From an Atheistic perspective why is murder wrong?

Question

This is a serious question, please answer seriously

Answer 1

It violates the social contract. In order to create a functional society, people have to give up certain rights (like the right to murder people) in exchange for certain freedoms (like freedom from murder). Basically, it would be immoral for me to murder someone because I wouldn't want it to happen to me, and because I don't want it to happen in the society I live in.

Answer 2

As an Atheist I base many of my personal actions on how I would like to be treated. Since I would prefer you not murder me, I extend the same courtesy to you.

Please don't think that as an Atheist I have no respect for anyone or anything. On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for your right to exist. Many of the religious people I have met tend to treat others badly. I feel these people assume anything is OK because they will be forgiven or perhaps they feel pre-forgiven.

I see this life as all there is. The only thing that will remain of me is the memory of me carried by the living. I would prefer those be good memories. Others may not care and that is their right but I do care and work toward that end.

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs like Catholicism. We just don't believe in a God. And in my case, I would love to believe in a God but I can't find any evidence to support the existence of one.

I've done my best to be serious. If you want more, my profile accepts email.

Answer 3

Same reason it's wrong no matter who's perspective your looking from.

It's someone else's life and we don't have the right to take that life away regardless of how it came to be, or where that person may end up after death.

And for jinxmchu....are you serious. How can you answer this question unless you are an atheist. Atheist don't look at people as animals....and if that's really your justification I hope that you're a vegan and don't eat any murdered cows, or pigs, or any type of bird or fish.

Answer 4

Secular Humanism proposes that all moral systems are, in fact, social contracts relative to the specific society in which they are practiced, that no absolute standard exists. Even though an Atheist rejects a God as an authority he may still accept the necessity of abiding by the customs of his homeland. There is also the standard that the rightness or wrongness of an action may be determined by examining the logical effect on society if everyone behaved that way. If everyone everywhere felt free to kill any one they pleased, how could society function? In either case, murder is wrong, no God needed.

Answer 5

Murder is wrongful killing, so to avoid the tautology, I'l focus on why it's wrong.

It violates the social contract. One of the fundamental goals of society is cooperation. Not having to worry about being killed goes a long way towards that goal. Severe implications for the person who violates the rule protect society.

Empathy is a social bond. If you put yourself in the other person's place as realize that you wouldn't want to be murdered if I were him, you see the bond at work.

Lastly, there is a simple principle -- happiness. Everyone wants to increase their happiness. That fact that someone being gone increases your happiness, does not justify the decrease (total elimination) of the other persons happiness.

There are thousands of other arguments that have no requirement of deity.

Answer 6

It is counter to surviving. Societies that allow wanton killing generally aren't cohesive. Those societies aren't capable of surviving in a larger environment. On the other hand, societies were there is more cooperation (which includes respecting other's space) tend to work better and the people live happier.

From a more personal level, I wouldn't want people killing me, so I have to respect others right to live. Also, I value other people, so I wouldn't want to kill them. There are emotional ties that I have with others that would be threatened if killing were allowed.

Note, that killing is right in some circumstances, mainly in those circumstances that go against the above reasons, such as self-defense or war.

Answer 7

only from a speedy concept, it may look that the theistic "could" is likewise observed by technique of an "if", besides the undeniable fact that the distinction is that the theistic "if" reason has a tendency to be a unmarried issue (in case you want to thrill your deity) even as the atheistic "if" is right now with reference to the efficient/detrimental consequences of the "could". In different words, the theistic moral equipment is weak because it relies upon on an exterior stress and definition, even as the atheistic morality is in line with own responsibility and the consequences. Edit: As an aspect note, i don't think of that that is "legal responsibility". I have a tendency to ascertain legal responsibility as a debt or a dedication, quite than a familiar mind-set to following morals. Morality is a fiber or glue for social interplay, quite than an dedication.

Answer 8

Because we only have one life, so we try to make the best of it. Anyone who takes that away is guilty of a crime.
Now, having said that, do NOT try and link murder with abortion. Because never having been born is NOT the same as murder.
Something some people can't seem to be able to grasp.

Answer 9

One's moral codes are not based solely on religion alone. I believe murder is wrong based on my own personal belief on the value of human life. That does not mean to say that I would not support termination of life to those who surely deserve it.
I respect another person's life just as I expect my life to be respected.

Answer 10

I'm not an atheist, but guessing when it comes to an evolution perspective, its killing off our own "species", and fellow humans so to say. The goal to evolution is to keep humankind going for as long as we can.