If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Murder...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This is a bit of an abstract question about murder.. It came up in conversation the other day and I wanted to see what you all thought.
Lets set up our imaginary scenario:
There are three men, all murderers. One has killed one person, one has killed dozens, and one has killed millions. The second and third are perhaps a serial killer and Hitler (or someone similar throughout world history).
Lets take out all mitigating factors and try to make this straightforward. No self defense, no provocation, just premeditated murder. Lets also assume that the man who killed just one person was caught after the first murder--we don't know if he would have killed another.
Now for the question:
Is any one of these men more morally reprehensible than the others?
I'm tempted to say no--murder is murder, and in an abstract sense the number shouldn't make a difference because of the sanctity of ALL human life. Thus, the person who killed only one is no less morally reprehensible than the one who killed millions. But somehow, to say this doesn't feel right. We would (most likely) consider genocide more evil, and thus the person behind it more evil. But I can't really explain why that is...
So, what do you think?
Lets set up our imaginary scenario:
There are three men, all murderers. One has killed one person, one has killed dozens, and one has killed millions. The second and third are perhaps a serial killer and Hitler (or someone similar throughout world history).
Lets take out all mitigating factors and try to make this straightforward. No self defense, no provocation, just premeditated murder. Lets also assume that the man who killed just one person was caught after the first murder--we don't know if he would have killed another.
Now for the question:
Is any one of these men more morally reprehensible than the others?
I'm tempted to say no--murder is murder, and in an abstract sense the number shouldn't make a difference because of the sanctity of ALL human life. Thus, the person who killed only one is no less morally reprehensible than the one who killed millions. But somehow, to say this doesn't feel right. We would (most likely) consider genocide more evil, and thus the person behind it more evil. But I can't really explain why that is...
So, what do you think?
0
Comments
I agree with you though, its hard to explain on a logical level..
And Genocide is a very different beast to mass murder. You kill a million people for a laugh, thats one thing. You kill a million people because they have white skin, then its a different matter totally and much, much worse.
I have found that many within these forums believe that ALL taking of life is murder... therefore, definition of terms is in order.
Is the taking of another's life in defense of your own, or defense against rape considered "murder"?
Are acts of war considered "murder"?
If the former is true (from your perspective), then self defense will put you on equal footing as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.
If the latter is true, then the "dozens" whom I have killed in combat puts me in that "select" class...
Please define your terms...
To answer the question, I would place the first two in the same category. One murder, and serial murder are no different - just, as you point out, the time at which the murderer is caught.
However, genocide is an extreme - and should be treated as such. The actions of Hitler and (e.g.) Myra Hindley, although both hideous crimes, are not comparable.
First. I believe that Thanatos has illustrated more than once that he is grown up.
Second. He asked for the act to be defined. Why is it you cannot bother to answer him?
What specifically are we defining as "murder" in this question?
Not approximations. Not guesses. EXACTLY what? What is the criteria?
Both of these differ from country to country, state to state and even city to city.
The law says that killing someone in a time of war is not murder. But, depending on the circumstances of the victim's death, society as whole might have a differing opinion.
An example is that of the soldier who returns home after a bloody war. His superiors give him a medal for his numerous kills, which have helped his country. But he finds that his friends and neighbours shun him, they are unappreciative, and see him as nothing more than a cold blooded murderer.
However, for the purposes of this question, I believe murder can be defined as such. The UNLAWFUL killing of an innocent person, a killing that was not justified and was not an act of self defence.
Therefore, the person who kidnaps and murders someone, the doctor who drugs and kills several patients, or the tyrant who kills thousands, these people are murderers. People who kill in self defence, or kill during warfare and who do not deliberately target innocent civilians are not murderers.
Which is worse, a tyrant who murders millions, or an individual who murders 1 or 2 people?
Anyone heard the quote by Josef Stalin? "If you kill one it is a tragedy, if you kill 10 million it is a statistic".
Although no one life is more sacred than many, I believe that when it comes to genocide, it is easy to forget that all of those millions of people were individuals, and not just a mass of people.
You used Hitler as your example which is probably where the confusion comes from.
Right... using Hitler was probably a bad example. That's not really what I meant. Let's take out genocide then, as it is different. This wasn't meant to be a completely airtight argument, and I still am unsure about were I stand on this question. I would probably change my mind depending on what kind of day I've been having.
And Thanatos, I know you like to provoke, but this wasn't meant to a be a big discussion of killing during wartime. Whowhere basically got it right. Let's just keep it simple and call it premeditated, unprovoked (rules out self defence, insanity-though this is arguable in the case of serial killers such as Ted Bundy, war).
No doubt killing millions is bigger, which tend to be seen as more horrific because of the sheer scale. But if one of your loved ones were killed, it would be just as horrific, yes? I can't seem to articulate what I'm trying to get at, but I hope that helps.
Oh, and Mackenzie--do you think certain people are expendable, or do not have the right to live? How would you differentiate those people and who would decide which lives have worth? I'm only asking because you say you don't believe in the sanctity of all human life.
Still imprecise and insufficient. Have you ever heard the phrase, "laws come and go, but justice is justice"? The salient point here is that it is useless to define 'murder' as 'unlawful killing' since laws are so transient. You need something really concrete, like 'deliberate and premeditated.' The use of the term 'justified' is also suspect, in my opinion -- too open to interpretation.
So, let's roll with 'murder' = 'deliberate and premeditated killing' for the moment, shall we? Are all murders, so defined, equally morally reprehensible? Anyone who thinks that killing in war is morally acceptable will have problems here. Are all numbers of murders, so defined, equally morally reprehensible?
Beginning to see problems yet? One must define all one's terms: something every good essay writer learns to do in the opening passage of his/her discourse. Not just 'murder,' but even the very meaning of 'good' must be given a clear definition, or else all 'discussion' is folly.
No human being has a right to life, and some are more expendable than others -- some may even be totally expendable. How would I decide? With difficulty, but my criteria have already been made public: look up the 'Religion' thread we had a few weeks ago, 7 pages in, me addressing j0nn0:
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17192&perpage=15&pagenumber=7
Ok, let's just add something. Murder is a crime covered by common law. It is a crime against the people and society. Murder is one of the few crimes that is the same worldwide. The act of murder, and the penalties for it will always remain the same wherever you are. Murder is not a judicial creation, but a creation of society.
So like I said, murder is the UNJUSTIFIABLE killing of someone. I never mentioned premeditated, because even if it is an accident it is still murder, albeit with a different name. What I mean is if you don't have any justification to take someone's life then in the eyes of society you are a murderer.
That is why people who practice euthenasia are not classed as murderers by society, the majority population see the act of euthenasia as a just, and merciful way of taking the pain from someone who is ill, but in the eyes of the criminal justice system they are murderers, but because of public opinion they rarely get severe sentences.
is that more clear? Or have i made a hash of it lol.
If you want to get into a debtae on the detail of what constitutes murder, then fine, but as others have said there is a common worldwide view of what this is. Unless you are just being pedantic then I think we all know what is meant by this term.
Personally I believe there are differnces between single killing, mulitple killing (serial killings), mass murder and genocide and each should be judged on those merits.
It is possible to find more justification for a single killing, than it is for the othes, which is why society treats is more leniently. I think society views this on the basis of threat, and potential effects. Society faces a biugger threat from a serial killer and the effects of a mass/genocidal killer has a greater impact and consequently I think we are right to treat them harsher...
How many times have I personally been defamed as "a murderer" on this forum?
That alone gives serious doubt that the definition is universal (unless, of course, you would be suggesting that certain posters have no idea about what they are talking...
As if I would
Unfortunately a small minority of left wing posters cannot see past ideology, but I think even they would find it hard to argue that warfare is "murder". Some acts comitted during war could be, but these are usually dealt with by the Military Police (certain notorious events in Vietnam and Kosovo apply...).
Surely we aren't agreeing again are we. This is getting to be a habit and is surely detrimental to both of our reputations
There is, huh? Then you should be able to define it.
when one person is killed their contibution to the world and the affect (postivie or negative) that they could have had in the world will never happen. there will also usually be someone out there who looses a child/ parent/ friend because of this death. the more people that a murderer kills the more this happens and so the tragedy increases for people.
the definition of murder is very tricky (as has been demonstrated by this thread). in the end i think it is just down to personal opinion for example many vegetarians think eating meat is murder but some dont. self-defence, war and euthenasia all help to complicate the issue.
Do you really want several pages then, covering all potential aspects?
Let me ask you this, as someone who has lived in many different countries can you tell me that there isn't?
and then others have a grasp of reality. This is mainly a slogan used to try and convince meat eaters that what they are doing is wrong. It is this very thing which just validates many people opinion about the crackpot nature of many veggies.
As a stereotype (and sterotypes are usually based an a little truth) many veggies are politically left-wing and so see many things as murder (often with the exception of abortion) as alluded to earlier in the thread with reference to military action.
This is what I was trying to get at. It's certainly different, but I can't decide if it's worse. You could argue that the scale of it makes it worse, but then each individual murder is in itself a tragedy, and each one on it's own isn't any better or worse (wrong language, sorry--can't think of anything more clear :rolleyes: ) than each other one.
I don't really know how I would answer my own question; I guess I was just after your thoughts on it.
I can tell you that although there are some common considerations of murder (criminal assassination) there are enough differences that I would say that there isn't a worldwide common concept or definition.
Within the United States, in some locals, if you break into a home, you can be shot and killed. In others, the law states that the home must be abondoned, rather than the criminal confronted and the home defended.
Cannot even get a mutually agreed to definition within this one single country: how could you expect a common definition world wide?
1)Self defence is not murder, at worst it is manslaughter
2)Soliders who don't purposely kill innocent civilians or other soldiers who have surrendered are not murderers.
3)People who carry out Euthenasia are not murderers.
4)Police officers who are required to shoot someone are not murderers, unless the shot was unnecessary.
Can we agree on those 4 things?
No because they differ from place to place..
Murder = the UNLAWFUL killing of another person.
1 - Self defence. As Thanatos said, in the US you can legally kill someone in self defence. Here it depends on whether or not you use reasonable force. Tony Martin was convicted of murder which was only taken down to manslaughter at a later date.
2 - Youre right on this one.
3 - Euthansia..Depends on the laws in the country, which happen to vary massively across the globe.
4 - Agreed
You cannot define murder on a global basis simply because laws vary so much...Remember that Hitler didnt murder all those Jews, he changed the laws so it was legal. While he was a murderer by all moral standards, he wasnt by legal standards at the time.
I'd say that was a fairly good description. It is the laws that differ, not the definition.
This was because it was held by the jury that he didn't act in self defence. The appeal judge overturned that verdict.
This highlights a moral judgment, personally I still believe it to be murder. I think that the law of the land would agree with me, although a manslaughter charge is more likely.
and whilst he changed the laws nationally, the international view was somewhat different, hence the Nuremburg trials.
Like I said, there is an international view.
Probably a bad example but self defence laws do vary massively from place to place.
The law of which land? In the UK, its certainly classed as illegal, not so elsewhere.
Genocide is greater than murder..Were any of the Nazis charged with simple murder? Or was it stuff like genocide, crimes against humanity and the like?
Genocide is certainly worse than murder. If not for the morally reprehensive motivations, than because it's illogical. You might be able to come up with a reason for a murder being committed, such as a man killing his wife's lover, but you cannot come up with a reason for killing someone based on his religion or skin color, etc.
I would say killing a million people is much worse than killing one just based on the fact that it is a larger loss to society. One million people could contribute vastly to a better world, more scientists or doctors, etc.