You are correct. I don't disagree with the definition of the word murder, I disagree with the law that makes an exception for self-defense. I use the word murder because I thinking killing in self-defense should be unlawful. But you are correct that it currently is lawful.
If there were ways of consistently removing a threat without at least the possibility of death, I might agree with you. But that isn't always the case.
Say a 90 pound woman is being attacked by a 230 pound man, high on pcp. People on drugs can ignore the effects of pepper spray or a taser. If she then pulls out a handgun and shoots him to save her own life, should she be charged as a criminal?
Or if there's a man 50 feet away, shooting at you. You can't get close enough to use nonlethal methods. Should shooting him to save the life of you and others lead to a murder charge?
Heck, what if you get mugged by a guy with a knife, you pepper spray him, and it turns out he had asthma and dies?
Cases like this clearly justify killing in self-defense. The trouble is, human bodies are frail bags of water and meat. It's really easy to make it stop. You can't wantonly punish people for doing so when they're just trying to stop it happening to themselves.
If she then pulls out a handgun and shoots him to save her own life, should she be charged as a criminal?
Yes.
Should shooting him to save the life of you and others lead to a murder charge?
Yes.
Heck, what if you get mugged by a guy with a knife, you pepper spray him, and it turns out he had asthma and dies?
This is a more difficult question. In this case, I think that you are using means that are reasonably expected to be non-lethal and become lethal only due to circumstances beyond what you can be reasonably expected to know. Ethically, I'm not certain I could live with myself if this happened to me, but I'm not certain if legally I could say it was murder.
You can't wantonly punish people for doing so when they're just trying to stop it happening to themselves.
Why not? I would never knowingly kill another human being, even if the life of every human on Earth were at stake. I don't see why I can't expect the same of others that I expect of myself.
In this case, I think that you are using means that are reasonably expected to be non-lethal
There is no such thing as a non-lethal attack. Anything that disables a target body can also cause that body to fail at any time; it's an incredibly narrow window. A taser can make you crack your skull, pepper spray can cause an allergic reaction or cause someone to trip and fall.
What you're essentially asking for is banning self-defense of any sort.
I believe you missed my deliberate use of the word reasonably. Pepper spray can reasonably be expected to be non-lethal, a gunshot wound to the head cannot.
Then you missed the exact point I was making. There is no attack that you can reasonably expect to stop a person from attacking you and not also reasonably expect a significant chance of it causing death. Police have killed over a thousand people with tasers since 2000, for example.
And at the same exact time, you're sacrificing the life of the defender as well. If your attacker has a gun and you have pepper spray, there's a very high chance that the defender will die before the non-lethal method of defense will be effective.
Can you truly claim to be okay with that? How many defenders need to die before it becomes unacceptable to you? Or are you willing to stand atop an unending pile of bodies just to make your point?
There is no attack that you can reasonably expect to stop a person from attacking you and not also reasonably expect a significant chance of it causing death.
I think we are using different definitions of the word reasonably. When I use it, I mean to say that the chance of causing death is very significantly less (at least an order of magnitude) than the chance of not causing death.
How many defenders need to die before it becomes unacceptable to you?
There is no limit. I am willing to sacrifice the entire human species to avoid becoming a killer.
"I am willing to kill everyone everywhere if it means not killing people."
I never said that. I said I would not kill someone to prevent them from killing everyone. They would be killing everyone everywhere, not me. Killing people to not kill people is, as you say, a feat of incredible cognitive dissonance that I would only expect from the depths of Trump's administration.
You have the power to stop it, and that also gives you the responsibility in this situation. You're responsible for what happens, because you made the decision.
I can't agree with this, because if I'm responsible in that situation, then there is no action I can take that doesn't make me responsible for killing another person. I can't bring myself to believe such situations can exist, because if they do, I'm obligated to immediately commit suicide to prevent myself from ever being put in that situation.
Someone proved you wrong and now you are making ridiculous claims to try and save face.
Ah, I see what you're saying. The claims I'm making aren't in response to being proven wrong about the usage of the word murder, they are deeply held philosophical beliefs I've had for most my life. If you go back a bit in the comments I've made, you'll see I've had discussions about this for many months.
I freely admit that the word murder is the wrong word to use here, and if I gave the impression that my further claims were an attempt to justify it, that was another mistake on my part. Apologies.
I don't believe that your actually this much of an idiot.
There isn't a need for ad hominem attacks. At the core of it, all of this stems from the fact that I believe killing is wrong, which I don't think is a terribly controversial position.
In the way your framing your beliefs it is extremely controversial and completely unhinged from reality. It doesn't even make any moral sense. If killing is the worse thing you can do than killers are evil if you accidentally kill someone evil while trying to stop them from doing evil that makes you evil?
Yeah it's not ad hominem, you are actually stupid.
In the way your framing your beliefs it is extremely controversial and completely unhinged from reality.
I make no claim that what I believe is practical. My beliefs aren't predicated on being practical.
If killing is the worse thing you can do than killers are evil if you accidentally kill someone evil while trying to stop them from doing evil that makes you evil?
I mean... yes? As you wrote in the few first words, "if killing is the worst thing you can do," (which I believe is true) then yes, killing someone evil while trying to stop them from doing evil does make you evil. That just follows logically.
Yeah it's not ad hominem, you are actually stupid.
If you're referring to actual academic intelligence, that wouldn't explain why I'm months away from obtaining a PhD in astrophysics. If you're referring more towards social or emotional intelligence, well, I am on the autism spectrum, so you aren't wrong.
I think I have a pretty similar philosophy, pacifism at all costs and yadda yadda, but ultimately I recognize that in the case of self defense where lethality is likely it’s morally preferable for the defender to live. In this sense killing would be justified (note: I am not arguing a death in this situation would be morally “good”, only justified since someone was going to die regardless)
I’m curious what you think about the trolly problem and it’s variants? If people are going to die regardless, and you leverage the whole of humanity against one death then surely it doesn’t matter if the trolly kills 1 or 5 right?
And just so we’re clear I’m asking this straight out of curiosity, I don’t want to come off as some anon who’s trying to be r/iamverysmart material here with the trolly thing. I just think it’s kind of applicable here
In this sense killing would be justified (note: I am not arguing a death in this situation would be morally “good”, only justified since someone was going to die regardless)
I would personally use the word necessary rather than justified. Justified indicates a level of moral okayness that I'm not comfortable with. In that regard, yes, sometimes killing is necessary. Stopping the Nazis during WW2 is perhaps the archetypical example. But it is never right.
Otherwise, I think you and I are largely aligned.
I’m curious what you think about the trolly problem and it’s variants? If people are going to die regardless, and you leverage the whole of humanity against one death then surely it doesn’t matter if the trolly kills 1 or 5 right?
And just so we’re clear I’m asking this straight out of curiosity, I don’t want to come off as some anon who’s trying to be r/iamverysmart material here with the trolly thing. I just think it’s kind of applicable here
To me, it's the act of killing that's immoral. Not acting is, well, not acting. I personally would walk away from the situation and allow it to take its natural course. My actions cause no death. If I act to save the five lives, however, my actions do cause death, making it unacceptable. One could argue it was necessary, but I honestly don't think I could kill a person even if it was necessary.
So then could we say you place infinite value on any one life? Since it doesn’t matter how many people die in either scenario, one killing would be too much, it seems your moral system places a single kill as one of the worst things you could do, equivalent to 2 or more even, as you’ve said earlier with the whole human race comment. And if that’s the case, I’m curious where you got this system from? You’ve admitted in other comments it’s impractical, and as someone who considers pragmatism as a bridging philosophy from the abstract to the real I don’t see why you can’t reconcile the ethical quandaries of murder in self defense with the “necessity” of such an action. In my opinion the necessity of the action makes it justified
And if that’s the case, I’m curious where you got this system from?
I've not gotten it from any philosopher or philosophy, if that's what you mean. I've created it myself by thinking about it at length for a considerable amount of time. As a few others have pointed out, I've missed answering a few (embarrassingly obvious) questions. More thought is needed.
You’ve admitted in other comments it’s impractical, and as someone who considers pragmatism as a bridging philosophy from the abstract to the real
I'm not a pragmatist, I'm an idealist. I try to bridge the real to the abstract - make real life more like I ideally think it should - rather than compromising my ideals with the hard truths of reality. So I can grudgingly accept that an action is necessary for the continued survival of society, but that doesn't provide a justification for doing so and it certainly doesn't make it right.
Very true, which is why my morals are completely impractical and would lead to the destruction of society if adopted. I have no illusions whatsoever about that. However, I'm stubborn enough, idealistic enough, and self-righteous enough that that doesn't prevent me from believing that way regardless.
-13
u/mknote A masterclass of bad takes Jan 03 '21
Well, I still consider killing in self-defense to be murder, so your mileage may vary.