Killing and Murder

[Milan Fiori]

Ok, well I've had a pretty bad night over all, and it all started out with a debate with a very close friend of mine about Killing and Murder. The debate was that is all killing where you actually mean to take a life considered murder or should it be considered something else?

My position was that all killing where you mean to take someones life is murder. Whether it is in Self Defense, War, or a fit of Rage, Revenge, Passion, Love, or whatever else. My reasoning is, because in all those acts your intent is to take another life. Now I understand the implications of this, I'm basically saying any person who has killed during wartime, or in defense of themselves or family are murderers. And I happened to think they are. Now I'm not saying if you're driving around, and accidentally hit someone then you're a murderer. But if you purpose run them over, and the result is death, then yes you're a murderer.

Now I also think you can murder for a good reason. Such as self defense or something similar. Isabel from Suikoden V actually summed up how I feel about this quite well. "You can commit evil as long as the evil you commit stops an even greater evil. And even though your actions are justified they were still evil."

Now their counter argument was using the definition of Murder. That Murder is killing with an intent and usually with Unlawful Malice, and that all killing couldn't be classified as Murder. And by saying that self defense by law is legal and not all killing is wrong.

Now my retort was that was that when you kill someone you're intending to kill them. Whether you mean to or not. You bash someone in the head with a stick because they pulled a knife on you, you're not thinking about knocking them out, you're thinking about killing them and getting away. It's instinct.

But anyways, I'd like to hear what other feel about this. They got so mad at my views that they literally stormed out, and a mutual friend said I was wrong in my views. So I'm curious if my views are really that far out of touch with reality or not.

And since this can turn into a sensitive debate I'll be monitoring it closely and will close it at the first sign of things becoming bad. So lets keep it clean and calm and share your our views!
_________________
Be awed by our prowess!

[Eden]

Do you mean murder in the sense of law and therefore punishment or rather if you measure it on a moral scale?

Killing for self defense can't and shouldn't be punished in the same way as a real murder. This is easy to understand, because the reason is obviously, but the other part is more difficult. I personally disagree that all killing, that has the aim to kill the opponent is murder, because the example you said, self defense, has normally not the goal to kill the opponent, but to eliminate the danger for oneself. This means, to make that person stop hurting you with all means possible and even killing is reasonable in that situation, although the law differs, when it was really necessary to kill and when other ways to stop the oponnent would have been enough.
However, the other forms you said, Revenge or rage for example are for me murder in any case, although the law still differs if the murder was planned or in the heat of the moment. However, on a moral point, I personally would say there is no difference, although it is good that the law makes this difference.
_________________


The Fool

[Sniper_Zegai]

Something like murder is very delicate and should be treated so.

I dont ever think someone should be punished for self-defense, if it can be proven. I think this becuase I beleive all human being have the right to survive. If something threatens your life you should have the right to keep yourself alive.

Intent is the most important factor in any crime. If I'm running really fast and run into someone and break their nose, should I be arrested for assault? Of course not becuase accidents happen. If someone runs in front of my car when Im driving within the speed limit, should I be arrested for dangerous driving? I dont think so becuase it was someone elses fault.

People who kill during wartime are not murderers, if they kill people who are innocent thats a different story. But killing between actual soldiers is nowhere near murder. Its where you are trained and broken into being a killing machine, and when you are on the battlefield it is kill or be killed and if you refuse to kill you could be killed by your own or just thrown into jail for years.

I think crimes of passion are bullshit. If I see my girlfriend sleeping with my freind and kill them both, that should not be a defense for murder. That should be a ear motive and I should be locked away. Besides all that though I do agree with you that most forms of death that are'nt accidental or unintentional should be punished to the full extent of the law.
_________________

[Milan Fiori]

Or discussion was actually more morally, rather than criminally. The conversation was actually sparked by a Role Playing Scenario we were in where a bounty hunter was coming to look for a Murderer and I commented we were all murderers due to the fact we kill humans and civilized humanoids for profit. But it escalated to a full blown argument that lasted for hours.

Criminally I agree with how the laws are handled, sometimes you are pushed into self defense, or in wartime your government is giving it's okay and actually telling you to do it.

But morally is it not still murder? It is justified murder, but it is still murder. I guess I'm Amoral when it comes to killing, any type of killing other than the purely freak accidental kind. Because I think it should be treated the same morally. Taking a life in self defense is just as bad as taking a life in anger. Self Defense just murder with a good reason.
_________________
Be awed by our prowess!

[Decado]

[Sniper_Zegai]

[Eden]

What about "preemptive self-defense"? I don't mean regarding the law. If you know someone will attack you, or even did so in the past and will do it probably again, is a preemptive attack justified in a morale sense or not? I am asking this, because this seem to happen in some stories or games or movies...
_________________


The Fool

[Fu Su Lu]

[Eden]

[Fu Su Lu]

Thats easy: taking a life is taking a life. Only that some circumstances make us feel less gulty (maybe in war) or nothing at all (killing someone who abused of you, for example). But not heaven or hell will change the fact that perosn you have killed is not breathing anymore

Satisfied now, Holgie Bolgie? :P
_________________
The drunkest cavalry unit in the world.
Who lights a candle casts a shadow.
Uncle Weirdo is on hoilidays... by now

[Jossef]

[Urn]

Well, I can't help but to argue this from a legal stand point. If I understand the topic correctly, we are asking whether or not all killing is murder.

Well, when you are discussing this in the technical sense, killing is to commit murder. Now to kill someone may not involve the intent to murder, such as second degree murder. Now, you may kill someone accidentally, which is murder, but the intent is what makes the difference .

No one would argue that if you tried to protect yourself and accidentally murdered someone that you are a malicious or evil person. The act is evil in that case and not the individual. There must be a distinction there. So, I must agree with Decado in that sense.

If you want to argue whether or not the act is wrong or not, then that can be debated until the end of time, but societal laws and general morality allows for individuals to protect themselves by any reasonable means necessary.

We do not equate premeditated murder with murder in the heat of passion or through self defense for the simple reason that people can make a mistake. Accidents do happen which can and will cause death. No reasonable person would look at a person who just happened to kill another after defending themselves as equally wrong as a terrorist who plans out the murder of thousands for 2 months.

So, calling every act involving killing evil, to me, is naive. The act of killing and murder is certainly wrong, but the intent may not be evil in nature. I think by focusing on the intent surrounding the act is what allows you to determine whether it was evil or justified.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS

[Axiose]

You've also got to differentiate between direct and indirect murder. For example, I could throw a ball down a hill by mistake which would go far too quickly for me to catch up to it. That ball could come out onto a road, cause an accident causing people to die. Does that mean I have commited an evil act? Or the person that could not break in time and hit the person in front?

It is the intention which defines whether the act is evil, not the act itself. If we could base morality and law on actions alone then the legal system would be much simpler. However, we need to know the reasons behind the action. Why did Decado end up stabbing that man? The man had jumped him with a knife, there was a scuffle and Decado ended up stabbing the man. He never intended to stab the man but in that situation it was either Decado getting killed or the man. Every human being has the notion of self preservation - does this mean Decado is evil for wanting to live?

A person cannot simply lump one act together and state that it is evil.
_________________

[Axiose] [Fliktor]

[Sophita]

Going by the dictionary, murder would be to kill intentionally with premeditation to do so ; manslaughter, on the other hand, would be the unlawful killing of another without intent to kill, and woud probably encompass self-defense, etc.
_________________

SCII month continues! DueFiumi.com

John Layfield wrote:

But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD

[Phamex]