-
NecessaryNow, I think this might get me flamed, but I do believe that murder is quite necessary. I think it's important to human survival.40% Voted for by Torbjorn, Molzahn, Maxxym Neovalerious, WiseOwl.
I don't really think it's wrong to kill another human being, IF you have a reason. A good reason.
Too many people are fooled by a sense of false innocence. -
NoMurder is the unlawful and often premeditated killing of another human being. Killing in self defense, the defense of others, euthanasia, or an execution (I am against capital punishment) are NOT murder.30% Voted for by Weydon, zga, Alexander Hine.
Except in some crazy circumstance like the law utterly fails to protect the innocent and society, PERHAPS an unlawful killing could be deemed justifiable. It should never be advocated under any circumstances. Killing should always be as a last resort. This isn't a Wild West or Bruce Willis movie, it's the real world.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
If "Killing should always be as a last resort", it implies that you are justifying the murder. So your position seems to be ambiguous when juxtaposed with your preceding assertion: "It should never be advocated under any circumstances".
Whether killing takes place as a last resort or deemed as justifiable, the moot point is that kiling or murder does take place even as it is unlawful.
Law does not prevent a murder from happening.
Law treats it as the most greivious crime. Murder infringes on the freedom bestowed on the other person.
What needs to be debated is whether Trob's position of calling it a necessary action is correct or outright foolish.
I think its right to call his 'necessity' as a big WRONG. -
So Stealing and Embezzlement are different right?
Who is to say weather killing is right or wrong.
Murder is murder, regardless of what you call it. It's killing another being for whatever the reason. Weather it be "justified" or not. Think about it. Who is to say what justice is. What if I killed your sister and then you killed me. Would it be a murder or an execution?
"Execution" is just a way for the general public to accept the death of another being under someone else's watch.
I personally have no problem with killing, death, murder, "execution." They are all a natural part of life, and in my opinion, death should be the punishment for more crimes. I come from a country where you can only serve 21 years in prison. The sentence for murder is reduced if you can come up with a reason why you killed someone.
An example would be, if you killed someone who killed a member of your family.
Most people don't even get the maximum years in prison.
Go look up the crime statistic of Norway, that is where I'm from.
Death is necessary for people to learn to behave. Something most people haven't learned. -
"If "Killing should always be as a last resort", it implies that you are justifying the murder. "
Not at all. Killing in self defense or the defense of others should be done as a last resort--if you can stop and apprehend the attacker it would be best. Conversely I don't see the death penalty as good, but it is not murder because it is legal, and the executioner is certainly not a murderer by any means. By the same token, in a world (not ours) where the law is out of hand in protecting criminals and preying on the innocent, unlawful killing could be justifiable (but tragic) as it would be a war and uprising more than a murderer on the loose.
"Law does not prevent a murder from happening. "
Contrarily, law technically LETS murder happen. If it wasn't against the law, it wouldn't be murder as by definition murder is only an unlawful killing. But that's getting into semantics. I suppose we can assume a murder (versus killing in order to defend yourself or another) is something done in cold blood, probably premeditated. Law or not, it is an unneeded and unjustified killing (which, ideally, is what murder should be deemed in law). -
-
Law or not, it is an unneeded and unjustified killing (which, ideally, is what murder should be deemed in law).
Semantics yes.... you mean the same thing what I meant in the quote....
I agree with much of the justification given.
-
-
"So Stealing and Embezzlement are different right?"
Yeah? How are they NOT different? If some dumb kids steals a movie, I don't think they're a murderer. If a desperate man steals because he has no other source of money, he's not the same as a murderer. If someone steals/embezzles millions of dollars from unsuspecting people, he's NOT the same as a murderer (but he has ruined many lives to selfishly have an unneeded abundance and in my opinion is worse than the first 2 examples I gave). All of the situations are wrong, but to different degrees.
"
Who is to say weather killing is right or wrong."
Everyone? The entire history of society?
"Murder is murder, regardless of what you call it. It's killing another being for whatever the reason. Weather it be "justified" or not."
This isn't a debate, it is fact.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=murder&ls=a&loc=osdf
If you are being attacked and kill the guy in defense, you are not called a murderer. You probably wouldn't even go to trial. You killed someone, but it wasn't murder. Same in war--unless you went out of line, and could go to trial for it. There is a difference between killing and murder, and we should hope (and actively protect) that the laws in society are doing it right.
"Think about it. Who is to say what justice is. What if I killed your sister and then you killed me. Would it be a murder or an execution?"
It's entirely circumstantial, and (this is the "who" part I suppose) and would have to be judged in trial. If I was in the room, it could be considered self-defense as there's quite a feasible reason to believe that walking in a murder means my own life is in danger, and it should be natural for me to at least want to apprehend you and perhaps had to kill you in the struggle. It could also easily be a moment of temporary insanity. I probably wouldn't be convicted. If I hunted you down months later it would be in cold blood, and it would depend on the evidence. Perhaps I would get off with insanity, but this is not something allowed in society and with good reason. I can kill anyone and claim they murdered an innocent. People are supposed to be proven guilty with evidence and convicted in a fair trial.
""Execution" is just a way for the general public to accept the death of another being under someone else's watch."
After being convicted "beyond doubt" that the person is guilty in a fair trial. Of course there are always horror stories of later evidence showing the person was innocent.
"
I personally have no problem with killing, death, murder, "execution." They are all a natural part of life, and in my opinion, death should be the punishment for more crimes."
At best this is silly. You have NO problem with murder?
"The sentence for murder is reduced if you can come up with a reason why you killed someone."
As it is where I am from (the United States), but to a lesser extent. If you killed someone who murdered your family member, as I described before there are many different possible outcomes. In the end, if you can prove you indeed killed a murderer, your sentence would likely be less than that of someone who just killed for pleasure.
"
Go look up the crime statistic of Norway, that is where I'm from."
I don't understand. Norway has a clear stance AGAINST murder, how does this prove your point? It is my understanding that they have no capital punishment, and the police only keep their guns in locked containers for extreme emergency. This means "killing, murder, and execution" are alright and normal?
"Death is necessary for people to learn to behave. Something most people haven't learned. "
I think MOST people are fairly well behaved, at least in the sense of not going around killing people.
Your English is phenomenal by the way. Do you speak it and write it at home and/or school? I'm Scandinavian myself, but only by blood, I've lived in the US my whole life. My grandparents had very heavy accents and only learned the written language after years of practice in this country. -
I've been here for 10 years. Since I was 10. Norway has a very high standard in education. I don't live with my family anymore either. I haven't really spoken Norwegian in a while, so English is now my primary language.
Back to the matter at hand.
How is stealing and embezzlement different? They are both stealing.
I also never compared those two words with murder. I was merely making a point that two SYNONYMS can be the same.
The definition of synonym is - A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
Murder and Execution are both killing. There is absolutely no way to argue this.
I am talking about killing. Murder is just a word for killing, and some people give it their own like "ooh ahh thats bad" denotation to the word.
Think about it man. Soldiers killing enemy soldiers have absolutely no reason to kill each other at one point or another. At the beginning of a battle, both parties are holding fire, waiting for the first move. One soldier kills the other, but it's "justified" because he was ordered to do so. To one side its an execution right? That just doesn't sound right. There was no reason for him to kill that being. There was no threat. It was just something he had to do because his country is at war with another. That is politicians vs politicians. Not man vs man. War is no longer about the people of the country feeling threatened, or wanting more territory, because that is now called "revolution."
It's all a bunch of silly shit, made up by some people who wanted to give certain connotation to certain things they saw fit.
Sure, I would use the word execution, or justice to describe something. For the purpose of communication it works, but for the purpose of definition it is very silly.
What I'm talking about in Norway is this. If you kill someone of my family, and I kill you for that, I'll turn myself in and serve my time. It's not a big deal. 21 years is the maximum sentence. 14 years is what most people serve for the most severe of crimes. Of that, I'm sure I'll only serve 8, and after 4 I'm allowed to go out on the weekends.
So really, nothing bad happens to me, and I get to justify my own family members death.
Now, weather or not I'll do that is up to me. I could if I wanted to.
Whoever killed my family member would be scared for the longest of times that I may come take their life.
I'm just trying to set the record straight, that killing is killing no matter what you call it.
I'm not against it, or for it, but I have no problem with it. It's all a natural part of life. If I die innocently by the hands of another person, well that sucks. I really can't do a whole lot about that can I? If someone is determined to to harm to another person, they WILL find a way. End of story.
Regardless, this topic has gotten off subject. Don't let fear make your opinions. Because if you do, then the opinion is not yours. -
the good word.....?
Hey Trob......
Lets hear you again
"I'm just trying to set the record straight, that killing is killing no matter what you call it.
I'm not against it, or for it, but I have no problem with it. It's all a natural part of life."
Thanks for putting the record straight....because your initial comment...."but I do believe that murder is quite necessary." took us in another path.
Perhaps, you would like to correct your syntax. Synonyms does not give you the blanket right to use any words in any which context you would like to put it. I call the incorrect use of words as a killing...ha ha.
When you speak about the other 'killing', lets stick to killing, and not murder. B coz as Wey pointed out, murder is "unlawful killing".
If you are talking about killing: than killing each other or other groups are part of natural history. It is the animistic instinct in humans to kill other humans, whatever the circumstances or the reason may be, justified or otherwise.
-
The point is, synonyms are awfully unequal. Yes, embezzling is stealing. But stealing a candy bar is not the same as embezzling families' life savings, even if it still is stealing. It is an entirely different degree. Violence is violence no matter what--but torture and and pinching someone are 2 completely different things that are hardly comparable, even though they are both violence. ALL of these things--stealing, embezzling, torturing, pinching--are ACTIONS. This does not mean "actions are actions, plain and simple, therefore actions are necessary for survival and I'm fine with it." Yes, actions are needed, but I don't condone or accept ALL actions. I measure them individually based upon what they are doing and if they are hurting anyone and how much and why.
-
Murder is murder; killing is killing, stealing is stealing, pinching is pinching.......
period.
whats the fuss?.........
...........
.............
...............trob
-
An execution or a casualty in a war is still murder to someone.
So correct me if I'm wrong, if I consider my brothers execution (not something that really happened, I don't have a brother) a murder, then it is a murder right? Even though he was executed under US law? -
-
Well it seems we are deep into semantics.
To be frank, what you consider is immaterial. If by law one is 'executed'legally, he or she is not murdered. A institution or a concept like a state cannot murder. If you get what i mean. However, for example, if your brother is illegally executed on the basis of a wrong judgement or order (procedurial or judicial error) than i suppose you can call it a miscarriage of justice or your misfortune. However, the state cannot commit a murder.
To make things clear, let me take your example to demonstrate the use of words.
If your brother is a state official, and he is shot dead by someone, than the headline will read 'Assasinated.'
If Your brother is a spy, and poisoned. The Headline wil read 'Spy killed"
If your brother is a common man, and he is knifed by your neighbour, the headline will be 'Neighbour Murdered'.
Note the differences.
-
-
"However, the state cannot commit a murder. "
Those kind of idea's will keep you from ever truly being free...
Freedom comes with questions, not acceptance.
I note the differences, but all those words are for the purpose of communicating a certain connotation. They are identical in the fact that they end in the same result.
Do you have children? What if one of them were executed by the state? Would you consider that murder? Considering that it costs more to execute a prisoner instead of keeping him in jail for life, your child's life was taken away. You can no longer visit them, or share your life adventures in them. These are things that chemically bond a mother and a child together, the unconditional love for their offspring.
If your child was executed by the state, I'm sure you would consider it a murder. It's how the human brain works, and if it is a murder to some one, then it is murder, all the same.
Think about it for a second. Open your mind to question what you have believed since you were young. Don't just take things for granted, even my own opinions, but I still want people to be much more open minded. I want people to think from other points of view, so that way, one day humanity can move on from this childish bond that makes us fool on a big blue rock in the infinite universe.
That is my point here. Think from not only YOUR perspective, but another's.
Here's some food for thought. Crispus Attucks and 4 other citizens were murdered at the Boston massacre. This is an event that really help push forth the American revolution. Protests and riots ensued throughout the thirteen colonies leading to evens such as the Boston Tea party.
Suppose this never happened? Suppose the British soldiers peacefully settled with the protesters on that bitter march day. Would the American Revolution have taken place later on in history? Would the Boston Tea party have happened? Would the American Revolution have gotten rolling soon enough for certain things to happen like George Washington crossing the Delaware river and capturing nearly a thousand Hessian soldiers? What if that happened in the summer time? Could it have failed, since the bitter frost of winter slows down a humans reaction time, considering it's already terrible upon waking up.
What if British soldiers had peacefully taken over the entire North American colonies region?
Think about it, you would probably be living in a completely different country!
So the question stands, is murder necessary? -
-
Hi Trob.. please let me help you.
You are right insofar as you say that the result is the same. But that is dealing only with the physical state or condition of a being. We are discussing the conceptual aspect of the term 'murder' and the philosophy your postulate in its regards. Unless you have your own definition ( I will be delighted to know that) I presume you are refering to murder as the dictionaries suggest it is.
Now i see there is some disconnect here in the way you interpret a historical event or your hypothetical events with the term 'murder'.
If i am correct in my reading, I sincerely think you need a lesson or two in grammer. If not,... boy you will soon be in trouble.
But herein, lets understnd what you want to say - philosophically speaking. You are essentially saying that a murder or two was necessary for a revolution to take place. And therfore according to you murders are necessary.
Necessary for what?
Your analysis may be true in the reverse order but your inference and conclusions are warped.
Your Logic seems to be based on: For e.g
Rose is a flower
All Rose are red
Therefore all flowers are red.
Even if this can be reasoned out, your conclusion is absolutely marvellous - you seems to draw a very extraordinary conclusion.
You seems to say: All that is red are flowers.
Think about it..... sure, you should.
American revolution took place due to the 'murder' of few rioters cum protestors, is incredulous inference. And therfore the conclusion that all murder are necesary is not only ridiculous but unarguable if you believe in rational and intellectual argumentative theory. Ofcourse since you have invoked freedom (wonder what is that?) you are at liberty to draw your lessons out of an historic event. No one can stop you, since even Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin drew their own lessons from history as they choose to see it.
And talking about Adolf, from YOUR perspective, Adolf Hitler is the father of the Israel Nation.
I hope you can see the perspective, according to the favoured Logic.
In dialectics, logic is important or else it is a useless execise.
Hope you can find a true perspective. -
-
Where did I say ALL murder is necessary? I'm asking if it is necessary period. Is it necessary to the existence of humans.
Also, if you haven't ready yet, sorry but English is my second language, so if I have a few grammar errors, I'm sorry, but I really don't care. I'm 20, and yes I'm a little fucked up in the head, but from my perspective death is just another gateway. I've been cursed with an indefinite shortened life. I don't see a difference in murder, execution or killing, because they all lead to the same thing. Each word just has a different connotation.
I'm not saying ALL murders are necessary, but there have been quite a few in history that have changed the course of a nation, or a peoples actions.
I wasn't saying that the American Revolution was started buy murders, but I am saying that the Boston Massacre did add a lot of fuel to the fire.
Please try not to insult my language skills and stay on topic, thanks. -
-
My sincere apology for having offended you, but i have perhaps not insulted you. And if i should take recsourse to an excuse i would rather (least innocently) say that i am unaware of your background. Perhaps it is one of the numerous other faults of the way an internet conversation takes place.
Language skills are of least importance here. But conveying the right message is of utmost importance especially when we can't be face to face. I too does not speak English. It is not my natural tongue either.
But believe me i would like to help you out in your understandings. Or, are you suggesting that I should agree with you no matter what. Even then, in case you are pleased with my agreement, it will only give you a temporary relief or satisfaction. But truth should prevail no matter if one is in a 'f@$ked up' state of mind. The issue of 'murder' is important to the society. So also for you, apparently.
Truth is difficult to comprehend but harbouring an immature thought or idea which appears as truth is dangerous for philosophy.
Lots of thoughts and ideas cross your mind, especially a young mind but keeping the mind open to further thoughts and ideas is what inteligence is all about. Keep the mind open like a window, so that fresh air comes in, and when it comes it may bring the spring fragrence too with it. Its very advantageous.
There are many things that i agree with your analysis but i may not put here point by point. This is a debating forum and therefore where i disagree with your postulation or observation i will only tackle that points.
The fundamental principle you seem to suggest is getting clearer as you clarify your stand further and further. Perhaps my language may have provoked you. I admit i am a bit of a snob. I have an inherent feeling that tells me that my Logic is correct. Thats my ego's fault.
As for grammer, let me sincerely and humbly disagree with you. When you say "Each word just has a different connotation." cannot be treated lightly. Please bear with me - i am exerting myself in the hope that you may find it useful - if i say that each word has its own place in a language. Words cannot be traded lightly like cola's. If one cola is not available, we often make do with another one.
Words are not so easy to be traded or taken lightly. Ask any good lawyer or your literature teacher would point out. They can explain this principle better. Connotations have specific utilities depending on the situation, condition, circumstances and position. The last four noun-words, for example, has their own meanings and connotations and can only be used in their correct aplication as required. Similarly murder and execution are different words and concepts having diffrent meanings and as you said connotations.
I agree the nuances of meanings are very subtle in relation, effect and action. As for the issue you apparently wants to raise, I wil try and explain the nuances of the Issue in the below post.
My apology once again.
-
-
Separate
Separate from my other post. Giving your government the power to do something like "legally killing" someone is the most ridiculous concept I have EVER heard. It is the judge, not the jury, who decides the penalty for a crime. The judge works for the state, not for the people. What else would you like the government to do legally? Decide how many kids you can have? Abort your children because your state is too over crowded? Saying that it is right because the state is doing it is just plain wrong. It's sad to say that the country of freedom is dwindling it's freedom's over a cliff constantly.
I still have no problem with killing, death, murder, execution, or whatever you want to call it. If it is done for the right reason, it is most likely necessary, but when a person or government is given the power to kill someone and it is deemed "right" by society, then you've gone too far and given too much power away. I never said it was right, I said it was necessary. -
-
You essentially seems to raise two points:
1) Whether the state/government should be empowered to kill/execute/murder anyone, and whether it is ridiculous to do so.
2) Whether a murder becomes a 'necessary', if the murderrer has a good or right reason to do so.
As far as i can see, there is an inherent irony out here. While you seem to suggest that the state cannot kill or execute a murderrer, the individual should be absolved of any crime or social retribution if the individual has a credible and valid reason to kill someone or may have killed someone.
Can you please explain these contradictions?
My comments on 1): The issue of capital punishment is an ongoing debate. I too am of the opinion that 'in principle' the state should not put to death anyone unless his living is a clear and presnet danger to others.
on 2): A murder is a heinous crime and cannot be condoned by any rationale being or state, no matter what the circumstances or reasons were. The quality and extent of punishment should be the only issue. Only a trained person like a judge can delivere a correct judgement without prejudice or bias towards anyone or against anyone.
-
-
-
-
I think you are still stuck on right or wrong. I'm not saying murder is right nor wrong, what I'm saying is, is it necessary. necessary to humanity, necessary to survival, necessary to progression of a society.
Did that clear anything up?
An example of the right reason: Self defense. It is still an unlawful killing of a human being. In some states, killing in self defense will still get you jail time. -
-
Who said the following:
"I don't really think it's wrong to kill another human being,".........
"Who is to say weather killing is right or wrong."....
"I do believe that murder is quite necessary. I think it's important to human survival."..........
Anyway...lets forget all that and try and see the latest opnion you project.
Your quote: "what I'm saying is, is it necessary. necessary to humanity, necessary to survival, necessary to progression of a society."
Trob... you are quite disturbed by the fact that you cannot legally murder anyone. ( I am being a bit funnier out here)... but teh question is who stopping you from murdering anyone you like?...
Ah.. .ha OH! you want to murder someone and still be a free bird!!... Wow,.
Okay now, seriously. I think i have an hint of your dilemma when you ask"....is it necessary" "
Man, a killing in self defense is a natural instinct. It is not an homicide when it is proven that it was not murder. No just society wil punish anyone who may have killed someone in self defense . However to protect the society from the bane of revenge killing the law may be harsh to some who may have killed someone at the spur of the moment.
Because it is very difficult to prove that you had no grudge or illfeeling against the one killed. The prosecution will act against you sans any sentiment because a law was broken. It is here where the judge and the jury helps the accused and your defense.
Now as for the philosophical part of your observation, than i would say yes you are right to the extent that murder or killing lets you survive , individually but it does not have a bearing on the larger survival matter of the community or humanity as a whole. In fact it threatens the established system.
To sum up, if my sister is killed, and in my retributive mood goes and kills the murderrer, i will have to face the consequences of the law. I may feel bad. But just imagine if Judges, the managers and custodians of law becomes philosophers than no convict will ever be punished.
I agree that a debate can be possible on your second proposition on whether the state has the right to kill anyone.
-
-
"I don't really think it's wrong to kill another human being,".........
"Who is to say weather killing is right or wrong."....
"I do believe that murder is quite necessary. I think it's important to human survival."..........
The first one is my opinion, the second one is a fact.
Also, for society to evolve it needs food. Now, I'm no P.E.T.A supporter (unless you mean People for the Enjoyment of Tasty Animals), but they seem to think killing animals is murder. If all of the world were vegan or vegetarian, it would be much different. Better or worse, a lot of people would not be able to build the muscle required to do a job such as heavy lifting in construction. It takes a lot of heavy lifters to get a construction project moved. I'm not saying vegans or vegetarians are wrong, but consider where society or humanity would be today without killing (some would say murdering, because again, why is it right to kill animals and not humans) countless animals for food? -
We are digressing.
Anyway I like your:
People for the Enjoyment of Tasty Animals : P.E.T.A .......
LOL...... nice one.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
What's a murder?You have a Very Interesting Observation. Quite funny. But nevertheless a valid one for this forumVoted for by Jackymania.
Murder is neither wrong, right or necessary.
Murder means a death of a human (you can add trees and animals these days) which is caused by another human being.
Murder is therfore considered a crime and a mortal sin in some quarters
Murder happens due to various reasons.
Murder is not acceptable in any society.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
I’m against murder or death if it’s not in self defense. But keep in mind there are plenty of cases where the defending of yourself could be considered manslaughter by a court. So think about it self defiance, manslaughter, murder a fine line between all. When two early humans would challenge one another over a mate. They would beat each other to death. They were guided by instincts. They were not guided by law or god. But in recent years both have been shown to be corrupt. And the ones who are able to corrupt it are the ones who are able to walk that fine line between the definitions. Is murder bad; depends on who kills who and which part of town they die in.
Allawy
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
-
murder is.....some times necessary like in self defense you might accidentally kill someone who was trying to hurt you or kill you! it is also wrong when some one is doing it just for fun or just because they can. but i dont think you can classify is as right ever because how can you kill some one and say that it is right it can be necessary or wrong but never right.,Voted for by hope17.
-
HereHere's how I've always seen it--let's say that you are in love. DEEP love, like your life depends on your relationship. You catch them with someone else, cheating on you, and you go insane--hurting the other person. Or, someone is making you fearful and you kill them, because if you tell authorities they'll know and kill someone close to you or you.Voted for by GinryuStargazer.
That's my problem with society today; they don't give a d*** considering the possibities. They don't bother to punish the emotional straining on you, just the physical.
No one pays attentiont o spirit anymore, just the physical concequences.
So when you think about it, people who are much more of "sinners" will never get consequences, for there is no law against cheating, etc.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Didn't you say you don't experience hate?
As HORRIBLE as a broken--and especially betrayed--heart is, it is NO justification for murder.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Molzahn
June 18, 2009
Edit | Reply
Justified murder is usually semantically dubbed execution because it is such an emotionally heavy word.
June 18, 2009
Justice is like good and evil, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Justice is a concept made up by human beings, it doesn't exist, and it will NEVER exist.
Execution and murder is the same thing, regardless of how you want to argue it.
Ns243cxcvi
June 18, 2009
Weydon
June 20, 2009
June 22, 2009
Weydon
June 22, 2009
Edit | Reply
June 18, 2009
Edit | Reply
Justice, once again, is a perception based on the person perceiving it.
June 20, 2009
Edit | Reply
'Execution and murder is the same thing, regardless of how you want to argue it.'
you're just getting caught up in a set meaning? murder would be like killing for stupid or emotional reasons? it would have no benifit to human survival.
execution, the person must have caused harm and be a danger. they can be locked up for this so the death still isn't necessary, but imo they would be better off dead anyway, this i would also call justice.
there is such thing as justice even if not everyone agrees that it is.
Weydon
June 20, 2009
This tired concept is, in my opinion, one of the laziest in all of philosophy--and one that the speaker rarely ever believes in anyway. Only a sociopath would hold this ideology to be a truth. Yes, relativism is a very real concept that has to be considered and can often sway the outcome of certain moral situations. It does not mean morality doesn't exist at all.
Alexander Hine
July 7, 2009
Edit | Reply
August 20, 2009
Edit | Reply
Is murder necessary it depends on what you’re willing to kill for. If two men fight and it leads to death then yeah. Better him then me. But if you’re a man and you corner a woman in a park just to drive a knife in her eyes. Then where’s the necessity in that? It all comes down to what you’re willing to kill for. But on the flipside you’d have to be willing to die for it to.
Allawy
GinryuStargazer
August 23, 2009
Edit | Reply
Of course not...
But that was a mere example; what I am saying is that emotional pain can cut deeper more than any physical pain. But the emotional killers are never punished, but the physical killers are even executed. I am not saying that either is righteous. Also, I know physical death can have a HUGE impact on a community (my murdered friend was cried over by over a thousand people) but emotionally, they can kill themselves physically or hurt others, spreading the chain, and the starter of this maleficent circle receives no punishment whatsoever.Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!