Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why is murder wrong?

Rate this topic


moralist

Recommended Posts

It would be ironic if ethics were defined by force as by a murderer. I can't speak to the prevailing mantra of your perpetually offended victim, but might makes right only coincidentally. An ethical standard of right that is correct and proper doesn't require persuasion by force.

Moral reciprocity applied to your topic states, "I would not be a murder because I would not be murdered".

Huh? So "murder is wrong" doesn't exist unless murder is wrong to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is right or wrong because you decide it is right or wrong.

Something is right when it's non-contradictory, and wrong otherwise. Just as two rational individuals will ultimately agree on reality, so will two rationally ethical individuals ultimately agree on what is correct and proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neville Chamberlain could likely have said that to Adolph Hitler.

Perhaps, but Chamberlain was primarily at fault for failing to reciprocate, or for rewarding aggression with appeasement.

So there is no objective moral standard?

The objective standard is reciprocity. By objective, I mean that which can be verified by observation independently of endorsement by Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? So "murder is wrong" doesn't exist unless murder is wrong to you?

No, murder is wrong because it contradicts moral reciprocity. Ethical contradictions, e.g. murder, torture, are exposed by applying the metric of ethical reciprocity primarily in the form of, "I will do unto others as I wouldn't have done to myself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the definition you're using? "Moral reciprocity refers to the general tendency of humans (and, some argue, other animals) to reciprocate both assistance and harm in relation to the subjective interpretation of that assistance or harm as moral or immoral."

...and that subjective moral interpretation may or may not agree with objective moral reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are animals. Predators, in fact. But animals (including predators) almost never kill their own species.

This is faulty, and your whole inferred argumentation is faulty too. Why humans don't murder each other? It's a contract so we can do better things with our lives. Which doesn't mean you should trust people never to murder you, as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

It is objectively an evil act for you to murder Bob. 

 

Why?

 

Because for Bob, life is better than non-life. That's clear. It is an a priori truth. So to end Bob's life is objectively an evil act done to Bob.

 

Now, you might say, "Yes, but am I morally bound to live according to that since it's Bob's life and not mine? Isn't my own life the only really objective value I have, not other people's lives?"

 

The answer, I think, is that whether you choose to respect Bob's life or not, it is still an objective truth that for Bob, life is better than non-life, and if you end his life it is an objective evil done to him. Even though this objective truth is applied individually instead of collectively, it is still objectively true, not subjectively true. You cannot say that, "Well Bob's life isn't really an objective value of any sort." Incorrect. It is an objective value, indeed. Whether Bob chooses to acknowledge his own life as a value or not, it is still objectively better for Bob's life that Bob's life is in existence rather than not being in existence. 

 

I think the confusion is that this objective truth is applied individually, and yet is no less an objective truth. Even though it is applied individually, it is still true for every individual with no exceptions, and it is not dependent on the whim or opinion of any person. If I tell you that China is an objective reality, and you say to me, "I don't live in China, so it's not real to my world," I would say that it doesn't matter whether you live in it or not, it still objectively exists. Likewise, you don't live inside Bob's body and mind, and yet he exists objectively, the fact that life is better than non-life is an objective truth for both you and him, and therefore it is an objectively immoral act to destroy a real life unless there is an overriding moral reason to destroy that life.

 

Therefore as a society we are correct to agree to a system of law that rests upon the truth that destruction of life (in part or in whole) is an objectively evil act to the person it is committed upon, and as a society law should rest on objective reality, not subjective whims or opinions of those who wield the most power.

 

You cannot murder someone and say, "Well, I don't think it was really evil or wrong. It's all subjective." Wrong. Reality is objective, and truth of reality does not rest on your subjective thoughts. You can convince yourself all you want that there is no wall in front of you, but when you try to walk through it, the objective nature of reality will smack you in your face. Likewise, the fact that life is better than non-life for Bob is a truth statement tied to the objective reality of the world and the logic of the real world. All your self-convincing cannot make it any less of an evil act for Bob. So a justice code that punishes you for the killing of Bob is based on the objective nature of reality and is valid.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is objectively an evil act for you to murder Bob. 

 

Why?

 

Because for Bob, life is better than non-life.

While that is relatively true, the question needs to be asked: Life as what is better than non-life? Does this hold true for Bob if he has murdered your wife?

 

The answer is that non-life becomes better than life for Bob in the instant that he forfeits his right to life by his own immoral actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this hold true for Bob if he has murdered your wife? The answer is that non-life becomes better than life for Bob in the instant that he forfeits his right to life by his own immoral actions.

 

The fact that life is better than non-life for Bob holds true even if he murdered my wife. However, Bob can be punished by a legal system that makes judgments based on the objective nature of the world and the objective truth that he committed an evil against my wife. That way force used against Bob as punishment corresponds to an objective morality, and is not force used against him based on subjective whim.

 

My "Bob" analogy speaks to the general case. You are now trying to introduce new scenarios to the story, which would of course change things. I've already covered this above when I said, " ... therefore it is an objectively immoral act to destroy a real life unless there is an overriding moral reason to destroy that life."

 

Another overriding moral reason to destroy a life is to kill as a means of self-defense against someone who is intent on murdering you. Of course, this is the difference between murder and a just killing.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that life is better than non-life for Bob holds true even if he murdered my wife.

Of course Bob will continue to believe that his life is better than his non-life regardless of his immoral actions.  However, reality is the difference between what Bob believes and what is.

However, Bob can be punished by a legal system that makes judgments based on the objective nature of the world and the objective truth that he committed an evil against my wife. That way force used against Bob as punishment corresponds to an objective morality, and is not force used against him based on subjective whim.

 

My "Bob" analogy speaks to the general case. You are now trying to introduce new scenarios to the story, which would of course change things. I've already covered this above when I said, " ... therefore it is an objectively immoral act to destroy a real life unless there is an overriding moral reason to destroy that life."

Another overriding moral reason to destroy a life is to kill as a means of self-defense against someone who is intent on murdering you. Of course, this is the difference between murder and a just killing.

 

 

Your point is well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murdering someone is wrong because it violates that person's right to life (obviously).  But if we believe in rights, then we must respect the rights of others, or they are not bound to respect ours.  To murder someone else, you sacrifice your own right to life in the process.  I would say that is why murder is wrong, it is wrong because the murderer sacrifices his own right to life, (and liberty and property).  It is not really selfish to murder, but self-destructive.

 

I was at a talk Yaron Brook gave a few months ago, and he said Bernie Madoff wasn't really living the virtue of selfishness because he sacrificed his own right to liberty and property when he defrauded people.  He sacrificed his own integrity.  It isn't properly selfish to sacrifice yourself like that, "selling your soul for a nickel," like Ayn Rand would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murdering someone is wrong because it violates that person's right to life (obviously).  But if we believe in rights, then we must respect the rights of others, or they are not bound to respect ours.  To murder someone else, you sacrifice your own right to life in the process.  I would say that is why murder is wrong, it is wrong because the murderer sacrifices his own right to life, (and liberty and property).  It is not really selfish to murder, but self-destructive.

 

I was at a talk Yaron Brook gave a few months ago, and he said Bernie Madoff wasn't really living the virtue of selfishness because he sacrificed his own right to liberty and property when he defrauded people.  He sacrificed his own integrity.  It isn't properly selfish to sacrifice yourself like that, "selling your soul for a nickel," like Ayn Rand would say.

What is your position on collateral damage and death during a war.  Little children are blasted to gobbets by falling bombs.  Has their -right- to life been violated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your position on collateral damage and death during a war.  Little children are blasted to gobbets by falling bombs.  Has their -right- to life been violated?

Yes, I think it definitely has been.  By whom is the more important question in my opinion.  Yaron Brook has said that the collateral damage caused by US action in Iraq is actually the fault of Saddam Hussein, and that our action there is self-defense.  I don't agree fully with that, and I think there can be disagreement within objectivism on this question.  Innocent people should not be killed in war.  But it's unreasonable to expect even the most morally righteous army to act in such a way that not a single child is killed, especially in battles where the enemy literally hides behind children.  The only thing our army can do is try to avoid killing them while pursuing enemy targets unless letting the target escape would result in even more death.

 

I hate to sit in gray areas like this, but in this case I don't agree with either extreme, that killing kids in war is either completely ok, or completely not ok.  War doesn't fit nicely into objectivism because it is the most irrational, destructive thing humanity is capable of.  Rational people like objectivists don't resort to violence as a general rule, certainly not in initiation.  In any war, at least one side is not rational.  But for the hypothetically perfectly rational, peace-loving side to bend over backwards to the irrational side, that capitulation is not rational because it would mean letting the irrational, brutish, violent side win.  The right way to view such a war is to say that all the destruction is the fault of the irrational side, and to say that the "rational" side can do anything to win.  But then this gets into trickier questions such as whether any perfectly rational country has ever existed, or whether one can exist, who really initiated the war, or how to divide blame for a war based on which side was more irrational than the other, and that's definitely beyond my level.

 

One of my grandparents had some close calls with death as a kid in Nazi Germany during the war, and many of his friends and relatives died.  Was it the fault of the Nazis or the British or the Americans?  I think all shared some fault.  Ayn Rand probably would not have endorsed US entry into WWII, based on a number of comments she made.  Her philosophy was not developed until long after the war so she didn't express any opinion while it was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said:



.  But then this gets into trickier questions such as whether any perfectly rational country has ever existed, or whether one can exist, who really initiated the war, or how to divide blame for a war based on which side was more irrational than the other, and that's definitely beyond my level.

 

I respond:

 

If you say let he who is without sin cast the first stone,  the sinners shall surely win.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

As general observation:

 

There are difficulties with the language surrounding "morality", such as "right" and "wrong" which, when used in an underdetermined manner imply meanings which have been accepted in the general population as against the specific "flavor" these concepts have been used and are to be understood in the context of Objectivism or by Objectivists.

 

The danger is that in the general population there is a belief in a "mystical" or at least "platonic" morality.  This morality has edicts and duties, prohibitions and unavoidable prescriptions, which purportedly "exist" externally to any human mind... i.e. is OUT THERE written on the universe, in the stars, in the mind of a God, or in a realm of perfect forms.  Something or other IS JUST WRONG,... or IS JUST RIGHT.  Objectivists do not think in terms of these imaginary external existents, but instead deal with a voluntarily adopted guide to action, principles of right action, contexts,..etc.. 

 

The IS-OUGHT gap, Rand clearly saw was not a gap, as the only relevant/real OUGHTs MUST and DO have their origin in reality and from Man's wish to live life qua man.

 

The truth of it is there is a gap, it's a "Mystical Ought" versus "Reality based Ought" gap, a gap between those who FEEL there is a mystical moral code they MUST follow, and those who see that to live life to the fullest certain actions are "correct" and therefore "should" be taken.

 

Just a point I wanted to raise... really it is just a reminder which may not be needed for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing for a perceived gain that is not in self defense.

This is why it's wrong.

What could anyone gain from murder, that would equal the value (even to THEM) of a human life?

It is an objective evil; the obliteration, not even of values, but of the very basis of the capacity TO value (which is man's mind) by means of brute, animal strength.

 

Murder is wrong because the act of it is, in miniature, a complete and utter negation of everything which it means to be human.  It is wrong for the victim for obvious reasons, and it is wrong for the murderer because they have abandoned their mind and chosen not to live up to any sort of potential, but to live down so as to feed on someone else's fresh grave.

 

So what is wrong with humans behaving like the other predators?

We are better than them.

 

Lions don't build skyscrapers, split atoms or launch space shuttles; nor do Chimpanzees.  Animals kill each other routinely.  Men reason with each other.

These two methods are mutually exclusive and antithetical in every way.  Rand wrote about this extensively, if you'd like clarification of it:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

 

The long and the short of it is this.

 

As a human being, you have a mind which you can use to do the most amazing things- literally- imaginable.  Your mind is truly limitless; its only requirements are the time and energy spent using it.

Murder is so much more than destroying what could be useful to you (even though this entirely outweighs any and all other supposed values it could bestow); it represents the decision to live, not by your mind, but by savage thuggery.

 

It is, for the murderer, the decision to not be a human (inasmuch as they are able) and therefor objectively evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals' lives are constantly at risk, so what is the difference between them and us?

 

A rational mind.

While animals' lives are constantly at risk, and they too must engage in purposeful and self-generated action, they cannot grasp the concept of morality.

An animal knows what it wants and what it fears; a carnivore knows to hunt and eat prey.  But if a carnivore eats a man it cannot grasp what it has done or why; it doesn't understand that it will never be able to eat him again and it has no idea what the consequences of its actions are.

A man who kills another man is fully aware of all these things; hence the objective evil.

 

 

Your excellent point raised another question. If it is only a matter of intelligence, why do very highly intelligent people murder their own?

And I just wanted to clarify, I agree with most parts of the arguments presented. It's refreshing to read, instead of people romanticizing animals as role models to justify humans behaving like animals.

Agreed; it is wonderfully refreshing.  :thumbsup:

 

As for the former point, it's evasion at least on some level.

An intelligent person knows exactly what murder is, at least on some level, in some way.  I can't imagine a person who truly doesn't feel any compunctions against killing another human being.

When you hear about some thug who acts as if he truly doesn't care, and is perhaps even proud of his actions, what you are hearing is a shrill and desperate lie- and it is not you whom they are attempting to fool.

 

Actually, your first and second points here might be closely interrelated. . .

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...