Moral Murder?

[Mr. Hyde]

What is Murder? More to the point, if killing someone is immoral, how can capital punishment be moral?

[Sam]

What is Murder? More to the point, if killing someone is immoral, how can capital punishment be moral?



It's not. The only moral murder is that of self defense.

[Apokalupsis]

1) Murder cannot be moral by the nature of it being "murder".

2) Capital Punishment =/= Murder.

3) Killing someone is not immoral. There are various forms of "killing". It is the various forms that are to be examined. Killing could be murder, capital punishment, self defense, hunting (admittedly, humans should not be hunted), etc...

You are trying to wrap one big moral value into one big generic term used to define the general way in which one may die (that is...at the hands of another). As such, sometimes it IS moral to kill. Self defense and capital punishment for example.

[Dionysus]

GP, your posts lately have been nothing more than spam, which is of course, against ODN policy.

Please cease.

- Apok

[Apokalupsis]

GP, 1 post of yours was edited, another was removed due to violation of ODN policy against spam. Please refrain.

[Mr. Hyde]

Okay, so HOW is capital punishment moral then? I mean, what's the difference between me killing someone, and the state killing me?

[CliveStaples]

It's not. The only moral murder is that of self defense.

Wrong. Self-defense is BY DEFINITION not murder.


...[W]hat's the difference between me killing someone, and the state killing me?

Well, the person that you killed was innocent. That is, your killing was not justified. You killed the person illegally, which is to say not in self-defense or in defense of others. The state, on the other hand, is killing a murderer. Yes, it's still killing. But "killing" isn't prohibited by law, nor is it "immoral", per se. Self-defense and defense of others are two examples of moral and legal killing.

[Mr. Hyde]

So...the state can kill morally if the person deserves it? Got it. So, if I kill a murderer, is that moral?

[CliveStaples]

...if I kill a murderer, is that moral?

No. Murderers are entitled to due process, as granted by the Constitution. Nice try, though.

[Dionysus]

GP, 1 post of yours was edited, another was removed due to violation of ODN policy against spam. Please refrain.

Godlesspagan = pwned

Okay.

On another thread Apok asked if it was moral to brutalize one's family, burn down his/her house and murder whomever the owner of said house was. Going back to capital punishment, if the person who did this, did it as an act of vengeance i.e. it had been done originally to the brother of the perpetrator of the second act, would capital punishment be moral if handed down to the person who was simply seeking revenge for his loss?

[CliveStaples]

would capital punishment be moral if handed down to the person who was simply seeking revenge for his loss?
Revenge is not a justification for homicide, because it also denies the victim due process.

[Dionysus]

Revenge is not a justification for homicide, because it also denies the victim due process.

I'm not talking about the legal aspect of it, I'm talking about the moral aspect.

[CliveStaples]

Well, it would be "moral" in that the ends would be the same: the man/woman guilty of murder is executed. Theoretically, the nature of the means would make the action immoral. First, the guilt/innocence of the accused murderer was not established in a court of law. Even if the "revenger" KNEW the accused kill his/her victims, the "revenger" should NOT be allowed to kill the accused. It's a slippery slope: if we allow revenge to be a justification for homicide, chaos will inevitably ensue. Second, revenge is not a moral justification for homicide. Revenge is an emotional response, and it in NO way mitigates an otherwise evil act. Seeking revenge is not the same as seeking justice; revenge is a product of anger and pride.

Taking the law into your own hands is acceptable only if you are actually seeking justice and justice is served. A corrupt police force, for instance, refuses to investigate the murder of your family (think Frank Castle). Bring those responsible for crime to justice is the province of the virtuous. However, persuing those responsible for the death of your family is not, or should not be, motivated by a desire for revenge, but a desire for justice. The ends might be the same, regardless of the motivation, but the goodness of the action depends also on the means (and motivations) that are used to achieve those ends

[Dionysus]

Theoretically, the nature of the means would make the action immoral.

Then would it also be (theoretically) moral for the one seeking revenge to brutalize the original offender's family and "burn his damn house down"? (Unforgiven :))

[CliveStaples]

Then would it also be (theoretically) moral for the one seeking revenge to brutalize the original offender's family and "burn his damn house down"? (Unforgiven )

No. Like I said, revenge is not a morally acceptable motivation/justification.

The man's family bears no responsibility in the actions that the man, alone, committed (unless his family collaborated). "An eye for an eye" means that you can't take two eyes for one eye. You can't kill a man's family because he killed yours, even though the other man would experience the same pain of losing his family. It would be an unjust punishment, because it would target people who bear no guilt.


An interesting point about punishment, though: a man brutally beats someone to death. Should his punishment fit his crime? Should he be brutally beaten to death? I don't think so. Because there is no way to measure how much pain was inflicted (and how much pain is being inflicted on the man), there is no way to make sure that the pain inflicted by the man is equal to the pain inflicted on the man.

"Burning his house down" is an interesting approach. Depriving someone of property/money is a tradtitional punishment for committing crimes. Destroying the house seems rather wasteful, though.

[Apokalupsis]

Going back to capital punishment, if the person who did this, did it as an act of vengeance i.e. it had been done originally to the brother of the perpetrator of the second act, would capital punishment be moral if handed down to the person who was simply seeking revenge for his loss?
No. Capital Punishment is not mere revenge. It is state sanctioned equitable punishment carried out by qualified officials and is the end result of due process.

The act of punishment in the end is the same. But the ends, does not justify the means. And it is the means here that makes a vigilante's act of "punishing" via killing murder.

Thus, we are back to the DIFFERENT kinds of killing, full circle. Not all types of killing are the same, nor are all types of killing sharing in the same moral value.

We take killing and break it down into different "acts of killing". Some legal, some illegal. Some moral, some immoral. The EVENTS that LEAD to the killing itself, are what DEFINE what TYPE of killing we hav here. So it is the EVENTS that DESCRIBE the sort of killing. And once we have different sorts of killing DEFINED, moral values can then be attached to them as the acts of killing themselves, have then been clearly defined enough to make a moral judgement concerning them.

The one thing that capital punshment and vigilante revenge-murder have in common, is that they they are resultant from a gross injustice committed by the criminal. But that single common denominator is not enough to make them synonymous in value. Each has a set of unique characteristics that are not shared by the other, and it is that uniqueness that allows for each to be assigned a differing moral value.

[Mr. Hyde]

So, just so we're on the same page, if I kill for justice, it's moral? THAT is the difference between moral and immoral killing? As for capital punishment, what elevates their judgement above mine when concerning who should or shouldn't die?

[Fyshhed]

Which is the absolute moral in regard to justifying murder or capital punishment (note: justify meaning "right," as in instances of morality and not law) if either?

-An eye for an eye.
-Turn the other cheek.

[FruitandNut]

Of course the judicial killing of the wrong guy is not murder or manslaugther - it is just tough sh*t!!!!!
(Don't tell me it doesn't happen, unless you regularly play with the fairies, and I don't mean 'gays'.)

[CliveStaples]

Which is the absolute moral in regard to justifying murder or capital punishment (note: justify meaning "right," as in instances of morality and not law) if either?

-An eye for an eye.
-Turn the other cheek.

You cannot expect Christian behavior (e.g., turning cheeks) from non-Christians and a secular government. Therefore, justice replaces mercy.

[Fyshhed]

You cannot expect Christian behavior (e.g., turning cheeks) from non-Christians and a secular government. Therefore, justice replaces mercy.
Answer the question, though.

[Mr. Hyde]

You cannot expect Christian behavior (e.g., turning cheeks) from non-Christians and a secular government. Therefore, justice replaces mercy.
Turning the cheek and eye for an eye are not Christian Specific. Granted, they're mentioned in the bible, and relate, but everyone, nonChristian and all, are capable of living by one or the other.

[Apokalupsis]

So, just so we're on the same page, if I kill for justice, it's moral? THAT is the difference between moral and immoral killing?
No. What about the above post makes you think that is what is being claimed?


As for capital punishment, what elevates their judgement above mine when concerning who should or shouldn't die?
DUE PROCESS. They know all the details of the even that qualifies it to warrant such a penalty. They also are qualified agents in a position to make such a decision. They also are agents bound by regulations and policies that prohibit them from abusing what is necessary to DETERMINE if the guilty party meets those requirements.

[Apokalupsis]

Which is the absolute moral in regard to justifying murder or capital punishment (note: justify meaning "right," as in instances of morality and not law) if either?

-An eye for an eye.
-Turn the other cheek.
Neither. You misunderstand the context and meaning for both. "Eye for an eye" for example, does not mean that you NEED to punish the other person accordingly...it is a LIMIT on HOW you can punish another. It is a measure of justice. It is saying that the punishment must fit the crime and NO MORE. The reason for it was due to abuses and the liberty taken by those punishing others.

"Turn the other cheek" was an example of how to behave when one insults you since being slapped in the face was considered one of the biggest insults one could give. Jesus was saying that one should not respond in like manner merely because one is insulted. It is better to welcome another insult and bear it than it is to respond in like manner. He was showing how unwise it was to allow grudges, disagreements, and fights from such petty things as insults, slander, slurs, etc...

[Slipnish]

Revenge is not a justification for homicide, because it also denies the victim due process.

Due process doesn't make it moral. Apok has been screaming that one for days now. Not all laws/rights (as is due process) are moral.

Revenge to me would seem the easiest way to make it moral.

*Battens down hatches while waiting on replies*

[Mr. Hyde]

DUE PROCESS. They know all the details of the even that qualifies it to warrant such a penalty. They also are qualified agents in a position to make such a decision. They also are agents bound by regulations and policies that prohibit them from abusing what is necessary to DETERMINE if the guilty party meets those requirements.
What qualifies them apok? What gives them a superior say to me? So they know all the details, serial killers know all the details. As for due process, let's say I give the guy ample time to ask for forgiveness, is that good enough? I present all the details, know everything about what he did. I don't personally know this guy, or the victim. I'm entirely impartial here. And I kill him to enact justice for what he did. Is that moral?

[CliveStaples]

Due process doesn't make it moral.

Yes, it does. "Due process" means giving the accused a fair trial, where s/he is allowed to present a defense against the charges. That's being "fair", which is "good".

[CliveStaples]

So they know all the details, serial killers know all the details.

Huh?

They don't "know" all the details; all the details are presented to an impartial jury.


As for due process, let's say I give the guy ample time to ask for forgiveness, is that good enough? I present all the details, know everything about what he did. I don't personally know this guy, or the victim. I'm entirely impartial here. And I kill him to enact justice for what he did. Is that moral?

No, it's not. You cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner. No one person should have that kind of power; you are not God, and you aren't omniscient. There are laws, and those laws are to be followed. While not EVERY law is moral, some are. Breaking those laws is immoral.

HOW do you know everything about what he did? Who told you? Did you see it? You have firsthand knowledge of what this man did? Then you aren't an impartial judge, you are a material witness. Certainly not a juror.

[Mr. Hyde]

No, it's not. You cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Why Not? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

There are laws, and those laws are to be followed. While not EVERY law is moral, some are. Breaking those laws is immoral.
And what makes those laws moral exactly?

HOW do you know everything about what he did? Who told you? Did you see it? You have firsthand knowledge of what this man did? Then you aren't an impartial judge, you are a material witness. Certainly not a juror.
That doesn't matter how I know. FOr clarity sake, someone gave me a videotape of him committing the crime. There, I don't know the guy, and everything he did is on tape. I'm still impartial, and now I know the details.

[Slipnish]

Yes, it does. "Due process" means giving the accused a fair trial, where s/he is allowed to present a defense against the charges. That's being "fair", which is "good".

So, if innocent people are convicted, then "due process" is still moral? Its still "fair" if an innocent man gets blamed for murder and undergoes some form of state approved execution? :?:

And that's "good"? ;?

Boy, I am beginning to see the dangers in the unswerving devotion to universal morality.

If we kill YOU it's okay because we have morality on our side. :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. Who saw that coming?

(Playing Apoks apologetics here...) :P

[CC]

by apok:

They also are qualified agents in a position to make such a decision.

Uhm. mostly the decision rest with twelve people who were'nt bright enough to out of jury duty.................:O)

[FruitandNut]

Murder cannot be Moral. Murder is 'wrong killing'. 'Permissable killing' is not considered as being murder, it is called many things - but not murder.

[Apokalupsis]

Due process doesn't make it moral. Apok has been screaming that one for days now. Not all laws/rights (as is due process) are moral.
Due process is the result of justice. Justice is what makes it moral. A vigilante is not carrying out justice, but revenge. Society does not seek "revenge" through capital punishment, but rather justice as carried out through due process. JUSTICE, is the key.

[Apokalupsis]

What qualifies them apok? What gives them a superior say to me? So they know all the details, serial killers know all the details. As for due process, let's say I give the guy ample time to ask for forgiveness, is that good enough? I present all the details, know everything about what he did. I don't personally know this guy, or the victim. I'm entirely impartial here. And I kill him to enact justice for what he did. Is that moral?
No. You have exercised revenge, but not justice. Revenge doesn't make it moral, justice does. The nature of the two are not the same.

[Apokalupsis]

Why Not? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Sure we do. Instead of a checks/balance system, and investigation by qualified and educated professionals in forensics, investigations and law...our fate is left to someone who wants revenge or is deluded enough that he thinks he is qualified in all above fields.



And what makes those laws moral exactly?
Laws aren't necessarily moral. But it is immoral to break laws. However, this does not mean that if a law violates a universal moral principle, that it should NOT be broken.

Getting off-topic, but a brief explanation nonetheless:

Example: If it is law that all households should own at least 1 slave, slavery is legal (obviously). And by not having at least 1 slave, one breaks the law. But if slavery is universally immoral, the GREATER GOOD here is to uphold the moral of anti-slavery and break the law that says one must have slaves.

This is NOT relative morality however. This isn't saying "What is good for you is good for you and what is good to me is good to me". It is a conflict of 2 absolute morals: do not break laws and do not hold slaves. Morals have differing weights of value. While both are good here, the GREATER good is anti-slavery. Laws after all, can be wrong. For theists, they believe that morals come from God...and God's laws supersede that of man's laws. God tells theists to obey man's law unless they conflict with God's laws. For non-theists, their absolute measure is that of GREATER GOOD. That is, the greater good always supercedes that of the lessor good. In this case, that all men should be free is a greater good than all men should obey every given law.

/end off topic



That doesn't matter how I know. FOr clarity sake, someone gave me a videotape of him committing the crime. There, I don't know the guy, and everything he did is on tape. I'm still impartial, and now I know the details.
You've just shown how the system fails if we used YOUR way, no justice would be served, and it would be immoral to try him as such.

Video's aren't the end all be all. Furthermore, you aren't familiar w/ the penal code enough to hand down a sentencing. Again, there are no checks and balances.

[Apokalupsis]

So, if innocent people are convicted, then "due process" is still moral? Its still "fair" if an innocent man gets blamed for murder and undergoes some form of state approved execution? :?:
Whoa there cochise. The issue here is NOT the specific practice of capital punishment as it exists today, it is the concept of capital punishment itself.

That is, capital punishment can be moral, yet OPPOSED due to the flaws in which it is carried out.

I SUPPORT capital punishment (the idea), but I OPPOSE capital punishment as it is practiced today in our nation BECAUSE the practice is flawed...NOT the idea.

[Apokalupsis]

by apok:


Uhm. mostly the decision rest with twelve people who were'nt bright enough to out of jury duty.................:O)
Wrong. By qualified agents, I mean we have a defense and prosecution team, forensic investigators, jurors who are heard the case, and a judge who presides over the case. Also, the judge's ruling supersedes that of the jurors'. Between all qualified agents, we have experts in forensics and criminal science, witnesses to the effect, experts on law and law enforcement, experts on penal code.

When you can show how 1 individual can be SUPERIOR to that of the above, you will have won the argument re: "qualified agents".

[Mr. Hyde]

Laws aren't necessarily moral. But it is immoral to break laws. However, this does not mean that if a law violates a universal moral principle, that it should NOT be broken.
Laws might not be moral, but it's still immoral to violate them? How can it be immoral to break a law if the law isn't moral?

You've just shown how the system fails if we used YOUR way, no justice would be served, and it would be immoral to try him as such.
Fair enough.

I'm still failing to see how capital punishment isn't murder. How is it justice when a man is held captive for months and then executed, but not justice when a man seeks out that same man, and kills him? Revenge and Justice aren't entirely different. Revenge is more or less the emotionally motivated version of justice.

[Apokalupsis]

Laws might not be moral, but it's still immoral to violate them? How can it be immoral to break a law if the law isn't moral?
Because OF the separate moral action: "One should obey laws". That is an independent moral action.



I'm still failing to see how capital punishment isn't murder.
Let's try it this way...

How would YOU like to define murder. Let's see it from your side of the table. What do you believe murder actually is?

I suspect, that it is NOT the value here that we are in disagreement with, but RATHER, it is the definition. That is, we both agree that the taking of one's life through malicious, vengeful, unjust means is a moral wrong. But WHAT we define as being a malicious, vengeful and unust means, will differ.

Sort of like the abortion debate. BOTH sides believe that life SHOULD be protected and preserved, that is not the argument. What is disputed, is WHAT life is, or WHEN it begins. That is, "what qualifies AS life".


How is it justice when a man is held captive for months and then executed, but not justice when a man seeks out that same man, and kills him? Revenge and Justice aren't entirely different. Revenge is more or less the emotionally motivated version of justice.
Perhaps this IS the crux of the issue. What is the difference between Justice and Revenge. I see them as two ENTIRELY different concepts. And I would agree, that IF they were one in the same, then your argument would prevail...and I'd actually agree with your position. However, the division here is due (or so it seems) to the acceptance of what revenge and justice is.

Brief definitions that show they are NOT the same:

Justice: the quality of being just or fair; the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments; the virtue of protecting individuals' possessions within the acknowledged rules of conduct

Revenge: retaliation; to inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult); to seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person)

Can you see no significant difference between the two? Where is the fairness in automatic "revenge"? It DISALLOWS for justice. There is no fairness in revenge. It does not allow a fair trial, nor an examination of events/facts, nor checks and balances.

[Mr. Hyde]

How would YOU like to define murder. Let's see it from your side of the table. What do you believe murder actually is?
Murder, to me, is taking another life. Period. It doesn't make you a bad person to kill, but it doesn't change what you did. There's always a way to avoid killing someone.

As for revenge and Justice. I see the difference, but consider this, what motivates Justice? What causes people to seek justice? To see punishment of the person who did the wicked act. What is the motivation of revenge? To punish the person who committed the wicked act. The only real difference is involvement.

Doesn't semantics mean a debate about definitions? If so, then yeah, I'm a bit of a fan of that stuff.

[Apokalupsis]

Murder, to me, is taking another life. Period. It doesn't make you a bad person to kill, but it doesn't change what you did. There's always a way to avoid killing someone.
A few problems arise here.

First, the bold part of your post contradicts your position. Aren't you arguing AGAINST murder because it is wrong (or immoral)? Now you are saying that it isn't (the part in bold).



As for revenge and Justice. I see the difference, but consider this, what motivates Justice?
Let's see...what motivates fairness and virture of upholding the rules of conduct? I think it is innate for reasonable people to desire fairness and equal treatment for all.


What causes people to seek justice?
Same as above. A necessary wrong demands a necessary fair reaction.


To see punishment of the person who did the wicked act.
To see fair and corresponding punishment according to the deed committed. Nor more.


What is the motivation of revenge? To punish the person who committed the wicked act. The only real difference is involvement.
Incorrect. It's like saying:

Going to school to be educated, then working your ass off in a professional, respectable career so that one may accumulate wealth and provide for their family, is really just the same thing as:

Robbing a bank; burglarizing a home and killing those who resist, then stealing valuables; embezzling millions, so that one may accumulate wealth and provide for their family.

BOTH have the same motivation: to accumulate wealth and provide for their family. So by your logic, the same moral value must be placed on both. So it is either the case that both acts are moral (in which case, robbing, burglarzing, killing, stealing, and embezzling are MORAL values - good - and should be done)....or they are immoral (in which case the pursuit of education and a career is immoral - bad - and should not be done).

MOTIVATION is not the determinant here.



Doesn't semantics mean a debate about definitions? If so, then yeah, I'm a bit of a fan of that stuff.
I'm not. We learn nothing from semantic debates. CONCEPTS are what we discuss and learn from to change our views, learn, and persuade. Word definition arguments have no value as it ignores context and never addresses what is really being argued in most cases.

[Slipnish]

Due process is the result of justice. Justice is what makes it moral. A vigilante is not carrying out justice, but revenge. Society does not seek "revenge" through capital punishment, but rather justice as carried out through due process. JUSTICE, is the key.

How is it less justice to kill someone to avenge the death of a loved one? The end result is the same.

So that makes it not murder but something else....

So universal morality exists, as long as the will of the people (who determine what justice is) is done?

Methinks I smell a rat.....

Though I may have to cogitate upon it a bit.

Okay...so...

Someone kills my child. I see them do it, and I kill them. My action is immoral because I took away due process? Excuse me while I look at what seems to be a misery wrapped up in an enema. :p

[Valium]

Murder, to me, is taking another life. Period. It doesn't make you a bad person to kill, but it doesn't change what you did. There's always a way to avoid killing someone.
Murder (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

kill1 (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.
To put to death.
To deprive of life

Huh, that's really weird, the definitions are different. Wait a minute! could they mean different things?! Woah! So, like, revenge is wrong because it fits the definition of murder in two elements, those being: "it's unlawful" and done "with premeditated malice". While capital punishment lacks malice, is considered lawful, and is considered neccessary for the protection of society by eliminating most dangerous/violent criminals. Dude, tubular.

Any questions?

[Mr. Hyde]

A few problems arise here.

First, the bold part of your post contradicts your position. Aren't you arguing AGAINST murder because it is wrong (or immoral)? Now you are saying that it isn't (the part in bold).
Not really. It's immoral, but that doesn't make you an immoral person. I'm sort of swingin from Aristotle's breakdown of man and virtue here. The four type, Virtuous, Continent, Incontinent, and Malicious. Committing an immoral act doesn't automatically make you Malicious, depending on your knowledge of your actions, it more so makes you a Continent or Incontinent person. See Aristotles application on Homer Simpson for more detail.

Let's see...what motivates fairness and virture of upholding the rules of conduct? I think it is innate for reasonable people to desire fairness and equal treatment for all.
Fairness doesn't motivate Justice. Justice is the desire to right a wrong for the right reasons. Fairness is just a desire for equality. Virtue I'll agree on.

Incorrect. It's like saying:

Going to school to be educated, then working your ass off in a professional, respectable career so that one may accumulate wealth and provide for their family, is really just the same thing as:

Robbing a bank; burglarizing a home and killing those who resist, then stealing valuables; embezzling millions, so that one may accumulate wealth and provide for their family.

BOTH have the same motivation: to accumulate wealth and provide for their family. So by your logic, the same moral value must be placed on both. So it is either the case that both acts are moral (in which case, robbing, burglarzing, killing, stealing, and embezzling are MORAL values - good - and should be done)....or they are immoral (in which case the pursuit of education and a career is immoral - bad - and should not be done).
Yeah, ya got me there.

MOTIVATION is not the determinant here.
So, it's teleological? Consequential? It has nothing to do with motivation? You've just hung yourself. By that assessment, it wouldn't matter if it was for justice or revenge why I killed someone or why the state killed them, it would be murder or it wouldn't in both cases.

[Mr. Hyde]

Murder (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Any questions?
Yeah, what makes it lawful?

[Valium]

Yeah, what makes it lawful?

law·ful (lôfl)
adj.
Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
Obeying the law; law-abiding.

[Apokalupsis]

How is it less justice to kill someone to avenge the death of a loved one? The end result is the same.

No, the ends do not justify the means.

2 people could want to accumulate wealth as their ends. 1 becomes highly educated, becomes a physician, and earns quite a bit of money. The other beats and steals others, burglarizing others, robbing banks.

If ends justify the means, then the robber/thief/mugger is acting morally and he should continue to do so. He is no different than the doctor.



So that makes it not murder but something else....
Ends do not justify the means. There is nothing wrong with self-gratification...but it is wrong to self-gratify oneself through the molestation of children. It is however, ok to gratify oneself with a consenting adult.



So universal morality exists, as long as the will of the people (who determine what justice is) is done?

Methinks I smell a rat.....

Though I may have to cogitate upon it a bit.
What? How could you have possibly have come to this conclusion? However so, it's quite a straw man you have built up here.



Someone kills my child. I see them do it, and I kill them. My action is immoral because I took away due process? Excuse me while I look at what seems to be a misery wrapped up in an enema. :p
You did so without justice. You committed murder. Simply because one person commits murder is not a justification in and of itself for another to commit murder. 2 wrongs do not make a right. We have 2 universal morals here. Not to commit murder, and obey the law. You violated 2 morals.

[Apokalupsis]

Not really. It's immoral, but that doesn't make you an immoral person. I'm sort of swingin from Aristotle's breakdown of man and virtue here. The four type, Virtuous, Continent, Incontinent, and Malicious. Committing an immoral act doesn't automatically make you Malicious, depending on your knowledge of your actions, it more so makes you a Continent or Incontinent person.
So a murderer is not immoral?



Fairness doesn't motivate Justice. Justice is the desire to right a wrong for the right reasons. Fairness is just a desire for equality. Virtue I'll agree on.



So, it's teleological? Consequential? It has nothing to do with motivation? You've just hung yourself. By that assessment, it wouldn't matter if it was for justice or revenge why I killed someone or why the state killed them, it would be murder or it wouldn't in both cases.
No. What I said was "MOTIVATION is not the determinant here." Perhaps I should have highlighted the key word: "MOTIVATION is not the determinant here."

This was the conclusion from the example of the doctor and burglar that you agreed with. BOTH are motivated to accumulate wealth and provide for their families. Yet, we acknowledge that the methods used by the burglar to reach this goal, were immoral. So it is not the end result that is necessarily immoral here, but rather the methods used to reach said goal. Immoral means were used to achieve the goal of the motivation.

[Ibelsd]

I think the first thing we need to do is to set up a premise. It seems everyone is basically taking the 6th commandment from the bible and attempting to lay their own interpretation of it. In this manner one can define morality. This is fine as long as we all agree that the ten commandments are the basis for Western morality.

You don't have to be a Christian to follow along. If this is the case, then our guide for morality as it relates to killing should be based on the biblical scriptures. So, the real question is, "what does thou shalt not kill" really mean.

I went to several differnet websites. None agreed. One website explained that the Hebrew word for kill meant an absolute of not killing anything or anyone. Another website also referred to ancient Hebrew, but found the word for kill meant murder specifically. Hmmm. Some contradiction. Either all, killing is immoral, or only murder is immoral. The website that made the most sense to me was the one which only considered acts of murder as immoral. After all, didn't god command the Israelites to kill their enemies? In addition, didn't god command those guilty of murder to be punished by the Blood of the Avenger (closest of kin to the murdered)? If so, then the first definition of thou shalt not kill, the more absolute version, doesn't seem to make sense.

The title of the room here, though is Moral Murder? The question is not killing in general, but murder specifically. In such a case, we again refer to ancient Hebrew. Murder does not refer to all killing. It only refers to a specific type of killing in which trickery or deceit is used and in which the killing is premeditated. In other words, killing in self-defense, is not murder. As such, we can say, all murder is immoral, by definition.

[CliveStaples]

As such, we can say, all murder is immoral, by definition.

That's only if you accept absolute morality. [rant] A relative moralist might say, "immoral according to whom? Don't force your bourgeois concepts of morality on ME, I'm educated! I tell YOU how it is!"

[/end rant]

[Apokalupsis]

You don't have to be a Christian to follow along. If this is the case, then our guide for morality as it relates to killing should be based on the biblical scriptures. So, the real question is, "what does thou shalt not kill" really mean.

I went to several differnet websites. None agreed. One website explained that the Hebrew word for kill meant an absolute of not killing anything or anyone. Another website also referred to ancient Hebrew, but found the word for kill meant murder specifically. Hmmm. Some contradiction. Either all, killing is immoral, or only murder is immoral. The website that made the most sense to me was the one which only considered acts of murder as immoral. After all, didn't god command the Israelites to kill their enemies? In addition, didn't god command those guilty of murder to be punished by the Blood of the Avenger (closest of kin to the murdered)? If so, then the first definition of thou shalt not kill, the more absolute version, doesn't seem to make sense.
See this thread: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Paul]

We know the definition of the word moral in the dictionary, and it probably has a clinical definition as well. To me the word morality is a standard/law or rule for rule breakers. Then there is belief that what you are doing is right or wrong, then the act. What if we did not have capital punishment or corporal punsihment? What law/standard or rule would we have tpo punish the guilty. We are not perfect beings. Our law has flaws as do we. But any ordered society must have some rules or there would be chaos.
Paul

[Mr. Hyde]

law·ful (lôfl)
adj.
Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
Obeying the law; law-abiding.
Okay, let me ask again, "What MAKES it lawful?" What causes an electric chair or a lethal injection to be seen as legal or "lawful" when a bullet to the back of the skull is wrong?

[Mr. Hyde]

So a murderer is not immoral?
A single act of murder doesn't make you a murderer. Just the same as a single lie doesn't make you a liar.

No. What I said was "MOTIVATION is not the determinant here." Perhaps I should have highlighted the key word: "MOTIVATION is not the determinant here."
You've probably already said it, but what IS the determinant then? If you remove the search for justice that ends in an execution, and the desire for revenge that ends in an execution, you're left with two different instances where a person is killed, and according that idea that motivation isn't the determinant, there's no difference. The Method is the difference I think is what you're getting at. Let me ask then, what makes electrocuting someone to death better than a bullet to the back of the head? What makes a few injections better than than that bullet? The bullet is fast, arguably painless. The other two have been argued to cause pain. So wouldn't a gunshot be more moral than the others?

This was the conclusion from the example of the doctor and burglar that you agreed with. BOTH are motivated to accumulate wealth and provide for their families. Yet, we acknowledge that the methods used by the burglar to reach this goal, were immoral. So it is not the end result that is necessarily immoral here, but rather the methods used to reach said goal. Immoral means were used to achieve the goal of the motivation.
Again, what makes a lethal injection, an electric chair, a gas chamber (Something inspired by the Nazis BTW) better than that one bullet? Remember other methods of execution over the years as well, hangings, firing squad, crucifixions, burnings, stoning, pressing, etc. What makes those better than a slit throat or a bullet to the brain?

[KevinBrowning]

A single act of murder doesn't make you a murderer. Just the same as a single lie doesn't make you a liar.

What? If you murder someone, you're a murderer. That should be obvious. Or are you saying someone has to be a serial killer to classify as a murderer, or maybe just kill a minimum of two people? Please. You're not making sense here at all.

[Mr. Hyde]

What? If you murder someone, you're a murderer. That should be obvious. Or are you saying someone has to be a serial killer to classify as a murderer, or maybe just kill a minimum of two people? Please. You're not making sense here at all.
I am making sense here. Like I showed with the example of liar, one instance doesn't make you classified in that area. One lie doesn't make you a liar. One murder doesn't make you a murderer.

[FruitandNut]

If it is a 'murder' then the person who did it is a 'murderer'. He/she may be repentent later, and never murder again, but the fact remains that they have 'murdered' and are indentified as having done so by that label. If socity is caring and understanding of their 'Prodigal Son', then they should be prepared to kill the fatted calf, and celibrate any repentence and not gratuitously use the label. But fact still remains fact and the label remains latent.

[Mr. Hyde]

Okay, let me reword this and explain it a little more. If you get into a debate with someone, and win, you're not a debator, you're just a person who won a debate. For you to be classified as a debator, you'd have to have had experience and multiple times debating, practically a hobby or a career as such. One lie doesn't make you a liar. One murder doesn't make you a murderer.

Or, to put it more simply: A child walks into the street, I push it out of the way of a speeding car saving its life. Am I a virtuous person? NO. For all intensive reasons, I could be the worst man alive and have just done a good deed. One deed, either good or bad, doesn't push a person to Virtuous or Malicious. If it did, not a single person on Earth would be Continent or Incontinent, we'd all be labelled as ultimately good, or ultimately bad.

Now, back to my main question: What about Capital Punishment exactly, since it isn't due process or the quest for justice that makes it moral, makes it moral?

[CliveStaples]

One lie doesn't make you a liar. One murder doesn't make you a murderer.

You are equivocating. "Liar" can mean someone who has a pattern of lying, or lies often. "Murderer", however, usually means someone who has committed murder. Is Scott Peterson a murderer? Was James Earl Ray a murderer? Was Lee Harvey Oswald an assassin?

So if someone picks your pocket on the street, and you say, "Stop, thief," you would expect the man who stole from you to turn around and say, "Wait, wait, wait. I'm not a thief. I just stole from you. That doesn't make me a thief."


What about Capital Punishment exactly, since it isn't due process or the quest for justice that makes it moral, makes it moral?

You seem to be ignoring arguments presented here. It IS due process and the quest for justice that makes it moral. Capital punishment lacks malice, which revenge does not.

[Mr. Hyde]

You are equivocating. "Liar" can mean someone who has a pattern of lying, or lies often. "Murderer", however, usually means someone who has committed murder. Is Scott Peterson a murderer? Was James Earl Ray a murderer? Was Lee Harvey Oswald an assassin?
Scott Peterson wasn't a murderer, he was a disturbed individual who committed murder. James Earl Ray, wasn't he the guy who killed Dr. King? If so, same as Peterson. Oswald was a commie and that whole situation is still debateable.

So if someone picks your pocket on the street, and you say, "Stop, thief," you would expect the man who stole from you to turn around and say, "Wait, wait, wait. I'm not a thief. I just stole from you. That doesn't make me a thief."
I wouldn't yell, "Stop thief" I would say, "Hey, you stole my wallet!" and then proceed in chasing said person down.

You seem to be ignoring arguments presented here. It IS due process and the quest for justice that makes it moral. Capital punishment lacks malice, which revenge does not.
I'm not ignoring arguments. You're saying Due process and the motivation (justice) matters. Apok is saying they don't. I'm confused is all.

[CliveStaples]

"What MAKES it lawful?" What causes an electric chair or a lethal injection to be seen as legal or "lawful" when a bullet to the back of the skull is wrong?

Let me help you out, o ye of little comprehension:

law·ful (lôfl)
adj.
Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
Obeying the law; law-abiding.

Because the law ALLOWS the death penalty, it is LAWFUL. Because the death penalty is ESTABLISHED, SANCTIONED, and RECOGNIZED by the law, it is LAWFUL. Because people who carry out the death penalty are OBEYING the law, such action is LAWFUL.

[CliveStaples]

MOTIVATION is not the determinant here.
It is not THE determinant. It is surely a concern, especially when considering the morality of an action. A man who kills his wife because she asks him to (facilitating a suicide) because he wanted to see her suffering end is surely less immoral than a man who kills his wife by poisoning her (premeditated murder) in order to get the life insurance, so that he could buy new shiny things.

However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. An honorable motivation does not a moral action make.

[EDIT: Sorry for the redundancy.]

[CliveStaples]

Due process doesn't make it moral. Apok has been screaming that one for days now. Not all laws/rights (as is due process) are moral.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean, for which I am to blame. Due process does NOT make an otherwise IMMORAL, BAD, ILLEGAL decision/action MORAL, GOOD, or LEGAL. Due process IS, however, a mark of the pursuit of justice. It isn't NECESSARILY a mark of the pursuit of justice (witness O.J.'s criminal trial, wherein "due process" was executed, but the guilty man was not convicted).

[Mr. Hyde]

Let me help you out, o ye of little comprehension:

law·ful (lôfl)
adj.
Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
Obeying the law; law-abiding.

Because the law ALLOWS the death penalty, it is LAWFUL. Because the death penalty is ESTABLISHED, SANCTIONED, and RECOGNIZED by the law, it is LAWFUL. Because people who carry out the death penalty are OBEYING the law, such action is LAWFUL.
Jesus Christ ALmighty. I'm asking what makes it lawful. WHAT ALLOWS IT TO BE SANCTIONED AND RECOGNISED AS LAWFUL!? What makes the law recognise it as moral? Saying, "It's lawful because the law recognises it." is not only retarded, but circular and useless. What is it about capital punishment that makes it moral?

As such, it would seem that whatever makes it moral now, would continue to make it moral even if it were illegalised. So, explain what makes it moral. According to Apok, due process isn't it. According to you, it is. Who am I to believe? How can I understand what makes it moral when the people saying it's moral can't even agree on what makes it moral?

[CliveStaples]

I'm asking what makes it lawful.

I guess I'm not strong enough in the Force to know that you meant "WHAT ALLOWS IT TO BE SANCTIONED AND RECOGNISED AS LAWFUL" instead of "how does it fit the definition of lawful". My bad.

Here's a concept of justice: if man sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual punishment, so it passes 8th Amendment tests. Additionally, it is used against convicted criminals, not people suspected of committing crimes.

Are you asking why the state can kill people but I, as a citizen, can't? You are removing context. You, as a citizen, can pull the switch to electrocute a convicted criminal. Carrying out state executions against convicted criminals isn't immoral (given that the "criminal" is indeed guilty). Why is this? Because killing isn't bad, per se. Killing in self-defense or in defense of others is not immoral. But why is capital punishment used instead of life in prison without the possibility of parole? There have been threads on this topic before. There's the deterrance that the death penalty creates. There's the money saved when a defendant pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty. Additionally, there's the puninition aspect. As in civil law, a payment must be made for infractions. Sometimes, staying in a state facility getting three squares a day doesn't cut it. Sorry if I didn't answer any other questions that I should have known about; I keep meaning to continue my Jedi training, but who has the time?

[FruitandNut]

Mr. Hyde - One instance of murder suffices in social convention to label a person as a murderer, it is not necessary to launch into a career of serial killings to gain the accolade. It is not a case of, 'One swallow does not a summer make', it is more like a one off action that can label a person a hero and get them the CGM or VC. It is a label for life, rather like, once a priest, always a priest - even if 'you' never continue officially as one.

As for the authority behind the labelling of murderer - well that is much to do with social and religious convention and understanding.

[Mr. Hyde]

I guess I'm not strong enough in the Force to know that you meant "WHAT ALLOWS IT TO BE SANCTIONED AND RECOGNISED AS LAWFUL" instead of "how does it fit the definition of lawful". My bad.

Here's a concept of justice: if man sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual punishment, so it passes 8th Amendment tests. Additionally, it is used against convicted criminals, not people suspected of committing crimes.

Are you asking why the state can kill people but I, as a citizen, can't? You are removing context. You, as a citizen, can pull the switch to electrocute a convicted criminal. Carrying out state executions against convicted criminals isn't immoral (given that the "criminal" is indeed guilty). Why is this? Because killing isn't bad, per se. Killing in self-defense or in defense of others is not immoral. But why is capital punishment used instead of life in prison without the possibility of parole? There have been threads on this topic before. There's the deterrance that the death penalty creates. There's the money saved when a defendant pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty. Additionally, there's the puninition aspect. As in civil law, a payment must be made for infractions. Sometimes, staying in a state facility getting three squares a day doesn't cut it. Sorry if I didn't answer any other questions that I should have known about; I keep meaning to continue my Jedi training, but who has the time?
Clive, all joking aside, I never once changed my question. My question was always, "what makes it lawful?" and even one other person listed the definition of "lawful" to explain why Capital punishment is lawful. So, to quote zhav, "You lose at this debate for not reading the thread" Like I said, it's circular reasoning, not some hidden question that you didn't know about.

Now then, okay, it falls in line with the eighth amendment, so it's constitutional. It's legal, so it's lawful. How is it humane? What about electrifying someone to death is humane? As for it being a deterrent, we see just how well that works. <--Sarcasm. The Death penalty does NOT deter crime. It never has, it never will. Now then, what makes it moral? If it's just a trial and a conviction, those can be done without the state, and despite what you believe about "impartial jury" EVERYONE is biased in one way or another.

It's justice. Okay, again, the state is not required for justice. A single man with a gun can deliver justice. It's not justice then, it's revenge. Well, what seperates revenge from justice? The state kills them for justice. You kill them for revenge. Either way, the blighter is dead and justice is done. So the motivation fails to matter here as well as Apok pointed out. It's the means. Again, what is so moral about blasting electricity through someone until they die?

[Mr. Hyde]

Mr. Hyde - One instance of murder suffices in social convention to label a person as a murderer, it is not necessary to launch into a career of serial killings to gain the accolade. It is not a case of, 'One swallow does not a summer make', it is more like a one off action that can label a person a hero and get them the CGM or VC. It is a label for life, rather like, once a priest, always a priest - even if 'you' never continue officially as one.

As for the authority behind the labelling of murderer - well that is much to do with social and religious convention and understanding.
Maybe it's enough for the common person to call a man who kills one person a murderer, but doing so ignores every other aspect of the individual being called a murderer. Again, equating it to lying, if you told one lie in your life, despite all the good things you did, you'd understand everyone calling you a liar?

[FruitandNut]

Mr.Hyde - It is a mark of how seriously the 'general mind' takes murder. For the person murdered it is for keeps, therefore the 'Mark of Cain' is percieved in fairness, to be for keeps.

[Mr. Hyde]

Mr.Hyde - It is a mark of how seriously the 'general mind' takes murder. For the person murdered it is for keeps, therefore the 'Mark of Cain' is percieved in fairness, to be for keeps.
Interesting point, but that doesn't answer my question. If you told one lie, and all your life, you were called a liar despite the oodles of good things you'd done, would you consider it understandable that everyone call you a liar?

[FruitandNut]

Lies can always be retracted, they are not always serious, save to yourself. We are 'all' liars to one degree or another, at one time or another, we are not all murderers. There is as I explained, a percieved degree of seriousness and finality in a murder, that cannot be undone. Yes, lies should never be indulged in, except for altruistic reasons; but they are not percieved as having that same level of severity as killing. Lies are told on a daily basis in Law Courts, thankfully murders are quite rare in such places.

If people choose to label me as a liar, I would put my hands up and say 'fair do's'. I would then suggest that it might also be a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. I might also throw in, 'people in glasshouses should not throw stones'.

If I had murdered, but had turned my life around and was being a positive agent for good; then if people chose to constantly remind me of that mad/bad moment, I would see them as having the greater 'problem', not me.

[Mr. Hyde]

If I had murdered, but had turned my life around and was being a positive agent for good; then if people chose to constantly remind me of that mad/bad moment, I would see them as having the greater 'problem', not me.
There you go. You recognise that one act does NOT define an individual. Like I said, Labelling a person who commits one act of murder as a murderer ignores everything else they have done.

[CliveStaples]

Labelling a person who commits one act of murder as a murderer ignores everything else they have done.

Where's the magic line? Two murders? Three? Are we not ignoring everything else Hitler did when we label him a "tyrant" or a "murderer"? Or Stalin, an "oppressor"?

[Mr. Hyde]

Where's the magic line? Two murders? Three? Are we not ignoring everything else Hitler did when we label him a "tyrant" or a "murderer"? Or Stalin, an "oppressor"?
No not at all. They had no redeeming qualities. The magic line is when the bad outweighs the good. To point once more to Aristotle, a few bad acts does not make one Malicious and a few good deeds does make one Virtuous. You have to consider everything about the individual.

[CliveStaples]

The magic line is when the bad outweighs the good.

So if a man who kills six million people also saved six million and one, he would not be such a bad guy?

[FruitandNut]

Mr. Hyde - the important thing is that you love your neighbour, if they do not love you, that is for them to justify. At the end of the day the most important issue will be your own final assessment of yourself in that atmosphere of absolute truth, with your Creator as the fair 'Imprimatur' of your judgement.

[Mr. Hyde]

So if a man who kills six million people also saved six million and one, he would not be such a bad guy?
DId he save those people before or after he killed the others? And why did he save them? There are factors to be considered. :P

[Apokalupsis]

A single act of murder doesn't make you a murderer. Just the same as a single lie doesn't make you a liar.
Many problems here.

1) How many murders does one have to commit before "officially" qualified as a murderer?
2) How many lies does a person have to commmit before "officially" being a liar?

3) According to LAW, one is labeled a murderer, by committing the CRIME of murder. Lying (in the general sense), is not against the law. It is a crime under specific circumstances, when it then becomes purjary or fraud. Murder however, is always illegal by definition.

4) Also, are you saying the person who just was convicted OF murder and will now be sent to prison to serve his time, is NOT a murderer? So when we say that rapists, murderers, thieves, etc... populate the prisons today, we are actually wrong by doing so because many inmates only committed the act once (which is silly, as most who get caught, have actually committed the crimes many times before), thereby disqualifying them AS rapists, murderers, thieves? What shall we call them then? Misunderstood? People who made just a poor decision or mistake in life? C'mon.

5) Also, an argument could be made, that it isn't the QUANTITY of offenses committed that qualifies a person to be a murderer/liar, etc...but rather, it's the QUALITY. That is, the offense of murder is SO great of an offense, that anyone committing it, is labeled as such. Whereas lying is not nearly as bad as its ramifications or results are not as horrible as that of murder.

6) I asked "A murderer is not immoral? You then replied with "A single act of murder doesn't make you a murderer. Just the same as a single lie doesn't make you a liar.

Where does the number of murders committed even come up in our discussion? Aren't thsoe who commit many murders, murderers? Are they not then immoral beings? Is a child molestor an immoral person?



You've probably already said it, but what IS the determinant then?
I did already state it. The Justice vs Revenge issue, AND the issue of total method of due process stated in post #37. It isn't method of killing that makes it "moral", that's nonsense. It's the entire process in which one is determined innocent or guilty, the crimes fully examined, and justice being served. A 1 man team cannot do this, not only due to qualifications, but because there are no checks and balances. It is a "free-for-all" based on faulty reasoning and prejudice.



Again, what makes a lethal injection, an electric chair, a gas chamber (Something inspired by the Nazis BTW) better than that one bullet? Remember other methods of execution over the years as well, hangings, firing squad, crucifixions, burnings, stoning, pressing, etc. What makes those better than a slit throat or a bullet to the brain?
It is NOT method of execution that makes it "moral". I've never once claimed this.

FYI: The gas chamber WAS NOT inspired by the Nazi's. Now you are just reaching, it's nonsense. Most of the countries' gas chambers were build in the 1920's by Eaton Metal Products of Salt Lake. Our use of hydrogen cyanide was used was NOT inspired by Nazi Germany. After about 1890 or so, we sought to find other methods of execution that were more humane than hanging. The electric chair came into play around that time, but many states didn't agree it was "more humane", thus the use of a fumigation gas (hydrogen cyanide) was propsed as an alternative, and it was finally made a reality in the early '20's.

[Apokalupsis]

Now, back to my main question: What about Capital Punishment exactly, since it isn't due process or the quest for justice that makes it moral, makes it moral?
Who said due process didn't make it moral?

[FruitandNut]

Due process makes things legal - not necessarily moral; that depends on additional circumstances and considerations.

[Mr. Hyde]

1) How many murders does one have to commit before "officially" qualified as a murderer?
Again, it's not about how many times a person does one act, it's about all the bad one does weighed against all the good.

2) How many lies does a person have to commmit before "officially" being a liar?
Same as above.

3) According to LAW, one is labeled a murderer, by committing the CRIME of murder. Lying (in the general sense), is not against the law. It is a crime under specific circumstances, when it then becomes purjary or fraud. Murder however, is always illegal by definition.
The LAW isn't always right Apok. Would you label a starving man a thief when he was stealing food to feed himself and his starving family even if he only did it once?

4) Also, are you saying the person who just was convicted OF murder and will now be sent to prison to serve his time, is NOT a murderer? So when we say that rapists, murderers, thieves, etc... populate the prisons today, we are actually wrong by doing so because many inmates only committed the act once (which is silly, as most who get caught, have actually committed the crimes many times before), thereby disqualifying them AS rapists, murderers, thieves? What shall we call them then? Misunderstood? People who made just a poor decision or mistake in life? C'mon.
Considering the bold, if they have done it multiple times before, fine, label them all you want, but again, it's about the good and bad one does weighed against each other. I wouldn't call them misunderstood, I'd call them simply a person who acted immorally. Or, a convict. Is that so difficult?

5) Also, an argument could be made, that it isn't the QUANTITY of offenses committed that qualifies a person to be a murderer/liar, etc...but rather, it's the QUALITY. That is, the offense of murder is SO great of an offense, that anyone committing it, is labeled as such. Whereas lying is not nearly as bad as its ramifications or results are not as horrible as that of murder.
Murder is murder, no matter the difference of appearance. Yeah, the shock value of a Jack the Ripper scene is more devastating than a simply GSW, but the ultimate result is the same, a person killed another.

6) I asked "A murderer is not immoral? You then replied with "A single act of murder doesn't make you a murderer. Just the same as a single lie doesn't make you a liar.
I see the miscommunication, let me explain. A murderer IS immoral, a person who has committed one act of murder and otherwise done good in life is not a murder or immoral, though what they did IS immoral. Once more, it's about ALL the good and bad considered.

Where does the number of murders committed even come up in our discussion? Aren't thsoe who commit many murders, murderers? Are they not then immoral beings? Is a child molestor an immoral person?
Speaking from my own past as a victim of child molestation, YES those people ARE immoral, and a murderer IS immoral, but like I said, one act in an otherwise good life doesn't label that person.

I did already state it. The Justice vs Revenge issue, AND the issue of total method of due process stated in post #37. It isn't method of killing that makes it "moral", that's nonsense. It's the entire process in which one is determined innocent or guilty, the crimes fully examined, and justice being served. A 1 man team cannot do this, not only due to qualifications, but because there are no checks and balances. It is a "free-for-all" based on faulty reasoning and prejudice.
How can a one man team NOT do this? What if I have all the qualifications? No checks and balances? Who's to say I won't be fair and honest with this person and truly treat them as innocent until guilty? Just because one person carries out justice doesn't make it revenge.

And if Due Process and checks and balances are the measure of moral punishment, then is it safe to assume that you viewed it as immoral when people brought a suspected criminal before a chieftain or majestrate because they had no one to keep them in check?

Now, allow me to ask you a question if you will. Would YOU want your entire life judged or labeled by ONE act?

[CliveStaples]

The LAW isn't always right Apok. Would you label a starving man a thief when he was stealing food to feed himself and his starving family even if he only did it once?

Apparently you aren't very familiar with the law. Have you ever heard of a "lesser of two evils / necessity" defense? Say you're in the mountains, alone. You haven't eaten or drank in a week. You come across a cabin. The door is locked. You break in and eat some food and drink some water. The act is justified because of necessity.

However, a starving man who could pay for food but still steals it is guilty. A starving man who should have been able to pay for food (e.g., he could work but refuses to) but still steals it is guilty.


Again, it's not about how many times a person does one act, it's about all the bad one does weighed against all the good.

You're missing the point. The claim isn't that a murderer has done nothing else, and his entire life can be summed up in the title of "murderer". The title "murderer" means that the person has committed murder. That's all. It means nothing about the balance of good/evil in the man's life.



Murder is murder, no matter the difference of appearance. Yeah, the shock value of a Jack the Ripper scene is more devastating than a simply GSW, but the ultimate result is the same, a person killed another.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the law. Ever heard the expression, "depraved indifference to human life"? Someone who poisons someone with a particularly nasty poison or cuts the person apart before s/he dies is likely to recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who "merely" shoots someone in the head. The more depraved the indifference to human life, the stiffer the punishment.

[Apokalupsis]

Scott Peterson wasn't a murderer, he was a disturbed individual who committed murder. James Earl Ray, wasn't he the guy who killed Dr. King? If so, same as Peterson. Oswald was a commie and that whole situation is still debateable.
Scott Peterson IS a murderer. Mr. Ray and Oswald were assassins.

Scott P. is getting the death penalty BECAUSE he is a malicious murderer who took 2 lives, tried to cover it up, has no remorse, etc... He is NOT getting the death penalty because he is merely a "disturbed individual".



I wouldn't yell, "Stop thief" I would say, "Hey, you stole my wallet!" and then proceed in chasing said person down.
lol Merely because YOU wouldn't use a specific phrase, does in no way invalidate the term used. ;)



I'm not ignoring arguments. You're saying Due process and the motivation (justice) matters. Apok is saying they don't. I'm confused is all.
Where have I said this specifically? I'm in agreement with Clive. You are misunderstanding my argument.

Capital Punishment is not moral BECAUSE it is legal. Capital Punishment is moral because it is JUST. And the motivation of revenge, is removed THROUGH the process and enaction of JUSTICE.

[Apokalupsis]

It's justice. Okay, again, the state is not required for justice. A single man with a gun can deliver justice. It's not justice then, it's revenge. Well, what seperates revenge from justice? The state kills them for justice. You kill them for revenge. Either way, the blighter is dead and justice is done. So the motivation fails to matter here as well as Apok pointed out. It's the means. Again, what is so moral about blasting electricity through someone until they die?
The "means" =/= electric chair. It is the ENTIRE process of our due process that = means. It is justice that makes it moral. A vigilante is not carrying out justice, only revenge.

[Mr. Hyde]

Scott P. is getting the death penalty BECAUSE he is a malicious murderer who took 2 lives, tried to cover it up, has no remorse, etc... He is NOT getting the death penalty because he is merely a "disturbed individual".
Not once did I say it was because he was "disturbed individual" I said he was a disturbed individual who committed murder.

lol Merely because YOU wouldn't use a specific phrase, does in no way invalidate the term used. ;)
It invalidates when they ask a question specifically designated towards me, as was done. ;)

Where have I said this specifically? I'm in agreement with Clive. You are misunderstanding my argument.
I may have misread, Sorry.

Capital Punishment is not moral BECAUSE it is legal. Capital Punishment is moral because it is JUST. And the motivation of revenge, is removed THROUGH the process and enaction of JUSTICE.
Again, how is capital punishment Justice when vigilanteism is "revenge" and therefore, "Immoral"? The whole due process trial thing? Is that the ONLY thing that makes it moral? Again I ask, does this mean you look through history and see when people brought an accused before a chieftain or majestrate and since there was no real trial or anything that it wasn't justice?

[Mr. Hyde]

The "means" =/= electric chair. It is the ENTIRE process of our due process that = means. It is justice that makes it moral. A vigilante is not carrying out justice, only revenge.
Capital Punishment=Execution. Are you telling me in all honesty that a trial is part of an execution?

[Mr. Hyde]

Apparently you aren't very familiar with the law. Have you ever heard of a "lesser of two evils / necessity" defense? Say you're in the mountains, alone. You haven't eaten or drank in a week. You come across a cabin. The door is locked. You break in and eat some food and drink some water. The act is justified because of necessity.
The act most certainly isn't justified. If it's a forest, then there's a good chance there are animals around, animals need water to live, so there would have to be a river, stream, or lake or something around somewhere. As for food, you can survive off of plants and if nothing else, by digging up worms and other bugs.

You're missing the point. The claim isn't that a murderer has done nothing else, and his entire life can be summed up in the title of "murderer". The title "murderer" means that the person has committed murder. That's all. It means nothing about the balance of good/evil in the man's life.
Again, would you want your entire life labeled because of one act? If I saw you lie and I said, "He's a liar" would that be fair? Same thing with murder. One murder and a person is forever marked as "He's a murderer" is unfair.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the law. Ever heard the expression, "depraved indifference to human life"? Someone who poisons someone with a particularly nasty poison or cuts the person apart before s/he dies is likely to recieve a stiffer punishment than someone who "merely" shoots someone in the head. The more depraved the indifference to human life, the stiffer the punishment.
I've never heard that no. But that doesn't change the fact that the person killed someone. The DC sniper and The Iceman were no less malicious than Gacy or Dahmer or Gein.

[CliveStaples]

The act most certainly isn't justified. If it's a forest, then there's a good chance there are animals around, animals need water to live, so there would have to be a river, stream, or lake or something around somewhere. As for food, you can survive off of plants and if nothing else, by digging up worms and other bugs.

What? Um, you missed the ENTIRE POINT of the hypothetical. Here's another: A man is in an area where the ONLY food and water are in a cabin. The man does not own the cabin. The man is in the area because the plane he was on crashed (thus the man did not contribute to his own predicament). The man has not eaten or drank for a week. If he is to eat or drink, he must access the food in the cabin. Breaking and entering, in such a situation, would be justified by the necessity of the action.



Again, would you want your entire life labeled because of one act? If I saw you lie and I said, "He's a liar" would that be fair? Same thing with murder. One murder and a person is forever marked as "He's a murderer" is unfair.

Did you even read what you quoted? "He's a murderer" doesn't mean "The only act this man has ever done was the act of murder" or "This man has done no good deeds and has murdered someone". It means, only, that "This man has committed murder". It DOES NOT mean that the man's life is characterized by murder, or that the man has done more evil than good.

If by "liar" you mean "someone who has lied", then you would be justified. If by "liar" you mean "someone who's behavior is characterized by lying", then you would not be justified.


I've never heard that no. But that doesn't change the fact that the person killed someone. The DC sniper and The Iceman were no less malicious than Gacy or Dahmer or Gein.

What? OF COURSE "it doesn't change the fact that the person killed someone". Good call, Hyde. I didn't say that a killer mystically doesn't commit murder unless he's acting with extreme depraved indifference to human life. What I said was that someone who commits the act of murder deserves a greater punishment if that person displayed an extraordinary depraved indifference to human life. The DC sniper was certainly more humane than Gacy, who abused his victims before murdering them.

[Apokalupsis]

Maybe it's enough for the common person to call a man who kills one person a murderer, but doing so ignores every other aspect of the individual being called a murderer. Again, equating it to lying, if you told one lie in your life, despite all the good things you did, you'd understand everyone calling you a liar?
THAT is because the action is so heinous that it warrants such a label. Someone lying one time, is NOT equitable to taking another's life.

A kid lies about his report card to his parents, doesn't necessarily make him a "liar". However, the same kid, a few years later, does a drive-by and kills someone, IS a murderer.

Your analogy doesn't work because there is no comparison between lying and murdering another. While both may be immoral acts, the VALUE or QUALITY of acts is being ignored. By your same logic, IF they have the exacting value, then they are both deserving of the same punishment. Surely you do not believe that...yet you wish pursue the same line of reasoning concerning their qualifications.

[Apokalupsis]

Due process makes things legal - not necessarily moral; that depends on additional circumstances and considerations.
Due process is the involvement of justice. Justice makes it moral.

[Mr. Hyde]

THAT is because the action is so heinous that it warrants such a label. Someone lying one time, is NOT equitable to taking another's life.

A kid lies about his report card to his parents, doesn't necessarily make him a "liar". However, the same kid, a few years later, does a drive-by and kills someone, IS a murderer.

Your analogy doesn't work because there is no comparison between lying and murdering another. While both may be immoral acts, the VALUE or QUALITY of acts is being ignored. By your same logic, IF they have the exacting value, then they are both deserving of the same punishment. Surely you do not believe that...yet you wish pursue the same line of reasoning concerning their qualifications.
You're right that they aren't equal, but they don't HAVE to be to show the comparison. Strip the specifics away and look at it this way, If you did Y once, according to your line of reasoning, that would make you a Yer, however, by mine line of reasoning, doing Y once does NOT make you a Yer, just a person who as done Y once.

[Apokalupsis]

Again, it's not about how many times a person does one act, it's about all the bad one does weighed against all the good.
I see. Then Bin Laden isn't a terrorist. He has after all built many hospitals, schools, and assisted with roadways for people in the ME. Also, since most murders only take a brief period of time to enact, someone in their 20's, 30's 40's, etc... can NEVER actually BE a murderer because MOST of their time has been spent doing something else. And it is always that 'something else' that we are to label the person as. This makes absolutely NO sense whatsover. It ignores the breaking of the societal contract that one is bound by upon entering a society, and it also ignores the value of acts committed. It also ignores pure REASON, and instead, seeks to gain favor in the argument, by pure semantics. It's a nonsensical argument.

And since you are OF this position, you STILL have not answered the question: How many murders does a murderer make? How many children does someone have to molest, in order to be a molester? How many people does someone have to rape, to be a rapist?

Lastly, the reason why your argument COMPLETELY breaks down, is because it ignores the nature of language. You wish to use Hydespeak. And when we use our own language, the ideas that are conveyed, are not ideas being discussed and therefore, have no value to the debate.

Specifically: murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another. A murderer is merely one who commits the ACT of murder.



mur·der·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr-r)
n.
One who commits murder.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: mur·der·er
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r-&r
Function: noun
: a person who commits murder


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


murderer

n : a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being) [syn: liquidator, manslayer]


More info on murder itself:
In the United States, murder, or "homicide", is normally a crime only under state law, and a murder suspect will be arrested and held by local officials and tried in a local court on behalf of the state. For murders that are federal crimes (e.g. a killing of a federal official or on federal property), the trial would occur in a federal court.

Traditionally, and still in some states, the following terminology is used:

First-degree murder (or murder in the first degree, or colloquially, murder one) refers to
premeditated murder, or murder which occurs after some degree of reflection by the murderer. This reflection can be years or less than a second.
Second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter refers to
murder done without thought in the heat of the moment, or in some states after "adequate provocation", or
Third-degree murder, also known as manslaughter,
occurs without the specific intent to kill, but usually after an act of criminal negligence or some other act resulting in a person's death.
In some other states, the definitions have been adjusted to reflect factors like perceived need for greater deterrancy, rather than those usual distinctions. For instance, the murder of a police officer, or any murder committed while serving a life sentence, is in some states a first-degree murder regardless of further circumstances.

Felony murder statutes
Many jurisdictions in the United States have also adopted felony murder statutes, according to which anyone who commits a serious crime (a felony), during which a person dies, is guilty of murder. This applies even if one does not personally cause the person's death. For example, a driver for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed someone in the process of the robbery, even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing. In a few cases, some robbers have been found guilty of felony murder for the deaths of their accomplices.

Capital murder
Capital murder is murder which is punishable by death. In 38 of the United States, and the federal government itself, there are laws allowing capital punishment for this crime. Depending on the state, a murder may qualify as "capital murder" if (a) the person murdered was of a special class, such as a police officer; (b) "special circumstances" occurred in the crime, such as multiple murder, the use of poison, or "lying in wait" in order to murder the victim. Capital murder is quite rare in the United States compared to other murder convictions, but it has generated tremendous public debate. See generally capital punishment and capital punishment in the United States.

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are wanting to COMPLETELY REDEFINE the terms of discussion here, to suit your argument. And that is why it fails. The concepts are NOT being addressed. You are merely using the same words, with different ideas. And until a debater learns that this is fallacious reasoning, said debater will never actually be able to persuade or defend the concept of discussion. It's a common error that many beginning debaters make. I'm not saying that you ARE a beginning debater, but you are indeed committing the mistake.

And since the ESTABLISHED and ACCEPTED definition of murder used by everyone is not accepted by Hyde, what is Hyde's new definition of the terms murder and murderer?

You once said killing, but as shown, self-defense would then be murder. Murder cannot be synonymous with killing. If it were, then murder itself, has absolutely NO value whatsoever AS a word...it is merely a copied. WHAT is the difference, according to you, between the words kill and murder?



The LAW isn't always right Apok. Would you label a starving man a thief when he was stealing food to feed himself and his starving family even if he only did it once?
lol YES. The reason behind him breaking the law and committing an immoral act is NO EXCUSE to not be referred to as thief, murderer, etc...

The difference is, he obviously wouldn't be branded a thief for life. Only as long as it was applicable. A murderer however, takes a life. It is forever gone, and forever affects the lives of many people. All acts are not equal.



Considering the bold, if they have done it multiple times before, fine, label them all you want, but again, it's about the good and bad one does weighed against each other. I wouldn't call them misunderstood, I'd call them simply a person who acted immorally. Or, a convict. Is that so difficult?
It's meaningless. They are a murderer because they committed the act of murder, an act that forever has ramifications.



Murder is murder, no matter the difference of appearance. Yeah, the shock value of a Jack the Ripper scene is more devastating than a simply GSW, but the ultimate result is the same, a person killed another.
GSW?



I see the miscommunication, let me explain. A murderer IS immoral, a person who has committed one act of murder and otherwise done good in life is not a murder or immoral, though what they did IS immoral. Once more, it's about ALL the good and bad considered.
True or False? Someone can be guilty of murder, ACTUALLY committed the crime of murder, be sent to prison for life for the crime of murder, yet not be a murderer?



Speaking from my own past as a victim of child molestation, YES those people ARE immoral, and a murderer IS immoral, but like I said, one act in an otherwise good life doesn't label that person.
This depends upon not only the act itself, but also when the statement is made ABOUT the individual. Someone who molests a child, is ALWAYS a child molester. While they may no longer be molesting children, they did, and it is an act so heinous that they are deserving of such a life label. And guess what...this isn't Apok's opinion...it is the LAW'S. Apok is only in agreement with it.



How can a one man team NOT do this? What if I have all the qualifications? No checks and balances? Who's to say I won't be fair and honest with this person and truly treat them as innocent until guilty? Just because one person carries out justice doesn't make it revenge.
Because you are human. You are a fallible being. What man in history has EVER been capable of such a thing? You have an awfully elevated opinion of mankind as to believe they cannot make such mistakes. ;)



And if Due Process and checks and balances are the measure of moral punishment, then is it safe to assume that you viewed it as immoral when people brought a suspected criminal before a chieftain or majestrate because they had no one to keep them in check?
You repeatedly take only one of the many facets involved, and attempt to make a counter-argument to support yours. It isn't just due to checks-balances, it's the whole shahbang baby. The procedures, methods, law, examinations, checks-balances, justice, limitations, etc... that qualify capital punishment it as being moral. And it is those very characteristics that DEFINIE capital punishment. You, being a one man team who gets to ignore the above, is NOT capital punishment, it is vigilantism.



Now, allow me to ask you a question if you will. Would YOU want your entire life judged or labeled by ONE act?
What I WANT, is of no consequence. What we want and what actually is, are 2 entirely different things. I may want to embezzle millions and never get caught, pay for my crime and get away. However, reality is, I will have to account for my actions.

A child molester doesn't WANT to be branded for life and register AS a sex offender. Tough cookies. The act he committed is so heinous, that what he "wants" here, is irrelevant. He broke the societal contract, and thus his "wants" concerning this act, are null-in-void. Likewise, you take a life, forever will you be a murderer. For at least ONE time in your life, you did commit the act of murder.

And furthermore, I'd argue that we as humans, ARE liars. We all have done it (some still do on occassion). And you are lying if you say you don't. ;)

The problem is, that of equivocation (another fallacy you are guilty of). Liar can be in my sense...in that it is just anyone who lies...or it can be in yours, in that it is what someone does all the time, 24/7 and now must be KNOWN as such through a label.

[CliveStaples]

GSW?


GunShot Wound

[Mr. Hyde]

Apok, you could have saved a bunch of pages if you had just posted that sooner. :D

I lose, ah well.

[Ibelsd]

Hyde, I think you are missing an important difference between lying and murder. It is this important difference which allows someone who commits one act of murder to be considered a murderer while one lie may or may not make a liar.

How can a murderer cease to be a murderer? Does their victim ever become unmurdered? Does the rapist's victim ever become unraped? Can a child unmolest him/herself? Of course not. Hence, a murderer of one is a murderer. Period. On the other hand, lying rarely has such irreversible damage. A lie may lead to some irreversible act, but the act of lying is not in and of itself, irreversable in most cases. If I tell someone the color of my underwear is green, I can easily change my answer to the correct color (undoing the lie). So, while I may have lied, this lie doesn't make me a liar since their was no permanency to my action. If I were to tell an irreversable lie (telling a woman over a period of time I am unmarried in order to foster a relationship for example), then I could properly be considered a liar since I could never undo the psychological harm to either the woman who engaged in a relationship with me under false pretenses nor to my wife.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[Apokalupsis]

Apok, you could have saved a bunch of pages if you had just posted that sooner. :D

I lose, ah well.
Well, had I actually THOUGHT to do it, I would have. ;) Sometimes, an argument only gets the point across, through much cross-examination. While I may have had the idea in my head, me being able to convey the idea, or knowing that I had to, was an unknown (if that makes any sense. Such is the way of debate.

New ideas come about through continued discourse. Ideas either get shot down and new ones replace them, or ideas become weaker/stronger themselves. Some ideas, while in existence, may not even make themselves known until certain conditions are met (certain arguments surface).

And likewise, a certain idea that has been trying to come out, can only do so CLEARLY when certain conditions are met.

-------------------------------------------

I know you conceded the argument. It takes "big ones" to do that here. hehe /\

HOWEVER, I'd like to point out a couple things, a critique of sorts.

1) Watch the fallacies of equivocation. That is, using the same term for more than 1 meaning (definitions). It is the CONCEPT of the term we debate. It is that concept that either persuades or enforces a belief to another. The MEANINGS of terms are best to be agreed/decided upon/defined at the beginning of the argument so that all are on the same page. That way, we can discuss and debate the actual CONTENT or CONCEPT.

2) You had, and still have IMO, a very strong counter-argument here. That of "justice" and how it was applied with and w/o due process. This defnitely caused me to think a little before posting (and as you may have noticed, I didn't respond much TO it...as I still have to think about it).

Basically, your argument there could be summed up as follows:

Using your opponent's argument first:

Due process is what determines if a punishment is "just" or not.
Capital Punishment is reached through due process.
Therefore, CP is "just"

CP (Capital Punishment) is "just"
That which is "just" is "moral".
Therefore, CP is moral.

Turning it against them:

Due process is what determines a "just punishment".
Due process is a modern practice (modern being the last couple hundred years).
Therefore, "just punishments" are only those of modern practice.

---

This implies, using your OPPONENT's own arguments, that every system outside of due process, even before due process was practiced, was immoral BECAUSE there was no justice here involved. This is of course, what you touched upon with the magistrates and chieftans.

This FORCES your opponent to change something. Either their definition of justice or due process. While it is certainly possible to further expand on the definitions instead of CHANGE them...it causes them to at least "pause" IMO. If they expand, well, at least things are a bit more clear. If they CHANGE, then you win. For their position is also that morality is universal, and they would have just contradicted themselves here.

Just a couple observations. ;)

[Mr. Hyde]

I was getting at that towards the end with my majestrate/chieftain thing. :cool: Thanks, and I'll do better next time. And yes Ibelsd, that's all cleared up.