The choice to murder

[Nooj]

Scenario 1: Say there's Susan and Joe. Susan tries to murder Joe. She grabs a knife and tries to stab him. Is it moral to support or accept Susan's choice in attempting to kill Joe?

Not the act itself. Of course murder is to be condemened. Is it right to accept/support the right for Susan to act in whatever way she wishes, even if it leads to the murder of someone else.

Scenario 2: Lets say someone in the future drafts a law that not only punishes murder, the law says that the train of thought leading to a murder is illegal too. Somehow using advanced technology or looking into the future, the courts can be definitely sure that the suspect's train of thoughts WILL lead to an attempt or actual completion of murder.

Would you support the law?

Scenario 3: For Christians. Could you support the right for a woman to murder their unborn child? I don't mean supporting abortion. I mean supporting the ability for everyone to choose their own actions, even if it is murder.

Lets presume just for this scenario that abortion is definitely murder in God's eyes but the government holds the same position it has now (Roe vs Wade etc).

 

[Emmy]

Dear Nooj. It will Never happen, that our thoughts can be seen by human eye, only God can. He will know what our thoughts and wishes are. Murder is a SIN, and God`s Law will deal with it, sooner or later. It is also true that we are free to do, good or Not good, and the consequences will follow. May I point out though, because God can see the reason behind every deed, He will judge accordingly, and God is a Fair Judge. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[quatona]

Scenario 1: Say there's Susan and Joe. Susan tries to murder Joe. She grabs a knife and tries to stab him. Is it moral to support or accept Susan's choice in attempting to kill Joe?

I find this question a bit odd. She either has this choice or she doesn´t. I can´t seem to make sense of the wording "accepting or supporting" that someone has a choice. Presuming for a moment that she has a choice, all I could do is to limit her ability to act upon her choice.

Not the act itself. Of course murder is to be condemened. Is it right to accept/support the right for Susan to act in whatever way she wishes, even if it leads to the murder of someone else.

The first and second sentence seem to contradict each other. "It is not about the act - it is about the right to act".

Scenario 2: Lets say someone in the future drafts a law that not only punishes murder, the law says that the train of thought leading to a murder is illegal too. Somehow using advanced technology or looking into the future, the courts can be definitely sure that the suspect's train of thoughts WILL lead to an attempt or actual completion of murder.

Would you support the law?

We already have such laws that do not even work from the certain knowledge that someone is going to commit a crime, but merely from the likelihood. I find that highly problematic.

Scenario 3: For Christians. Could you support the right for a woman to murder their unborn child? I don't mean supporting abortion. I mean supporting the ability for everyone to choose their own actions, even if it is murder.

Not a Christian here, but I am wondering how a Christian could say "no". In their idea it was god who gave us this choice, after all.

 

[Nooj]

I find this question a bit odd. She either has this choice or she doesn´t. I can´t seem to make sense of the wording "accepting or supporting" that someone has a choice. Presuming for a moment that she has a choice, all I could do is to limit her ability to act upon her choice.

Apologies for my vague wording.

Do you hold the belief that Susan has a right to attempt to kill Joe? And by 'right' I really don't want to get into a debate about natural rights and who grants rights. You can substitute choice into the sentence if you want.

The first and second sentence seem to contradict each other. "It is not about the act - it is about the right to act".

Yes. The actual act of murder is to be condemned. But I'm wondering if the ability/the choice/the right to murder is something to be condemned. Can we say to Susan, I don't support you killing other people, but I support or accept the idea that you have a right to act in that murderous way.

Basically, I accept that you have chosen to commit murder, and that you are entitled to make that choice for yourself, even if you're going to end up in jail or in the case of abortion, hell.

We already have such laws that do not even work from the certain knowledge that someone is going to commit a crime, but merely from the likelihood. I find that highly problematic.

Do you find it problematic from a moral or a legal point of view? I got this idea from watching Minority Report btw.

Not a Christian here, but I am wondering how a Christian could say "no". In their idea it was god who gave us this choice, after all.

I was reading a Christian discussion about abortion and one Christian stated that although she was staunchly opposed to abortion, recognising it as murder and Biblically wrong, she supported the right for women to choose to murder and thereby the right for people to choose their own destinies in the afterlife.

 

[quatona]

Apologies for my vague wording.

No problem. I´m just trying to get what you are actually asking.

Do you hold the belief that Susan has a right to attempt to kill Joe? And by 'right' I really don't want to get into a debate about natural rights and who grants rights.

But a proper definition would come in handy for a keyword in such question. For me "right" is a legal term, and I don´t know what it might mean outside this frame of reference.

You can substitute choice into the sentence if you want.

So the question would be: "Do you think that Susan has a choice to attempt to kill Joe?", which would prompt a "freewill" discussion. I don´t believe that humans have a choice, but if I am accepting the premise that they have, Susan sure has the choice to do it.

Yes. The actual act of murder is to be condemned. But I'm wondering if the ability/the choice/the right to murder is something to be condemned.

But this question doesn´t make sense, to me. The ability to murder is quite obviously the human condition.
Regarding the choice: You either think humans have it or they don´t - so I don´t know how there can be a moral question about it. It´s like asking "is being blonde to be condemned?".
"Right" - see above.

Basically, I accept that you have chosen to commit murder, and that you are entitled to make that choice for yourself, even if you're going to end up in jail or in the case of abortion, hell.

I don´t know what "entitled" means in regards to a condition, to a fact that we simply can´t help acknowledging. She obviously has this choice. The only meaningful question in regards to entitlement is whether she is entitled to act upon it ("not entitled" meaning that she will be punished)

Do you find it problematic from a moral or a legal point of view?

I got this idea from watching Minority Report btw.I was reading a Christian discussion about abortion and one Christian stated that although she was staunchly opposed to abortion, recognising it as murder and Biblically wrong, she supported the right for women to choose to murder and thereby the right for people to choose their own destinies in the afterlife.

The equation with "choosing their destination in the afterlife" is, of course, abuse of language. However, from the Christian doctrine, I don´t see how someone could advocate to take away that which god allegedly has given us: choice. "God wanted us to have freewill" is used as an excuse for pretty much everything, and it appears that in god´s value-system this trumps everything. So I would be surprised if a Christian would advocate the option of taking it away.

But my main confusion remains: People obviously want to do what they want to do, and there is no means to keep people from wanting what they want. I can´t make any sense of "support the right to choose" - what does that even mean, how does she do that? Or, to make it clearer: What would the opposite, practically, mean: How do I take away the choice of someone (as opposed to preventing him from or punishing for acting upon it)?
All that comes to mind would be giving a frontal lobotomy to all women, or a treatment a la "clockwork orange". Since this would render the entire basis of Christianity (the dualism good-evil, guilt, punishment, forgiveness,...gag) obsolete, I highly doubt that any Christian can find that a good idea.

It would remove the problems that god has created in order to be able to offer a solution.

 

[Twilight777]

I'm not a Christian, so I don't think killing is wrong, at some point.

 

[quatona]

I'm not a Christian, so I don't think killing is wrong, at some point.

You may want to change your faith icon, then.
Next, please explain that which is so far a non sequitur.

 

[Patashu]

Dear Nooj. It will Never happen, that our thoughts can be seen by human eye, only God can. He will know what our thoughts and wishes are. Murder is a SIN, and God`s Law will deal with it, sooner or later. It is also true that we are free to do, good or Not good, and the consequences will follow. May I point out though, because God can see the reason behind every deed, He will judge accordingly, and God is a Fair Judge. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Can't see thoughts? We're getting closer every year.

 

[tcampen]

In the English and American tradition of law, conduct is criminal as a combination of act and intent. Intent alone is never enough, and would be impossible to prove in the legal sense absent a corresponding act. So as a practical matter, it would never happen within a rational society.

 

[Nooj]

Giving it some more thought, which I probably should have done beforehand, I realise that quatona is right. It was a poorly thought out experiment...but it's easier to sort out your ideas when someone else is taking it apart.

 

[talkingmonkey]

So, what if you have a gun aimed at someone's head, ready to pull the trigger. And that someone had a loved one there with you, pleading to let this person go. What if you said: "Murder person X or I'll kill your loved one"

What ethical implications are within those bounds?