Why is murder wrong?

[FeatherFall]

Xall is starting along the right track.

I think the discussion is too specific. Murder is a special and extreme form of a broader evil called force. Strip down the discussion to force and you can avoid red herrings about chimps and lions murdering each other. Why is force wrong for humans to use against each other, but otherwise okay (or at least, not wrong) for animals to use in general? For that answer, I'd check out the entry on "Man," then the entry on "Physical Force," in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Edited December 10, 2012 by FeatherFall
Clarity, typo correction

[moralist]

Because man possesses the faculty of reason which makes the concept of right possible.

I agree... just letting you know that I'm not making an argument against your statement.

Why do reasonable people differ on the concept of what is right?

And along the same idea, why do people who possess the faculty of reason fail to do what is right?

[moralist]

Xall is starting along the right track.

I think the discussion is too specific.

Good. Take it wherever you choose.

Murder is a special and extreme form of a broader evil called force.

Does such a thing as "a broader good called force" exist? Is force morally neutral depending upon how it is wielded?

Strip down the discussion to force and you can avoid red herrings about chimps and lions murdering each other. Why is force wrong for humans to use against each other, but otherwise okay (or at least, not wrong) for animals to use in general? For that answer, I'd check out the entry on "Man," then the entry on "Physical Force," in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Man

"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)

Physical Force:

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other."

Edited December 10, 2012 by moralist

[Spiral Architect]

Why does a man have a right to his life any more than an animal does?

An animal will act to further its life but it does not posses rights. The difference is that an animal automatically acts for its survival since it does not have a volitional faculty (and as a result of that a rational mind). An animal does what it is suppose to for its survival and there is no reasoning with it. Rights are a product of a volitional mind that can choose what to do, and therefore needs principles to guide the choices that support its life. Reason = Rights.

Humans have volition so we have the power of choice - to help or hinder our own life. An animal kills because that is its nature and it has no choice. We can choose to not live like an animal and the rational choice is to live a life that persists above the state of an animal; to be an individual rational animal thriving in a peaceful society of mutual cooperation. Human progress can be measured from how far we have moved from the herd animal mentality and its decline in the West can be measured in how far people are willing to return to it.

[Devil's Advocate]

Why does a man have a right to his life any more than an animal does?

Until animals are better equipped to negotiate for their lives, Man being the only creature capable of arbitrating a right to life tends to rule with some bias on this issue...

In one respect though, neither man nor beast deserve to have their lives wasted, which in a human context is what murder produces.

[FeatherFall]

Does such a thing as "a broader good called force" exist? Is force morally neutral depending upon how it is wielded?

If we're talking about force as it relates to man's means of survival, it is always bad. It always prevents or negatively impacts a person's ability to think and to act. That's why we have moral principles that prohibit force. Now, if we're talking about the decision to retaliate once such principles are violated, then sure, such retaliation is good from the perspective of the retaliator (and possibly everyone who wants to live in a world fit for humans). If the initiator doesn't like the bad things that happen as a result of retaliation, he has only himself to blame.

[Nicky]

So bad moral choices destroy us. I wholly agree with this moral law to which everyone is subject, because it is as real as the physical law of gravity.

I don't know what you mean by "real". If you mean that the law of gravity, or moral principles, are concretes, then no, they're not. They're abstract principles that only exist in the context of our knowledge of reality. If there weren't any conceptual beings around, there would be no such thing as morality or physical laws of gravity. There wouldn't even be such a thing as Physics.

Your first explanation was better. This returns to peril and again raises the question of why is it ok for animals lives to be in peril, but not humans?

It's not OK. No animal wants its life to be in peril. They just don't have a choice but to act on instinct, and their instincts are nowhere near perfect (in fact they're pretty mediocre: they're just good enough to allow a percentage of a species to survive - sometimes a pretty small percentage, actually - never all or even a vast majority). Humans do have a choice. We can choose to do a better job at living than animals (or we can choose to do a worse job).

And many of us do choose to do a better job. We have entire societies where almost everyone is doing an unbelievable job, compared to other species.

Oh, and my second explanation is clearer, but I meant the same exact thing by both. If you think the first was better, then you misunderstood what I meant to say. All the more reason to stick with the second one. You're welcome to disagree with it, of course, but don't misinterpret what I mean. I am assigning no super-natural quality to moral principles, nor am I assigning any kind of sentience to nature. Moral principles are nothing more than general answers to the question "What personal choices further a human being's life?". They are not "laws" that exist outside the context of someone asking that question.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

Why do reasonable people differ on the concept of what is right?

If by "reasonable" you mean "rational", then I don't think rational people differ on the concept of what is right.

But "rational" is a specific thing. A rational person is someone who uses his observation of reality as his only source of information, and logic as his only method of processing that information to come to conclusions on what is right. A religious person isn't rational, neither is someone who chooses arbitrary goals.

Why does a man have a right to his life any more than an animal does?

The principle of individual rights (of man) is a proven truth (proven using rational means: observation of reality and logic). Choosing to respect someone's rights is good because it leads to peaceful coexistence and voluntary cooperation. The principle of individual rights simply states that we should make that choice, because of this reason. That is its purpose, that is why there is such a rational principle as "rights".

There is no reason to choose to try to live in peace and voluntarily cooperate with animals. They don't understand the concepts peace, cooperation or rights, and they don't have the ability to change their actions in any way, no matter what we do. Saying that men choosing to respect animal rights is good because it leads to peaceful coexistence and voluntary cooperation is an obvious falsehood. There is no point to it. That's why there's no such rational principle as "animal rights": because there is no logical reason for it.

[moralist]

I don't know what you mean by "real".

I mean the consequences of our actions governed by those moral principles are as real as the consequences of the law of gravity.

[moralist]

If by "reasonable" you mean "rational", then I don't think rational people differ on the concept of what is right.

But "rational" is a specific thing. A rational person is someone who uses his observation of reality as his only source of information, and logic as his only method of processing that information to come to conclusions on what is right. A religious person isn't rational, neither is someone who chooses arbitrary goals.

You have a point about religious dogma, but knowing God exists does not interfere with observing first hand the reality of the consequences we set into motion by our actions and understanding the objective moral laws which govern them.

The principle of individual rights (of man) is a proven truth (proven using rational means: observation of reality and logic).

I agree. Our nation was founded on the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no reason to choose to try to live in peace and voluntarily cooperate with animals. They don't understand the concepts peace, cooperation or rights, and they don't have the ability to change their actions in any way, no matter what we do.

While that is true... by using our understanding that animals are only amoral products of genetics and are solely responsive to environmental stimuli, we can and do form useful practical beneficial alliances with them. Seeing eye dogs are one example. Police K-9 units are another. Horses are another. Where I live, people regularly ride horses on the streets. Granted, it's more of a recreation now than when it used to be vital transportation, but nevertheless there is an agreement made with the horses on our terms of our understanding the limits of their behavioral parameters.

Edited December 11, 2012 by moralist

[tadmjones]

While that is true... by using our understanding that animals are only amoral products of genetics and are solely responsive to environmental stimuli, we can and do form useful practical beneficial alliances with them. Seeing eye dogs are one example. Police K-9 units are another. Horses are another. Where I live, people regularly ride horses on the streets. Granted, it's more of a recreation now than when it used to be vital transportation, but nevertheless there is an agreement made with the horses on our terms of our understanding the limits of their behavioral parameters.

There is no alliance or agreement with animals, just humans imposing their will. In some we respects we describe it as 'humane' treatment, but in reality it is recognising animal behaviour and providing the appropriate stimuli to get the animal to do the human's will.

[whYNOT]

Michelle's quote from Unforgiven is memorable. I've used it often. ("It's a hell of a thing to kill man...") For those who didn't see it, the character is an ageing retired professional killer pulled back for one last job.

There's a big game hunter I know who has taken clients all over Central and Southern Africa most of his

life. Now he's a still fit and trim, reticent 70yo, who when pushed a little told me "No more: I've seen

enough blood." His love of the bush and animals was always present, but killing was its only outlet (I speculated).

There's a preciousness to life that grows the more you live, I think - adding flesh to the O'ist principle of the ultimate value of human life. Not at all surprisingly to those here, it closely relates to - and of course, consolidates - one's rational egoism.

The one strengthens the other, evidently.

Edited December 11, 2012 by whYNOT

[mdegges]

It's a damn thing to top my own move quote, but I'll try to add a few details

I watched the movie last night for the first time and loved it- thanks for mentioning it. I thought I'd seen all of Morgan Freeman's movies, but apparently not.

But if it isn't wrong for a lion or a chimpanzee to murder their own kind, why is it wrong for humans?

If it isn't wrong for soccer players to use only their feet during games, why is it wrong for baseball players?

The rules are manmade, and different rules are necessary for different games.

[moralist]

If it isn't wrong for soccer players to use only their feet during games, why is it wrong for baseball players? The rules are manmade, and different rules are necessary for different games.

So when the man made rules in an Islamic terrorist state are different from the man made rules in a democratic republic, is one wrong and the other right? Or does majority popular collective societal consensus determine the man made rules of the game?

Edited December 12, 2012 by moralist

[moralist]

There is no alliance or agreement with animals,

It's just on our terms.

just humans imposing their will. In some we respects we describe it as 'humane' treatment, but in reality it is recognising animal behaviour and providing the appropriate stimuli to get the animal to do the human's will.

Apparently we're supplying the right stimuli... like whenever I see a happy dog riding in a car with its head stuck out the window.

[thenelli01]

So when the man made rules in an Islamic terrorist state are different from the man made rules in a democratic republic, is one wrong and the other right? Or does majority popular collective societal consensus determine the man made rules of the game?

Animals don't have rules and can't have rules until they can understand the concept of "rule."

Rules, as in laws, are objectively right or wrong. But objectively "right" laws, ones that promote freedom and protect individual rights, cannot work in a society where the majority wants the opposite. Unfortunately, very often, people that denounce certain governments are called judgmental - and this pacifist idea that governments that abuse individual rights and promote mysticism are different but equal is prevalent among today's intellectuals.

[tadmjones]

It's just on our terms.

Apparently we're supplying the right stimuli... like whenever I see a happy dog riding in a car with its head stuck out the window.

exactly we have a great dog, he is a recognized member of our family. Although he is in the proverbial dog house ,not fault, but its hunting season locally and apparently we have idiot hunters around,given the deer parts he has been getting into of late

[knast]

It's fairly easy to see why murder is wrong. You don't have to be an Objectivist to know it. Murdering amounts to the destruction of massive actual and/or potential values. Other people are actually or potentially of a great value to us. This is something we know from direct experience in everyday life. That's why you don't have to be an Objectivist to be horrified and disgusted by the very thought of murder, or feel sorrow when reading about it, or feeling for the victim's family, etc. As for the second question, it is in our interest to let the strongest survive, but survival doesn't men thriving at the expense of the weaker by murdering or enslaving them. It means the intellectually strong being free to flourish in a free society through the production and trade of values. It means the flourishing of the intellectually strong such as Henry Ford or Steve Jobs. Notice that their rise is in the interest of everyone, including everyone above and below them intellectually speaking. We all benefit.

[moralist]

Animals don't have rules and can't have rules until they can understand the concept of "rule."

I was referring to the moral differences between human societies.

Rules, as in laws, are objectively right or wrong. But objectively "right" laws, ones that promote freedom and protect individual rights, cannot work in a society where the majority wants the opposite.

I agree.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."

--Benjamin Franklin

Unfortunately, very often, people that denounce certain governments are called judgmental - and this pacifist idea that governments that abuse individual rights and promote mysticism are different but equal is prevalent among today's intellectuals.

I know. They're the end products of government subsidized medrasas called "Universities".

[Devil's Advocate]

So when the man made rules in an Islamic terrorist state are different from the man made rules in a democratic republic, is one wrong and the other right? Or does majority popular collective societal consensus determine the man made rules of the game?

When the preservation of ones life becomes delimited to the sufferance of mystics or majorities, right and wrong are obscured by duties and prohibitions being enforced by the premise of might makes right. The only true measure of right and wrong is moral reciprocity.

[moralist]

When the preservation of ones life becomes delimited to the sufferance of mystics or majorities, right and wrong are obscured by duties and prohibitions being enforced by the premise of might makes right.

It's ironic that the popular mantra of the perpetually emotionally offended victim collective is "might makes wrong".

[mdegges]

The only true measure of right and wrong is moral reciprocity.

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."

[moralist]

When the preservation of ones life becomes delimited to the sufferance of mystics or majorities, right and wrong are obscured by duties and prohibitions being enforced by the premise of might makes right.

It's ironic that the prevailing mantra of the perpetually offended victim collective is "might makes wrong".

[Devil's Advocate]

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."

Yes I recognize that definition, and agree to some degree, however the broader definition I use is "Do unto others..." as variously stated throughout history from any number of philosophical and religious sources, and commonly referred to as The Golden Rule, Ethical Reciprocity, or my preference, Moral Reciprocity.

"We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.” ~ Aristotle

[Devil's Advocate]

It's ironic that the prevailing mantra of the perpetually offended victim collective is "might makes wrong".

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".

Edited December 14, 2012 by Devil's Advocate