I believe that murder is certainly justified when it removes a proven, lethal, and certain threat to other members of society. That is, I have no compunctions about the death of those that have intentionally killed others (excluding, of course, those agents that carry out the execution of said people).
In other words, you murder someone, and your life is forfeit, because there is no guarantee that I can believe that you will not murder again. This implies that all people have the right to life until they take the life of another.
Some would argue that for the purposes of removing a threat to society, a life sentence in prison serves the same purpose. I would say that the offender, being in prison indefinitely, serves only to be a drain on the rest of society, and furthermore that no prison can offer a 100% guarantee of no inmate escapes. I don't want my tax dollars being spent to keep a man alive that has proved his threat to society. I want it spent on programs that better society.
As obvious as it may be by now, I suppose now I should point out that I believe that there is no 'innate' value of human life; only that value which we as a society place upon it, and that each person is but a part of a total organism. The value of life, and the "right to life", comes from the expectation that as humans we will not be able to function as a part of a larger society, to trust each other and work toward common goals, if we do not have some guarantee to our personal survival. (That is why communities formed in the first place, to increase the individual chances of survival).
Furthermore, I also believe that there should be no difference in priority between a family member and a total stranger. The whole idea behind our modern society is to protect those that cannot protect themselves, instead of the "every clan for itself" way of thinking. Objectively, is there a difference between your brother being threatened with death and a stranger? Why should there be a subjective difference? The expectation that others will look out for us for no immediate personal reason - whether it's their job, duty, or simply part of their character - is what binds a society together.
Of course, once we move away from certain lethal threats into actions that are not necessarily lethal, we approach a grey area. I am a proponent of a "shoot-first, questions later" philosophy - If a man approaches me unarmed but threateningly, would killing him be justified? Probably - but I would expect a higher standard toward attempts at defusing the situation be applied. A man with a gun, obviously, poses a much larger, more immediate threat - and a much clearer threat - and assuming that said person has intentions to take your life or the life of another is much more permissible, so taking action to stop the person - like murder - is allowed. Assuming that the unarmed man knows Martial Arts Instant Death Blows and thus poses as much of a threat as the assailant with the firearm is not permissible; that’s where the standard comes into play.
... You know, I’m not sure if that makes a lot of sense. Time to wrap up.
As a generalization, the morals that we teach are a result of our societal nature, and are simply the rules which we must collectively construct in order to function as a community rather than a bunch of individuals, constantly having to watch our own backs. The definition of murder as a moral wrong is therefore just a rule created by society to put the members of society more at ease (and thus better able to work), secure in the expectation that they will not be killed by some random person for no reason. Religion established certain morals as rules, in order to give the rules more clout, more basis, and a threat of certain punishment.
Those religions and rules - and the societies based around those religions - that made the best societies flourished while those religions that made for worse societies died: evolution of the fittest societies with the fittest rules for survival in that society's environment. Get it?
Of course that all results from my viewpoint as an atheist bastard, that no God defined universal, absolute morals, and religions were initially sustained (in addition to answering questions such as origin) as a part of a governmental system created to create and control communities. (Think about it. A prohibition against murder will keep the people from killing each other: higher population: more wealth. A prohibition against homosexuality will enforce the creation of unions between men and women: higher breeding rate: more population. Prohibition against stealing: keeps citizens from killing each other: higher population. Honor thy father: people give weight to the commands of the elders: a subservient population. Human sacrifice: ...apparently, not such a good idea. There aren't any Aztecs around today, are there? (I know that’s a gross oversimplification). You get the point.)
The only thing keeping me from killing you is the expectation that if I killed you, the rest of society would perceive me as a threat and work to eliminate that threat as soon as possible; therefore I can assume you are not going to kill me for the same reason; and that each individual can act as a member of the society to eliminate any threat to that society. Summed up, it translates to a dictum of "Don't kill people," with an implied threat behind it.
I'm no philosopher. Feel free to destroy my argument from the inside out if you like, I appreciate being made to question my own assumptions and refine my logic.
_____
Edit: Forgot some of the other things I was going to mention.
Its fairly obvious that I support the death penalty and that I'm all for executing murderers. However I do NOT beleive that the American justice system is, in its current state, able to sentence people to death. Simply because of the complications of the legal system, the vast amount of wait time for cases to be processed, and the very real fact that there are innocent men/women on Death Rows around the country. There are so many loopholes in the law that let innocent men hang and the guilty go free... it makes me sick. The way crucial evidence can be thrown out of court... Someday, I hope that our justice system can find the guilty and free the innocent, and then it will be worthy to issue death sentences, but it needs a MAJOR overhaul. Personally I see little distinction in the crime of the state in letting an innocent man rot for life behind bars versus killing him outright; the thought that innocent men rot is just as bad as having innocent men killed. But how the fuck can change be initiated in something as complicated as the law??
_________________ DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot
|