PDA

View Full Version : Wrong or Preference?


Deoxys0003
08-02-2004, 12:48 AM
Murder is wrong.

To non-Christians, is this an ethical absolute or just my preference?

(keep in mind that this is a religious arguement)

Agent Orange
08-02-2004, 01:26 AM
Even though I am Christian, lets ignore that for now.

Murder is wrong, although sometimes it is nessisary.

Wrong:


You end a living, breathing, thinking thinking things life prematurely.

There are times where murder is not unetical:

War. In war, you kill other people directly or indirectly, but it is not in cold blood. You kill for your country, and the millions in it.
Say someone threatens your life, and is attacking you or a loved one. This is a time where murder is most definatly not wrong. Self defense, is murder, but not unetical murder.



And from a religous point of view, Killing is forrbidden by one of the 10 Commandments.

Inferno
08-02-2004, 02:44 AM
I think all intentional murders are wrong. Protection of your life, land, and family is ok, but (*prepare yourself for cheesey cliche*) I really don't think killing is the answer to anything. There are other forms of protection, and if no one killed then no one would need to kill in defense.
But murdering is wrong.

Deoxys0003
08-02-2004, 03:30 AM
I think all intentional murders are wrong. Protection of your life, land, and family is ok, but (*prepare yourself for cheesey cliche*) I really don't think killing is the answer to anything. There are other forms of protection, and if no one killed then no one would need to kill in defense.
But murdering is wrong.

ok, prove to me why it is wrong.

Chris
08-02-2004, 04:18 AM
I think all intentional murders are wrong. Protection of your life, land, and family is ok, but (*prepare yourself for cheesey cliche*) I really don't think killing is the answer to anything. There are other forms of protection, and if no one killed then no one would need to kill in defense.
But murdering is wrong.

What about stem cell research then? Bush argues that it's murder. Does it breath, think, and live if it's smaller than one-sixth the diameter of a human hair? Is that life too?

Steven
08-02-2004, 11:16 AM
actually I think it's all... it just is. I mean sooner or later you die anyway, so it doesn't really matter. You will die... it's inevitable. Seeing as I don't believe in god or anything. There's nothing after death. so everyone just... dies. that's it... I mean sooner or later you're going to die, so it doesn't matter when. Although I would like to enjoy it for a while. I mean think of all the babies who died of premature births. They didn't get to see the world. They were deprived of so much. You're lucky to be here now.

Inferno
08-02-2004, 03:13 PM
I feel like we should allow things to live out their full life naturally. If things die of natural causes, then we can also take advantage of the resources, such as stem cells. Now if you're talking abortion or "killing something prematurely"... I would never want anyone to have an abortion, letting a child live is such a better solution, in my opinion. With that said, I am also pro-choice. I believe people are capable of making their own decisions on whether or not they can birth a baby. In my eyes, allowing someone to adopt your child is a great solution. Some people think the emotional attachment would be too hard... but that is not the topic. Stem cell research is very beneficial to people. I see embryoes and fetuses as life, anything with the potential to grow and live is life to me, so ending the chances of survival of any potential life is wrong to me.
I feel that murdering is wrong because it ends life too sudden. We could make many more advances in the world if everyone was given the opportunity to live out their bodies "supplied energy". I say it that way so not to strike up a debate over God or other topics that make people hostile/close-minded. Me making that statement of "living out the supplied energy" also strikes up another debate, but I won't supply that debate yet. I'll wait and see if anyone else notices it and asks.
But I cannot prove to anyone whether something is wrong or not, that's your choice to beleive what you want to believe. The statements I make are my own speculations. I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely shedding light of a subject from one point of view.

Ace
08-03-2004, 07:24 AM
This debate is quite interesting and I want to post my remarks on some things.

Say someone threatens your life, and is attacking you or a loved one. This is a time where murder is most definatly not wrong. Self defense, is murder, but not unetical murder.

Imagine, killing out of revenge was right. If someone killed your loved one, and you killed him, wouldn't someone who saw HIM as a loved one kill YOU? Who is right and who is wrong there? If killing out of revenge was right, millions of lives would end every day!


War. In war, you kill other people directly or indirectly, but it is not in cold blood. You kill for your country, and the millions in it.

There is more to that. The person you kill isn't a nobody. He probably has a family, a girlfriend, wife, and even children! Say you were on a battefield, and someone oppisiate of you shot you to death. Would THAT be right? Not to you no, but to them, they did not WANT to kill you. They only did it just because they HAD to for their own protection or by orders. It would be just the same if you killed the person on front of you. Killing is not RIGHT there at all. People end up realizing that they weren't really killing for their country, they were killing for only THEIR own or a collegue's survival. Before the battle they enter it thinking it is right, but after experiences they will come to the fact the killing and ending another life was WRONG, but he did it only because he had to in order to survive. No matter how evil they are, they are still humans, and they have famlies, friends, and dreams.

ok, prove to me why it is wrong.

Killing is NEVER right, although people kill in order for their own and others' protection, it is still wrong. At first people will come to think that it is right and killing is for a good cause, but in the end, they will reflect upon their actions and regret on ending another life. Another person just like him, but thinking differently. Then the murderer will suffer something more painful than death. They will feel a type of regret and pity that is undescribable. They will have nightmares of the screams they have caused killing another person. All this pain is enough for a person to pull the trigger upon themself.


The last few posts about steam cell research should be presented as another debate, and I have no comments about that for now.

Matthew
08-03-2004, 09:01 AM
Imagine, killing out of revenge was right. If someone killed your loved one, and you killed him, wouldn't someone who saw HIM as a loved one kill YOU? Who is right and who is wrong there? If killing out of revenge was right, millions of lives would end every day!

He is not tlkaing about revenge.... -_-;

He is talking about self-defense. Say if you were cornered in a dark alley by a dangerous killer? What are you going to do...? Fight back of course (usually...) If you have to kill him to protect your own existence... then that is not wrong... it may be unethical, but it is the only hting you can do...

Murder IS wrong, however, it may be the only thing you can do in extreme situations... so yeah...

Ace
08-03-2004, 09:14 AM
He is not tlkaing about revenge.... -_-;

He is talking about self-defense. Say if you were cornered in a dark alley by a dangerous killer? What are you going to do...? Fight back of course (usually...) If you have to kill him to protect your own existence... then that is not wrong... it may be unethical, but it is the only hting you can do...

Murder IS wrong, however, it may be the only thing you can do in extreme situations... so yeah...

Okay so if he wasn't talking about revenge I still pointed out that although people kill to defend themself it is still wrong. As I said you'll come to regret killing a person even if it was to defend your own life. I mean there is still a possibility to evade. There are MANY things to do before resorting to killing. Unfortunatly, people think to fast and resort to killing even if they had the option to evade. No matter why you killed a person, you will eventually come to reget. If soldiers feel that pain worse normal people...

Matthew
08-03-2004, 09:19 AM
Okay so if he wasn't talking about revenge I still pointed out that although people kill to defend themself it is still wrong. As I said you'll come to regret killing a person even if it was to defend your own life. I mean there is still a possibility to evade. There are MANY things to do before resorting to killing. Unfortunatly, people think to fast and resort to killing even if they had the option to evade. No matter why you killed a person, you will eventually come to reget. If soldiers feel that pain worse normal people...

Heh to quote a line from the movie, 'Enough:' 'Self-Defense is NOT murder.'

Killing in pure revenge IS wrong, but like I said, if it somes to protecting your own existence AT that particular time, I don't think it is wrong. Revenge is a cruel thing and killing in pure rage and hate is wrong.

Inferno
08-03-2004, 09:26 AM
I agree with Duke (just had to throw that out there.)

It seems like one of the main reasons to kill is self protection. You "kill them before they kill you". That's the philosophy in war, in the "being cornered by a stranger" incident, when people come into your home threatening you... all of these events basically condone murder because it is for self defense. Well, if no one intentionally killed anybody(if no one set out to kill), then no one would need to kill out of self defense. If you end the threat then you end the need of defense. So if people do not threaten others' lives then killing for protection would not be needed. Does that make sense?
Killing out of revenge would just create a neverending cycle of deaths. That's already been pointed out.
The statement that: "in war, the person you kill isn't a nobody." Is such a strong one. That person had a life and he/she could have progressed the world phenominally. He might have derived a cure for AIDS in his head, but now since he is dead then we'll never know. That example was a little extreme, but you know what I mean.

Ace
08-03-2004, 09:31 AM
Heh to quote a line from the movie, 'Enough:' 'Self-Defense is NOT murder.'

It is still a murder. No matter how FAST you killed him or how free-of-pain it was you still ended the life of something that thinks and feels. Self-defence may be justified at times but it is still a murder.

We are in school, for example, if I punched you in the face because you pushed me first doesn't mean I wouldn't get in trouble! Even if it was self-defense I didn't have to take it to the means of fighting. Also if it was my only option, that wouldn't save me from the threat of being scolded or getting a detention. A punch is a punch, no matter when it came, it still is a punch.

Inferno
08-03-2004, 09:36 AM
how is KILLING out fo self defense NOT murder? Isn't "to kill" basically the definition of the verb "to murder"?

Matthew
08-03-2004, 10:27 AM
I was quoting a movie -_- Those arnet my words... talk to the script writters of the movie...

Matt & Vulpix
08-03-2004, 03:24 PM
I've said this before, I'll say this again:

To Kill: To deny the right of life to someone

I don't believing killing is the answer to anything at all. Not just murder, either, but other kinds of killing.

Murder is just plain wrong because you're denying the right of life to someone. And no one should have that right.
Murder to protect your family is alright, but I still think that there are others ways.
Abortion to me is a sort of murder. I only believe in abortion within the two first months, but most people have an abortion a little later. Denying the right of life to your own child.
The death penalty. Someone should suffer life in prison instead; it's more of a punishment than the death penalty (although we don't have it in Canada; I hear it's in many other countries).

That's all for now

JoshE
08-03-2004, 03:30 PM
Murder:

Noun
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I think there is a difference between Murder and using Self Defense. Murdering someone is not just killing them. When you use self defense and kill somone a lot of times it is not considered murder depending upon the case/situation really.

Matthew
08-03-2004, 10:12 PM
It is still a murder. No matter how FAST you killed him or how free-of-pain it was you still ended the life of something that thinks and feels. Self-defence may be justified at times but it is still a murder.

We are in school, for example, if I punched you in the face because you pushed me first doesn't mean I wouldn't get in trouble! Even if it was self-defense I didn't have to take it to the means of fighting. Also if it was my only option, that wouldn't save me from the threat of being scolded or getting a detention. A punch is a punch, no matter when it came, it still is a punch.

You won't get in as much trouble because you did not throw the first punch. You will still get into trouble, but not as much as the other gy, at least in my school... my mom told me that if I was ever in a fight at school, and i DID NOT throw the first puch, meaning I was fighting in self-defense, than she would support me.

Inferno
08-04-2004, 03:21 AM
To me, fighting is fighting. There are alternatives to punching. First of all, I don't try to give anyone a reason to try and punch me. When someone does attempt to punch me, most of the time I do not punch back. I've been known to restrain another person, hold them down, keep them from hitting me. I've dodged punches. I've talked it out with people. I have done everything in my power to keep from punching people back.
The main reason I've always done this, is because in my schools anyone who throws and punch gets in trouble. First, second, third, forth person to punch, are all equally guilty. So I guess it's people's upbringings that make them think fighting or killing is wrong. Just like Matthew seems to not have a problem with punching back, because his school and his mother blames the person who started it. To me, if you punch period you are at fault, because that's what I've always been told by school.
Actually the original scenario, I believe, was "punching because someone pushed you", though.

I also think that life in prison is a more just/effective punishment than the death penalty.
Killing is not justified to me, and won't be. Whether it's killing out of self defense, revenge, punishment, whatever the reason.

Deoxys0003
08-09-2004, 08:12 PM
I'd just like to know... why is murdering wrong? It seemed right according to Adolf Hitler...

art
08-09-2004, 08:33 PM
=D you're an idiot. even though Hitler was a brilliant man, he was a pompous fool who loved his own power too much and was too stubborn to continue plans better than his. He killed without reason.

I do not think killing is wrong. you just have to have a good reason (e.g. not being angry or crazy). Killing a person is a drastic measure, because you can cause a lot of people grief. but, if your own life is in danger, you have to make a choice to cause grief to people you do not know or to the ones you love. pretty obvious choice. So I am not at all against killing, you just hav to have the right reasons (and there are little of those). Thus, I never kill a musquito, just because it can cause an itch. wich ever way you look at it, it's still a life.

Deoxys0003
08-10-2004, 07:39 PM
I am not saying what Hitler did was right, I'm just saying that he thought murdering was the right thing to do. I need to know why murdering is wrong. If one person thinks murdering is wrong, and Hitler thought that it was okay, then who's right?

ShadowDiver
08-10-2004, 11:21 PM
Come on you cant actually prove that it is wrong it just is, well would u like to be killed? No so there you go, if someone does not want to die and you kill them its forcing them to do something they do not want to, and by law that is wrong anyway, so its really only you who can decide if you think murder is wrong, no body else can make that choise for you. The law says its wrong, but that does not mean you agree with that. I dissagree with all murders, and as was said if knowone tried to kill eachother then there would be no need for self defence. I just cant understand why people cant get on really, i know some really really bad people, i aint in the wrong crowd or anything, i do not understand they just seem to hate everyone, even if they dont know them. Well that my social problems i wont go into that. But its the same kinda thing, i just dont see why people dont get on, i mean its not like you have to love eachother, or even talk to eachother, just put up with them and respect them for who they are. Although in saying that i personly cant respect anyone who cant respect other people, kinda odd i know but hey. Wow i am blabing now i will stop.

Inferno
08-12-2004, 12:31 AM
it just seems likethe question of, "Why?" is being brought up continuously.
"Why is murdering wrong?"
so many people have already tried to explain this, and they really can't, we can only give you our thoughts and reasons, we can't explain it out for anyone, no one can. If at this point you still read the posts and don't see why people think murdering is wrong, then you just won't get it. You are reading with a closed mind, it seems. We shouldn't be asked to convince anyone that "mudering is wrong" and tell them why. We should only be allowed to give our words as data or information. Everyone can express what they feel, but it really shouldn't be a main goal of anyone's to convince others of a certain belief.

But has anyone been placed in a life threatening experience by another human being?
In my case, I've had someone come at me with a knife, I've had a baseball bat swung at my chest and head, and I've had a gun drawn and pointed at me. And in none of these cases did I try to kill that other person before they killed me.
Because I was able to control the situations. But I've always wondered "what if it got out of hand where they were uncontrollable?" "What would I do then?" and would I lose my self control or try to "protect myself".
And I can only speculate for now, because it's never gotten out of hand for me. But, I don't know if I would try to kill anyone.

And I have no idea what my point is now. So I guess I'm just asking a question:
Has anyone been placed in a highly dangerous, life threatening situation placed upon you by another person? If so, what did you do? And do you think it's right?

art
08-12-2004, 03:19 AM
If one person (make that millions of people) thinks murdering is wrong, and Hitler thought that it was okay, then who's right?

Now let's see: it gets you in trouble, you cause a lot of grief and pain and end someone's life, causing him or her to not live it to the fullest and/or live out his/her dreams. Hm, I wonder what's wrong with that :rolleyes:

Deoxys0003
08-12-2004, 03:24 PM
My point is that you don't have any ethical absolutes. It's just a matter of opinion to you. You've reduced the question "is murder wrong"? to a question of... say... do you like chocolate?.

I'm against murder completely, just so you know.

Inferno
08-12-2004, 09:18 PM
there's not many other ways to explain or give an answer to the question.
People have given their personal opinions; religious, lawful, and virtuous reasonings; literal definitions, scientific answers...
There are so many ways to explain an answer, but no real way to explain an answer with only ethical absolutes and no opinions whatsoever.

Necrobat
08-13-2004, 03:00 PM
Murder in any form except self defense is bad IMO. Abortion is wrong IMO.

But on what was be said before about abortion, I know it's wrong. I despise it. But what if the fetus is still alive, but is endangering the life of the carrier? Abortion would be fine then. Better to lose one life then two.

And another thing. The law does not recognise a fetus as a "life". Now what is up with that?

Deoxys0003
08-15-2004, 04:40 PM
there's not many other ways to explain or give an answer to the question.
People have given their personal opinions; religious, lawful, and virtuous reasonings; literal definitions, scientific answers...
There are so many ways to explain an answer, but no real way to explain an answer with only ethical absolutes and no opinions whatsoever.

I can explain my answer with no opinions at all: God says so. It's His rule, I will follow it. It's in His Word.

Inferno
08-15-2004, 04:49 PM
You edited your first post. I don't think the original discussion had God in it. We were suppose to explain to non-christians why it was or was not wrong.

so I took that to mean you wanted us to explain our views without our religious preference. Which would've been a good debate, but to say that God says so and that's the bottom line, sure does make this easier for believers in God.
But from a non-controversial standpoint our debate with definitions and whatnot was better.
But that has no opinions whatsoever? I really classify belief in God as an opinion and/or choice/preference. So the question "Is murder wrong?" is obviously answered using preferences, not true "rightness" or "wrongness".