Is this murder?

Question

Legally murder is when you decide to end someone's life. If a sick patient is lying in bed and is told he or she will die within 2 hours, and an nefarious adversary stabs smirks and unplugs their life-sustaining treatment, we would surely condemn this person as having committed murder.
But what if a person is jumping off a building and two seconds before the person hits the ground, a stranger shoots him. The stranger doesn't know the person who wants to commit suicide, he just reasons "he is going to die anyways, what's the difference if I take 1 second of his life away?" Let's say instead an adversary knows the person committing suicide and he shoots him, but he maliciously kills him for the reason so that he will be the person who killed his enemy, so that he can have the last laugh and tell himself he was the one who murdered the person he hated.

Did the stranger commit murder? Did the adversary commit murder? Have they both commited murder or have neither?

Both ethically and legally speaking

guru, philosophy does concern itself with ethics. there is ethical philosophy, applied ethics, various ethical theories such as deontological theory, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, etc.

cubsngun, you've missed the conceptual nature of the question. forget the technicalities in the physicial assumptions, and ethically is it only considered murder if they were physically successful? if a person who was stabbed, somehow makes it after spending a prolonged time in the ICU and after going endless treatment, ethically speaking how would we classify it?

Answer 1

I think you alredy answered your question. It all depends on your intention. If your intention was to relieve the suffering of the patient - then morally you have not committed murder but in the eyes of the law maybe you might have (manslaughter, etc.). For the case of the jumper, if your intention again was to keep the person from suffering the horrific and maybe painful death of the impact, then maybe this is justified or morally right - but you'd have to be a pretty good shot to do this...

I've heard stories of GI's in Okinawa who shot Japanese women jumping off a cliff mistakenly thinking they'd be harm or abused by the American soldiers - so they chose to die rather than be held captive. Sometimes these women jumps off with their children or babies--- the GI's shot some of them to prevent suffering and pain after seeing many that have not died immediately after the fall. Is that murder?

Answer 2

In a court of law, it would be hard to prove whether the stranger is guilty of killing a man who was already falling off a building, and whether that would account for homicide or manslaughter.

But to look at it ethically, I have to say the stranger commits the murder in the end. He could have simply walk away or leave the man to his own designs of suicide, but then he chose to shoot a dying man. I say dying because it would be debatable whether he would be alive by the time he hits the ground.

When the stranger chose to shoot a dying man, he is accountable for murder, even if the man had committed suicide.

And as for the technicalities, autopsy reports will find it hard to prove whether the bullet or the impact killed him.

Answer 3

Murder is a legal distinction, not a philosophical one. Philosophy does concern itself with ethics and this where there will be different opinions.

Murder is determined by social standards at the time.

Euthanasia is not always illegal nor has it always been criminal. Worldwide, even the situation of being shot while jumping from a building would be different outcomes in different countries.

Western law is predicated on the notion of motive and intent. Western law is also predicated on the notion of "rights" of the individual.

I would add a few examples, sending a soldier to war violates their right to life. This is murder.

Sending a fireman in to die in a fire to rescue someone is socially sanctioned murder of a citizen. Their right to life is being abrogated. As the government forbids fireman, police as emergency services to decline dangerous work, we are killing them.

Answer 4

The intent was murder, but it is not likely that death would occur if shot only 2 seconds before they hit the ground. Death would still occur upon impact with the ground. More time would be needed to be murder with a bullet. Flawed hypothesis.

Answer 5

Even though a Person is going to Die, it does not give anyone the right to end their Life, what gives a person the right to Kill someone because they are going to die anyway. What you wrote on the question, is you want Justification for your question.

Answer 6

You have killed if your act ended a life but you murder when there is intent.
Both have murdered.
C. :)!!

Answer 7

Yes!

Answer 8

"Thou shalt not kill." has a period at the end. It is unconditional...period.