By 
0
0
I know what you’re thinking. Of course murder is always wrong. At face value; murder, cheating, lying, stealing all seem terrible. But I don’t believe that ethics is clear-cut, and I don’t believe in absolutist morality. When you look beneath the surface and take in situational relevance, everything changes.
Lawful vs Unlawful Murder
With murder, I believe the question of ‘morality’ lies in the motives. The legal definition of murder is to kill someone unlawfully. Soldiers commit murder everyday. But it is ‘lawful’ killing. Being a soldier is not against the law as soldiers are ordered to kill other soldiers.
But if we strip away the ‘legality’ and look at the human side of things; to kill another person is murder. Whether you’re doing it because you’ve been ordered or trained to, whether you’re doing it to save someone else’s life, whether you’re doing it because you’re a psychopath who enjoys killing; murder is murder.
If someone was coming to kill your loved one, would you not kill for them? I would, without question. When it came down to it, if I had to kill to save my own life or somebody else’s, I believe I would do it. (Unless I had a heart attack and collapsed in shock.) That, to me, is not a bad thing. Kant would disagree, but then Kant believed in absolutist morality.
Societal Justice
This is where the question of the death penalty also comes into question. Is killing criminals to show killing is wrong a good or bad thing? Or is it a logical thing? Morality is never clear-cut. Will killing criminals really help to stop others from committing crimes, or will it make no difference because if you’re a killer you’ll do it anyway? It’s like trying to increase the prices of cigarettes to stop people from smoking, or making alcohol illegal.
If people want to drink or smoke they’ll find a way. Just because something is ‘illegal’, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right or wrong.
Many argue that abortion is murder. Even if it is, what difference does it make? It’s far crueller to force someone to raise a child that they can’t care for than it is to calmly let them pass on the option. ‘Pro-life‘ people are really pro-birth. They try use their moral piety to show how just they are, but really they’re just being selfish and putting their feelings before practical measures.
What about euthanasia? I think euthanasia should be legal. If someone wishes to die, but doesn’t have the physical means to take their own life, why should they be ‘forced’ to carry on living? Better to be dead and peaceful than alive and miserable. Who is the government to tell them that they can’t do that? If someone wants to take their own life that’s their choice and decision. If they want help with that, provided it’s all safe and secure and they have the option to change their mind whenever, that’s their decision.
Moral Relativism
There’s really no wrong or right answer with anything. The problem with some religious philosophies is that they try to present an absolutist version of right and wrong. Being gay is wrong; pre-marital sex is wrong, murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, talking badly about your parents is wrong, lying is wrong, adultery is wrong, drinking is wrong, eating pork is wrong, listening to rock music is wrong, smoking is wrong, singing and dancing on the street is wrong, killing spiders is wrong, enjoying life is wrong…
They don’t look at the individual situations. There’s no ‘leeway.’ I’m probably going to Hell in every single religion (like most of us) as I’ve broken pretty much every ‘moral law’ that most of these so-called Holy books believe in. (Not that I give a shit as I don’t believe in Hell.) I think it’s dangerous to say something is always wrong, because it can lead to dangerous fanaticism and leaves no option for changing one’s mind if the situation prevails.
Anyway, what’s your opinion reader?
See also:
I agree with a lot of this. I watch a lot of true-crime stuff (documentaries and TV shows etc.) and I have to say that I do see certain "murders" as being more justified than others. When a child kills their parents for abusing them, I see that as far more justified than a wife killing a husband because he cheated or for his money etc. So I do think this is one topic that does get too pushed into black-and-white answers when in reality, it's often much more complex.
It is true. Or like when we were talking about rape situations; of course a serial rapist going into young girls' bedrooms and raping them is much worse than a husband raping his wife as they've already had sex and she won't be traumatised from it in the same way. All I was saying is that the first situation is far less common as most people are raped from someone they know. However, one could argue that being raped by someone you know is more traumatic because you expect them to love you and care for you so for them to turn around and rape you is awful. (It also does depend on what is classed as rape; there's full on, no grey area rape and then there's all the other possibilites like assault, coercion, drugged sex, date rape, etc. Just like it's very different if a husband beats his wife and rapes her then it is if he has sex with her without asking and she's not in the mood. I wouldn't class the latter as 'rape', just reluctant sex).
Well it's less common to be raped by your husband than by a serial rapist as well; which is what I was trying to say. The most common rape by people one knows is usually someone like a neighbor or co-worker or a friend of a friend/family member or in some cases an ex-boyfriend etc. or with family – a parent/grandparent or in some cases an ex-husband. It's usually not a current boyfriend or husband.
But yes, there are a ton of factors that go into most crimes and I do think it would be better if the crime system did reflect that better. In the USA there are differences between misdemeanors (petty crimes) and felonies (big crimes) and we have different sentencing possibilities based on the factors involved but it's not very consistent and too many people do get screwed over by the system or on the flip side, not punished enough.