why is murder wrong?

[henry quirk]

tell me









i say it's wrong cuz i own me and take a dim view of bein' deprived of my property...if it's wrong to whack me then it's wrong to whack the other guy (unless he really deserves it)

[Age]

Who/what says 'murder' is wrong?

'Murder' in what degree/circumstance?

How are you defining the word 'murder' here?

[henry quirk]

Killing done for any reason other than self-defense.

[Immanuel Can]

Killing done for any reason other than self-defense.

Interesting application, Henry: in the US, particularly in places like Virginia, they're thinking of legally endorsing the murder-by-neglect, and perhaps even the active euthanizing, of infants that survive a botched abortion procedure. I'm sure you've read about that, haven't you?

Traditionally, the pro-abortion argument has been that it will NEVER tip over into infanticide, because we use the opening-of-the-womb as a hard line between a cluster-of-cells-non-person and a live baby person. Now it's evident that this boundary is not any longer inviolable...we will kill viable babies when we want to. But up until now, killing a viable baby outside the womb has been universally recognized as murder.

Now, there's no "self-defense" issue in such cases. The mother is alive and separate from the baby. Nor is there a health/abuse/or other extenuating protest here. The baby is going to live (so long as any minimal normal care given to babies is not taken away from him/her.) Nevertheless, many aborting women will apparently say, " I set out to abort that baby. Though that baby is live and separated from me, it's mine, and I have a right to kill it rather than to allow it to live."

So we might ask, "Is that murder?" And if it is, as your post asks, "Why is it wrong," meaning, "What specific feature of the abortion-surviving baby situation informs us decisively that this is a person, when legally, society has already arbitrarily decided that a third trimester child-in-womb was not, and could not be "murdered"?

Side note: for me, all abortion is murder. Always was, always will be. I'll lay my chip down right there. So this isn't even a controversial case, in my view: it's plain bloody murder.

[Logik]

The answer to "WHY is murder wrong?" is exactly the same as the answer to "WHY is the sky blue?"

We agree that it is.

I KNOW THE SKY IS BLUE.
I KNOW MURDER IS WRONG.

Do you disagree?

[Logik]

Traditionally, the pro-abortion argument has been that it will NEVER tip over into infanticide, because we use the opening-of-the-womb as a hard line between a cluster-of-cells-non-person and a live baby person. Now it's evident that this boundary is not any longer inviolable...we will kill viable babies when we want to. But up until now, killing a viable baby outside the womb has been universally recognized as murder.

You are moving the goal-posts on your own question.

Whether murder is wrong has nothing to do with whether "X is murder"

"Is murder wrong?" is a yes/no question. No "Why" required.


Why is murder wrong is non-sensical. I KNOW that murder is wrong.
Why is abortion murder? that is a valid question.

[Immanuel Can]

"Is murder wrong?" is a yes/no question. No "Why" required.

The first problem is to define "murder." Abortionists had defined their work as "not-murder." Now, for them, an abortion-surviving baby is defined as a non-person, and hence not a subject of murder. At least, they have tried to do so in Virginia.

There is also the problem of premeditation. If a man breaks into your house to steal and assault you, and you shoot him to death, did you "murder'? Most districts say "No," but some still charge that as a crime. And then there's the case of war: if you're a soldier, and you shoot a soldier on the other side, did you "murder" him? After all, it was both intentional and premeditated...and so on.

As for the abortion debate, it's disingenuous. Every last person alive knows what's in a woman's womb. Those that claim not to are simply lying. They are in such bad conscience that they are simply striving to justify their murders; but they know. So there's no further use in having that particular debate. In most locales, it's been settled in an immoral position by legal fiat. So there's no longer any value in sustaining any phony "cover story." Nobody believes it -- nobody on either side.

Meanwhile, the pro-abortion side is not arguing in sincerity but trying to excuse what they know very well to be wrong. So to have further "debate" about that is just lunatic, because it involves two people pretending -- one pretending not to know what's manifestly evil, and the other pretending to take that manifest evil as open enough to be a subject of further ethical debate, and thus attempting to persuade those who have absolutely no interest in the truth that everybody already knows.

I'm too old for pretend games. The abortion debate is just that. And we all know it.

[Logik]

"Is murder wrong?" is a yes/no question. No "Why" required.

The first problem is to define "murder."

False premise.

I know murder is wrong.
I know the sky is blue.

I don't need to define "murder" any more than I need to define "blue".

Your sophistry does not work here.

If you agree to "I know the sky is blue." there is no need for definitions. Definitions are only necessary IF we disagree.
Do you disagree with "I know murder is wrong." ? Yes or no.

[Immanuel Can]

The first problem is to define "murder."

False premise.

If it's a false premise, then it should be easy to resolve. Since you claim to have no difficulty defining "murder" yourself, and I claim there are difficulties, then I invite you to do what you claim is unproblematic: define "murder."

Go ahead.

[Logik]

The first problem is to define "murder."

False premise.

If it's a false premise, then it should be easy to resolve. Since you claim to have no difficulty defining "murder" yourself, and I claim there are difficulties, then I invite you to do what you claim is unproblematic: define "murder."

Go ahead.

Another sophist attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Define "blue".

If you can't then I want you to openly state your rejection of my knowledge-claim: I know the sky is blue.

[Immanuel Can]

Another sophist attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Not at all. In fact, no "proof" was asked for: just the definition you already claim to have. It was you who scoffed and said that "murder" is a clear concept. I just asked you to show that it is.

Go ahead.

[Logik]

Another sophist attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Not at all. In fact, no "proof" was asked for: just the definition you already claim to have. It was you who scoffed and said that "murder" is a clear concept. I just asked you to show that it is.

Go ahead.

I never claimed to have a definition? That's an outright lie.
I claimed quite the opposite - I claimed that there is NO NEED FOR DEFINITIONS IF WE AGREE.

Since you are insisting on a definition, am I to read between the lines and assume that you are disagreeing with my claims?

* I know murder is wrong.
* I know the sky is blue


I KNOW HOW to play this silly game better than you

[Immanuel Can]

I never claimed to have a definition...

So you admit that "murder" is a problematic concept? You don't have any definition for it?

Or did you mean what you wrote, that

I never claimed to have a definition?

In which case, you're posing it as a question, and I answer, "No, I did not say you didn't. I instead assumed that you regarded it as unproblematic, and you so you must have one. I just wanted you to state it."

Go ahead.

[Logik]

So you admit that "murder" is a problematic concept? You don't have any definition for it?

Would you like some more hey for your argument?

See here: https://www.buyabale.com.au/

Are you saying that absence of a definition is a problem? Why?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you saying that absence of a definition is a problem? Why?

Sure. Because then it's not apparent what acts are covered by your use of the word "murder". But you say that's not hard, so you must have a definition.

Go ahead.