Forums → WEPR → "Do not kill" or "Do not murder"
| 35 | 20054 |
Which is right: Do not kill or Do not murder? I ask this question due to these two Dont's are confusing. Is "kill" & "murder" synonymous, or not.
- 35 Replies
Which is right: Do not kill or Do not murder?
Both are generally preferable guidelines. Do you mean in the sense of the biblical commandment or something?
Is "kill" & "murder" synonymous, or not.
Kill (homicide) refers to all reasonably causal death by another person, while murder is accompanied by ill-intent, which is then further specified by the duration of the intent and other factors. Beyond that level, it varies by jurisdiction.
"Is "kill" & "murder" synonymous, or not."
Yes and no. If someone is trying to harm you or your family and you kill them. Or if you want someones ipod so you shot them in the head and take it. Are 2 totally different things. Though in both scenarios someone ends up dead. Murder and killing are divided by intent and circumstance.
The result on the victim is the same, death.
The result on the killer, however, is not and it's disingenuous to act as if only the person who died matters in this.
Which is right
What do you mean by this? Is there a specific context in which these statements are supposed to apply? Arguably I could say that "do not kill" applies to all life as ending any life is by definition killing it. In which case that's obviously not right otherwise we'd never be allowed to eat. Likewise, murder is specifically the act of intentionally and maliciously ending. If we're separating murdering and killing into distinct groups then only murder would be wrong as killing would only encompass acts of self-defense (which under legal definitions includes defense of others, defense of property, etc). Even manslaughter wouldn't fall under killing as it's an act with such disregard for safety (ex. driving drunk) as to be considered criminal, carrying an implied intent not necessarily to end life but to endanger it without cause. Simply asking which is right is far to vague for meaningful discussion.
Is "kill" & "murder" synonymous, or not.
No. To "kill" is to directly end the life of something. To "murder" is to plan and in some way instigate the killing of someone who has legal personhood.
Your body kills millions of microscopic organisms on a daily basis. You murder even more microscopic organism every time you wash your hands.
Killing is 'merely' causing the death of a living organism. Murder is intentionally killing.
As for the biblical connotations, in no holy book I've read that mentions this command does it specifically say human life, so you're going to Hell, or at the very least, Sheol.
Kill (homicide) refers to all reasonably causal death by another person, while murder is accompanied by ill-intent, which is then further specified by the duration of the intent and other factors. Beyond that level, it varies by jurisdiction.
I think the explanation are on the opposite way by the word Kill and Murder.
I guess:
Murder are (homicide) refers to all reasonably causal death by another person, while kill is accompanied by ill-intent, which is then further specified by the duration of the intent and other factors.
I wanna live 100 years or more if I can. Death is a serious fate for me and also for all of human. Do not kill and murder human, do the kill and murder to the animal that weaker than you such as mosquitos or caterpillar if you are depressed. I write this because I remember this and I just do want to share this.
The standard line in ethics here is fairly straightforward. Murder is wrongful killing. So if you're asking which statement picks out a moral duty - it's 'do not murder'. Most ethicists are going to say that there can be morally permissible cases of killing. But it's trivially true that murder is always impermissible.
While the end result is the same in both cases, this doesn't play out in most modern ethical theories. Even a consequentialist can make a distinction between killing and murder, as well they should.
To kill is to take the life of any creature that was previously living, but while this is morally wrong, in society, we kill to survive. We kill many domesticated animals for food, cows for leather among other animals for other assorted things.
Whereas to murder is to kill another human. Technically, this is wrong in all cases, but can be justified under some circumstances (this is a presumption, and can definitely be proved by utilitarianist thinking, but i am unaware about other things).
Apologies for the half-heartedness of this, but there we go, I can only provide my knowledge.
I see killing as destroying life in a way that benefits society .... For example, perhaps a war or killing livestock for survival.
Murder, on the other hand, is letting yourself break a society's law by killing another human being. (such as someone chopping up people and eating them)
@thesakew; the simple act of killing has no relation to intent. Even the weather can kill.
Do not kill and murder human, do the kill and murder to the animal that weaker than you such as mosquitos or caterpillar if you are depressed.
Why? That would be an unprovoked act of cruelty, and ,unless these insects are the direct cause of that depression, would do nothing at all to correct the problem.
To kill is to take the life of any creature that was previously living, but while this is morally wrong, in society, we kill to survive.
To not do so (and, therefore, not survive) is to kill one's self through neglect. Therefore, killing cannot be morally wrong by default.
Whereas to murder is to kill another human. Technically, this is wrong in all cases, but can be justified under some circumstances [...]
No. That would be homicide, not murder; and if it is justified, it isn't wrong. Therefore, homicide is not wrong in all cases.
@Erabor; no war has ever benefitted society as a whole.
no war has ever benefitted society as a whole
Maybe not every society, but some wars can help a nation. For example, World War 2, for the Americans, it shut down the Third Reich and Nazi Germany- something that needed to be done. Also, WW2 established the US as a superpower. Although many died, (I am in NO WAY dishonoring the military) they died to safeguard Americas future. Can you really say that no war has ever benefitted society?
I understand that war is bad, and I am not a fan of it as some are. War is awful. But it can benefit a society, @FishPreferred
For example, World War 2, for the Americans, it shut down the Third Reich and Nazi Germany- something that needed to be done. Also, WW2 established the US as a superpower
+Stopped Nazi Germany
+Fully Established United Nations
+Created Japan into the peaceful nation it is
--Created Israel
For example, World War 2, for the Americans, it shut down the Third Reich and Nazi Germany- something that needed to be done. Also, WW2 established the US as a superpower
+Ended the Great Depression
+Focused global attention on Stalin's rule of Russia
+Established nuclear weaponry as an absolute last resort (without WWII Russia or Germany could easily have developed nuclear weaponry before the U.S. and used it)
+Saved tens of millions of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals from mass murder
+Stopped a madman from gaining control of the entire planet, or at least all of Europe
World War 2 had a lot of global benefits most people never take the time to notice.
Can you really say that no war has ever benefitted society?
... I just did.
A country ≠ Society. A country might easily benefit from war, usually when it isn't one of the warring factions or anywhere near the battlefield. Society does not. War is a costly endeavour on all sides. A loss is not a gain. The fact that greater losses were avoided does not change this.
You must be logged in to post a reply!