By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
impertinence on 02 October 2013
Edit Thread
SSJGohan3972 said:
impertinence said:

Where is the justification for punishing murder if the moral merit of the act is merly subjective? Keep in mind that we are talking about murder, not homocide.

Two things

 

1) You assume a justification for punishing murder, that is a human construct (animals don't get together and try to punsh the alpha male that decided to kill off another for instance)

2) The definition of murder as opposed to homocide is also subjective, this is one set of definitions I found:

mur·der
 [ múrdər ]
  1. crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law
  2. something difficult or unpleasant: something that is very difficult or unpleasant and involves great effort or hardship
  3. kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law
I can see lots of wiggle room there unfortunately

Just stick with the common definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.

As you can see, this definition excludes animals.

Obviously punishment is a human construct, but have we here reached the conclusion that you feel punishment is inherently injustifiable in all cases as there is no way to determine the moral value of an action?

My position is that that are things that are wrong, and things that are right, and it does not depend on the eye of the beholder. In my view, there are certain laws of morality just like there are other laws of nature. True, these laws are not as easily observed such as gravity or friction, but they are still there. I know many people will balk at a definition like that, but without it there is no justification for anything.