The Instigator
anc2006
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Murder is morally wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 123081
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (0)

 

anc2006

Con

Unless humans are both immortal and vulnerable physically, Murder is not wrong because it didn't end you, It just made it happen earlier.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Pro

Ok, So I'm a bit confused by what you are trying to say here specifically, Especially since you are saying murder is only wrong under circumstances, I would like to know in what circumstances you think murder is justifiable. First, Let me define some of our terms so that we can come to a basic understanding in which we can ground this debate. Murder, By definition, Is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". This means things like killing someone in self defense wouldn't be considered murder. Also, Your claim "If Murder is morally wrong, Then there wouldn't be execution in the law" just doesn't logically follow, Just because something exists in the law doesn't make it moral, Slavery and Jim Crow used to be in the law but most people wouldn't argue these were moral actions. I would personally argue that capital punishment/executions are immoral (and also impractical since they cost more then keeping the inmates in prison any way). It feels like instead of arguing that murder isn't morally wrong, You might want to argue that "killing" isn't morally wrong, It may sound like a slight semantic distinction but it would actually give you a lot more room to defend your claim as killing exists in a far different context then murder (which is an inherently negative term).

The reason we argue murder is immoral isn't because killing or the ending of someone's life is wrong, It's because we would argue that such a fundamental removal of someone's personal autonomy and right to life when they are not actively attempting to aggress on you or others is a moral wrong. Because murder specifically refers to scenarios outside of self defense cases and unplanned killings, Such as killing someone in a car accident which would be held under manslaughter, There isn't really many situations in which I could see anyone making a good argument against it being immoral to commit murder. Once again I think restating it as "killing isn't morally wrong" would give you more room for debate. However, Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument/claims and if so please clarify where I might be misunderstanding your points.
Debate Round No. 1
anc2006

Con

You see, Murder only violates human laws, Doesn't make it immoral automatically. Let's say in the 1860s if you are african american, And you fight for freedom, Does that make your such act immoral? Human laws were never completely perfect.

The whole universe is a simulation, And killing as a human does no negative damage to the universe, Let along if there is positive ones. It is a common misbelief that death is wrong. No. Death is the end of one's life, Like you cross the finishline in a mariokart race. If someone is killed, Thus human gets the ultimate prize, Instead of suffer, Knowing it did a shortcut before intended.

And no, If a serial killer accidentally killed a drug dealer that is supposed to be sentenced to death by execution, Would that be immoral?

Also, As a teenager I will not kill anyone, Because it is a waste of energy. But come to think about it, In ancient roman battles, There are usual casualties, And do you call the killer immoral? No, He is considered a hero at such circumstance.

Murder itself isn't wrong because accidentally you might as well kill the right person. However, Under circumstances(which covers 90%) it may be wrong.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Pro

Ok, So I'm really trying to understand what your trying to argue here, But I'm still pretty confused, It still feels like you are using murder and kill synonymously? I'm gonna try to go through and breakdown your argument point by point to see if I can get a better grasp of what you are saying.

1. "Murder only violates human laws, Doesn't make it immoral. ", It's interesting you would say that because this was one of the points I used in my previous argument against you because you said "If Murder is morally wrong, Then there wouldn't be execution in the law", Something existing under the law doesn't automatically make it immoral, We agree on this, However, I would argue that murder is a law bounded in good moral justification, As opposed to other laws such as those related to slavery and Jim Crow.

2. I don't know what the universe being a simulation has to do with anything we are currently talking about, It doesn't change anything about how we consciously experience our reality whether we live in a simulation or a real completely uncaring universe. Your point about killing a human not causing any negative damage to the universe is kinda true, But also kinda untrue, It depends on a lot on how you define "negative damage" and what your basic axioms are. I agree that death in it of itself isn't morally wrong, I said as much in my last argument, Which is why I recommended you argue for the term "kill" instead of "murder", As the connotation and meaning for this term is much less restrictive and negative in its nature. The problem with murder is that it is defined by the fact that, 1. It is done against the will of the victim revoking their personal autonomy and taking away their choice regarding their life against their will, 2. It is done to someone who isn't actively trying to aggress on you or others, And 3. The killing is done intentionally and was premeditated. Your point about someone being killed being the ultimate prize and, Instead of suffering, Getting a shortcut out of it brings up multiple questions for me, Specifically your opinion on antinatalism (the idea that it is immoral to ever bring anyone into the world because existence necessitates the experience of some level of suffering. ).

3. For the serial killer example, The serial killer "accidentally" killing the drug dealer wouldn't be considered murder, Because murder is on defined as such if the killing was premeditated and intentional, Otherwise it would be manslaughter. The killing of the drug dealer would still be immoral, Provided that it was against their will and they weren't actively attempting to aggress on anyone when it happened, But moral culpability may not lie on the serial killer in this scenario, As opposed to a murder where moral culpability would pretty much always lies on the perpetrator. As I said in my last argument, I think capital punishment/execution is immoral as well.

4. In consideration of war, We sit in a far different connotation, When you decide to be a combatant on the battle field, You forfeit your right to life against the opposing side as you are going with the intent to kill the opposing side and vise versa, This is why when a soldier kills another soldier we don't usually call it murder. This isn't to say immoral actions can't be committed during war, They definitely have been, Even in your example of ancient roman battles I would argue that a lot of what was done during said battles, The rape and "murder" of civilians, Were immoral actions, And the same can be said with all the atrocities committed in modern day warfare.

5. "Killing" itself isn't wrong, Murder is wrong by it's very definition, At least via the system of morality I follow, As it revokes the right to life and personal autonomy of an individual against their will and when they aren't actively trying to aggress on you or others. I would like to know what you consider as the 90% of scenarios where you would argue murder is wrong and the 10% of scenarios where is isn't, I would find it interesting to see where you draw the line.

Here is a question for you, What do you think determines whether something is right or wrong? For me, I exist under a meta ethical framework of descriptive egoism, (I think that people will do things that they thing will maximize themselves and their interests, Which is why I believe in reciprocated values, Basically if you don't murder me, I won't murder you, If you maximize for my well being, I'll maximize for your well being), And follow a normative ethical framework called rule utilitarianism, (I determine the moral value of an action via the outcomes rather than the actions themselves). I'm genuinely interested in how you come to your moral conclusions and decide what is moral and what is immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
anc2006

Con

1. Murder is wrong, The claim, Is based on only human point of view in terms of fearing the death. Tell me why dying is bad or else my point still stands like a monument in carved stone.

2. Against their will? Why, Making me go to school everyday is against my will yet my parents still does that. You don't say that is immoral because it is necessary. Here, Death is necessary as every life will die soon or later, Murdering doesn't make it immoral. It is just a shortcut.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Pro

1. "Murder is wrong, The claim, Is based on only human point of view in terms of fearing the death. Tell me why dying is bad or else my point still stands like a monument in carved stone. " All moral claims are based on a human perspective, It's the only real perspective we can engage with as we are limited by the restrictions of our own fundamentally human consciousness. I feel like you aren't really listening to my points because I already said that dying wasn't the aspect of murder that was a moral wrong, It's the idea that it revokes the right to life and personal autonomy of an individual against their will and doing so when they aren't actively trying to aggress on you or others. This is the claim you would have had to engage with in order to attack my argument.

2. "Against their will? Why, Making me go to school everyday is against my will yet my parents still does that. You don't say that is immoral because it is necessary. Here, Death is necessary as every life will die soon or later, Murdering doesn't make it immoral. It is just a shortcut. " So, At least this point actually engages with my argument a bit more, Unfortunately it doesn't really logically follow for a variety of reasons. The reason that we don't afford minors full autonomy is because we would argue that they are not developed enough cognitively to make informed decisions or give informed consent. This is the same reason why minors can't sign contracts, Consent to sex with an adult and aren't held to the same legal standards when it comes to committing crimes until they reach the age of majority. We would argue that we are restricting these rights for the overall good of the minors, For example, You wouldn't leave an infant next to a cliff, Watch it crawl off the edge, And say "well, I guess that was just their decision and we should respect their autonomy to make it", That would be ridiculous as the infant isn't cognitive enough to actually weigh the consequences of crawling of a cliff. Similarly we don't give minors the decision to go to school as they are incapable of accurately weighing the consequences of making said decision. However, This is with the caveat that these minors will eventually reach the age of majority and be afforded the full range of their personal autonomy, (once you hit 18, Your parents can't force you to go to college). Murder on the other hand is pretty much never done for the good of the victim and prevents the victim from ever being able to express their personal autonomy again. These things are fundamentally different and really aren't comparable as moral actions.

I really wish you had engaged more with the question I had for you, ("Here is a question for you, What do you think determines whether something is right or wrong? ") as I think it would have given me more context to the foundation of how you come to conclusions in regards to morality. Still, I appreciated the conversation buddy, And I hope that I gave some challenges to your viewpoint that you enjoyed engaging with.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 2 years ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
@Dr. Frankiln I, Don't know what Hillary winning via a margin the size of Brooklyn has to do with any of the points I just brought up, But ok. Also she won the popular vote, It was a slim win I agree, 4. 2 million is literally only slightly above 1 percent of the overall U. S. Population, But it wasn't a misrepresentation of the U. S, ? That doesn't even make sense, How would the results of the popular vote be a misrepresentation of the opinion of the overall populace?
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
@Phil-e

Hillary won in the size of brookyln, Tnats misrepresenting the U. S
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 2 years ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
@Dr. Franklin "Actually, The electopral college gives more power to the people and even though 4. 2 million may sound like a lot, It's just the size of brooklyn, Hardly a greater representation of Americans" This is partially true, But not entirely. The electoral college does give more power to the people, But only to the people in smaller states, Proportionally it actually reduces the power of a persons individual vote in a larger state when compared to people from smaller one's. Which makes sense when it comes to keeping those smaller states invested in the trajectory of the country as opposed to just being bullied constantly by states with bigger populations.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 2 years ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
@anc2006 Pretty much none of this has anything to do with the murder argument, Sorry buddy. If you want, We can continue to go back and forth about that topic here in the comments, I would still love to hear your answer on what your thought process is for figuring out what makes something right or wrong? I think that it may be where our core disagreement and discussion truly lies.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 2 years ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
@backwardseden I agree with almost everything you said about the Denmark point, But it all speaks to my argument, There are more factors that go into the differences that exist between Denmark and the U. S. Then just religion, "Religion is the starting point. You go from there. " You say this, And for a significant chunk of people it's probably true to an extent, But then how do you explain any of the secular people who make the same argument against moving towards the more Nordic models, It just seems like the problem goes significantly deeper than just saying it's all because of religion, There are numerous socio-economic and geo-political factors that also influence these things, And it seems like you even acknowledge that, "The reason why Denmark is less violent than this country is because of one major factor" is as close to a socialist nation on earth. Its a social-democratic government. You"ve got your transportation, Education, Housing, Health care, Etc etc etc all paid for and sure you are taxed the crap out of, But yep, You still have PLENTY left over to do whatever you want even if you are a garbage man, A sewer worker or a bus driver. ". I feel like we don't really disagree on much besides the way we engage in argumentation and the fact that you seem to be significantly closer to being a socialist then me, I'm a Soc-Dem, While it seems like you may be closer to being a democratic socialist, But thats just my impression from the little we've communicated. You make seemingly good points, It just feels like your focus on religion goes a little to hard to the point where it effects how you engage with every other topic, Which, To be fair, Might work for you, And if so that's fine, It's just not really how I personally enjoy engaging with arguments. Thanks for the conversation and good luck out there buddy.
Posted by anc2006 2 years ago
anc2006
"Actually, The electopral college gives more power to the people and even though 4. 2 million may sound like a lot, It's just the size of brooklyn, Hardly a greater representation of Americans"

tell me what does this have to do with murder is wring or not.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
@backwardstard

Actually, The electopral college gives more power to the people and even though 4. 2 million may sound like a lot, It's just the size of brooklyn, Hardly a greater representation of Americans
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
cannot part with them. Donald razor blade to the you know where areas while a nest of fire ants cuddle beside him. Donald barfly insect Trump is a PERFECT example of this who did not win the election and lost by 4. 2 million votes. Not that Clinton would have done any better, But at least she would have tried rather than Donald yodeling grunge country opera Trump simply bitching about everything, Never admitting to making a single mistake, Not one, And not doing one god damned f--king thing that is positive. "I am the chosen one". Morality? Really? Sorry about going gung ho off the subject but you went a tad bit off-spot yourself soooo.
Denmark"s homicide rate is amazingly low. They do not allow the ownership of guns except for hunting and sport shooting. They do not teach violence or hate, Not anywhere close to what this country teaches it and especially embellishes it in religion etc etc etc. All of the things mentioned are a very "simple" mindset. The population world has to get its "mindset" around if it going to survive and not go into a toxic WWIII era of meltdown ideals.
"To just side-step all of that and say that religion is the issue does a great disservice to our ability to fix said issues. " Religion is the starting point. You go from there. There are 5 things that are standing in the way of worldwide peace. 1. You gotta get rid of religion. 2. You gotta get rid of all money/ wealth. 3. You gotta get rid of all guns and weapons of superior firepower. 4. You gotta get rid of all borders/ countries/ nationalities/ racism/ back, White, Yellow, Red, Brown color issues. Donald yeast infection resurrection Trump"s rally cry was Make America great again. Actually no, Its Make America white again. He"s a pure racist pig and wow does it show. 5. You gotta get rid of the concoction of the media. Everything else, Everything, Falls under those 5 categories. And they are all clear mindsets.
So how was the last part unclear?
Please tc and have fun.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
@Phil-E-CheeseSteak - "I have no idea what any of this has to do with any of the points brought up in the debate. " Because according to religion, The god of the bible namely, It tries very hard to make murder morally correct. The creator of this debate, Once again danced on the subject, He knows it, For the sake of p**sing people off.
Yeah there's other subjects I'd love to talk about such as music and film, But nobody engages in the advanced weaponry and I'm interested in. I've also dabbled my "distain" for guns, And always will as they are 100% wrong and all are required to be eliminated. I've also butt gutted Donald neanderthal faking it all Trump who has a lot in common with the god of the bible and plenty of other s--t things as he's clearly without any doubt the worst president of all time.
"Morality doesn't have to connect to religion, " Sure, But its where it began and where it sticks out like a sore one needle in a haystack.
"Also are you trying to say that the factor that makes some cultures more likely to engage in violent behavior is religion, " Oh yes. Especially when their religion TELLS THEM TO. That"s what the abrahamic religion tells them to when it disagrees with their god. "Because if so that's a really simplified view of how human behavior and a large scale works. " Tough. But isn"t it good that most don"t pay any attention to idiotic nonsense? The reason why Denmark is less violent than this country is because of one major factor" is as close to a socialist nation on earth. Its a social-democratic government. You"ve got your transportation, Education, Housing, Health care, Etc etc etc all paid for and sure you are taxed the crap out of, But yep, You still have PLENTY left over to do whatever you want even if you are a garbage man, A sewer worker or a bus driver. This country could never stand for that because of the wealthy who are super greedy for the most part and they love their materialistic things especially republicans who
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
TO answer your question from a Christian perspective, No

An all-seeing God can see that you have done well, But from an athesist perspective, Well you can tknow and from moral standards, You have done wrong

This range over morals is utter sh! T and should be taken as so

Morals are morals, They are built in our genes and Human Nature, A God supports this and can see when times are right for certain things.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.