us when one is morally right and when one is morally wrong-and prompts us to choose the morally right one-and i don't believe it is an instinct that does all that.

C.S. Lewis explains 'this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at any given moment, to play one note ont he piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The moral law tells us the tune we have to play-our instincts are merely the keys'

...how is this an argument against an evolutionary-derived sense of morality?! You appear to believe that if we did have a sense of morality that was derived from 'evolution', then there would only ever be one clear 'instinct' in any given situation, and there would never be any 'internal conflict'.

No, i think there will always be more than one instinct at work within us-but that evolution would say that our behavior was always instinct driven.

I believe that the existence of moral laws in humanity shows that something, not driven by evolutionary biological needs, is in control of what instincts we listen to.

I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. It actually makes perfect sense that behavioural mechanisms such as this would develop .via evolution. And the example you use - the need of the 'group' vs. the need of 'self' is pretty much the perfect example to examine in this context.

Evolution isn't 'front-loaded' design. And that's pretty much exactly why two often conflicting drives might develop, that sometimes contridict each-other.

No drive to defend one's self is pretty much a non-starter in evolutionary terms.

But for a 'social species' to survive, there also must be some drive to defend the 'group' as well.

To true.

It's not that there are competing instincts that mean anything-it's that our moral law almost always prompts us to choose to follow an instinct that we don't WANT to follow but we somehow know we should.

The moral law prompts us to choose against our instincts many times, showing that it influences which instinct we obey, not that it is itself just another instinct.

For example-we many times force ourselves to have a stronger 'herd mentality' than we actually instinctively have. We force ourselves to choose another member of the herd over our own wants.

It's a conscience choice to go against our instincts which shows that the choice is not ruled by our instincts but our instincts are ruled by our choice.

These can develop independantly, and interact in 'hap-hazard' ways. In evolutionary terms, thats 'OK'. It doesn't have to work 'perfectly'. (i.e. never any conflict). They just have to work together 'well enough'. i.e. however a 'conflict' is resolved in any one case, it has to - generally, overall - be advantageous to the survival of the species. As long as that is the case, than 'conflicts' such as these are acceptable.

In fact, far from discounting an evolutionary source, such a 'mish-mash' of drives and instincts would be exactly the kind of result expected from evolution.

Yes, in the wild-where animals are instinctually driven-they always make a choice that will save the species-because they really have no choice, it's hard-wired in them to always choose such.

With people-we have something inside of us that over-rides these instinctual behaviors. We have something inside of us that rules our instincts, that is more powerful than they are-and that has complete control over them.

To me, this difference is what happens when evolution meets moral law-as only mankind lives by a moral law-and this shows that moral law has more power over us, as humans, than evolution does.

It shows that it is not a part of evolution-but something completely different and separate from it.

Or perhaps I'm not understanding your argument...

or maybe i've explained myself really poorly-which is probably the case.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

With people-we have something inside of us that over-rides these instinctual behaviors. We have something inside of us that rules our instincts, that is more powerful than they are-and that has complete control over them.

To me, this difference is what happens when evolution meets moral law-as only mankind lives by a moral law-and this shows that moral law has more power over us, as humans, than evolution does.

It shows that it is not a part of evolution-but something completely different and separate from it.

Hmmm - ok. I think I get what your saying. I think your making a point similar to Bsix.

...if we have 'instincts', then why have we created 'laws' to govern ourselves, that can sometimes conflict with our instincts?

I'd say the answer is that we have developed a self-aware consiousness, which has added another 'layer' to our behavioural make-up. It is clearly influenced by instinct, but not 'ruled' by it.

So - yes, I think I see what your saying. But what you attibute to 'something else', I call 'human creativity'.

To some extent, we are making our own rules up as we go along. It's nature's latest evolutionary 'experiment'.

Is it gonna work out? I donno - we haven't been around 'that' long in the big scheme of things

It wouldn't be the first time i said something that made no sense.

So you have made sense at one time or another?

...you're up on me then