I am a Christian, and obviously against murder in all forms. But think without faith or feeling....what would be bad about murder to the human race in general and to society if it was legal to murder. Morals and feelings (such as kindness and love) cannot influence this opinion. Why would it be bad to murder otherwise? Think carefully.
2007-11-29 09:47:26 · 14 answers · asked by sahire 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The answers so far are good, but think deeply too. What more is there to it than being afraid of going outside? I mean, population control would be positive, wouldn't it? Or maybe not....
2007-11-29 10:04:33 · update #1
What I am saying is, morals and values aside, why would it be bad to murder?
2007-11-29 10:16:16 · update #2
Awesome discussion, by the way, keep it up!
2007-11-29 13:59:15 · update #3
In almost all cases, the arguments presented against murder seem to have some emotion tied to them. As objective as an argument may seem, there seems to be an underlying desire to live life unhampered by such complications that would come to pass if murder in all forms were allowed. Honestly, I think the only answer that can be given that is free of emotion (which includes empathy, sympathy, and fear) in relation to "the human race in general" is that it wouldn't be bad.
Edit:
This, by the way, is not how I "feel." :)
Edit:
Meta, interesting point!! But do predatory animals in the wild use emotion when they kill or is it strictly instinct? If we were devoid of being accustomed to feeling, could we then kill without emotion?
2007-11-29 10:18:51 · answer #1 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a society allowed murder freely, then each of their citizens might have to fear BEING murdered much more than they do now. It would mean living your life in a very different way, making sure you are constantly protected from the threat of someone killing you on a whim. The quality and length of life in such a society is likely to be relatively low on that basis.
Consider also that a person who kills others marks himself as a threat to the survivors well-being. Historical gunslingers seldom did quite as well as their fictional counterparts.
I'm not sure it is intrinsically bad to murder, though.
After all, just about any society has SOME form of legal killing: wars, executions, self-preservation, and even a variety of things which tend to slip under the radar such as denial of food and medical care.
Unless you have unlimited resources, it means some people will get them and others will not. And sometimes that means life itself. A person who doesn't get an organ transplant is just as dead as someone with a bullet in their brain... does it matter if a bureaucracy killed them instead of someone who wanted the twenty bucks in their pocket?
If we can't save everyone, the only decision we have is who dies and who lives. It's a process we're all involved in, and we're all responsible for the deaths that process causes. It's unavoidable.
2007-11-29 09:56:25 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ability to kill is a primitive quality of the species, be it killing another human or some other animal. In this sense it is natural and acceptable behavior (do you begrudge other species killing each other?) Unfortunately the reasons to murder (as opposed to euthanize) someone is very subjective which is why laws are in place - we are capable but are we controllable? If you could freely murder humans without regard to consequence how many people do you suppose you might kill? Try to imagine why anyone might kill another and and you see that eventually no one is left.
2007-11-29 10:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morals and values aside?
The question answers itself.
The value of life disappears; the goodness or legality of any action evaporates; society becomes chaotic.
2007-11-30 04:08:48 · answer #4 · answered by d2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our species would suffer. The likelihood of my own suffering would increase significantly. The survival of my offspring would be put into threatened. Our species would live in fear. There is little biological advantage to murdering members of your own species, particularly when cooperation has proven to be such an evolutionary boon.
2007-11-29 09:59:03 · answer #5 · answered by Sophrosyne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't. We overpopulate, we kill each other. Children die of hunger every day. There is nothing that would stop us if people had no morals. If people didn't feel remorse then nothing would keep us from slaughtering each other. Killing in cold blood is considered a bad thing, but when we see it from the eyes of a serial killer, preferably a sociopath.....it's a very different thing.
2007-11-29 17:16:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder cannot take place without feeling. Even the coldest psychopath is driven by some feeling to kill another being.
2007-11-29 10:53:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are assets. If we destroy assets for no reason, this does not make sense. Would it be right for me to go to your bank and burn your money?
Edit: If people are assets, it might also mean that by allowing the killing of whoever on whim that society would go backwards because.... who would want to be a teacher in a school where all the kids had guns!!!
2007-11-29 09:57:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would kill anyone who would get in the way... But then again, there many uses for different kinds of people... We'll just have to see what use we could make of someone... If he proves to be a liability, just get rid of him... If he's an asset, bring him to his full potential and then eliminate him if he gets to be a threat... The point is, it's wrong to kill because it would be ashame if you don't get something out it...
2007-11-29 16:15:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The quality of life would drop dramatically. It would be worse than living in Iraq the past few years.
2007-11-29 11:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by nosillenhoj 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋