"Germanic originCorran said:
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another"
Notice the word unjustifiably. Murder existed before there were laws as in Cains murder of able.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What is objective evil?
- Thread starter Danhalen
- Start date
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another"
Notice the word unjustifiably. Murder existed before there were laws as in Cains murder of able.
I am not questioning that the legal definition of murder is unlawful. The point in all this is that if you will look at your definitions, self defense is not murder and neither would the defense of a child be murder because that would not be unlawful.Corran said:
Upvote
0
elman said:
Notice the "and" in that defenation. The "and"means that both are required for the act to qualify as murder under those germanic laws. Even in that situation the killing has to be unlawfull.
Upvote
0
I have not seen you deal with the murder of Able by Cain. Have you? That was not simple homicide. It was murder because it was wrongful homicide. Wrongful killing is always also illegal because there are no coutries as far as I know that allow you to legally wrongfully kill someone.Corran said:
Upvote
0
There are a great many scenarios where the torture of helpless innocents eg. babies can be reasoned. Jesus is considered more pure & more innocent than a baby & God allowed this "objective evil" as you call it to happen.elman said:
Upvote
0
All evil objective and subject has been allowed by God. Yes I think the crucifixion of Jesus was objectively evil. Yes there can be cases of ingorantly putting leaches on a baby or other events when it is thought the baby is being helped. But what I am saying is that the torture of babies where there is no reason is objectivly evil.lKris_J said:
Upvote
0
Why do we have laws against murder? Could it have been a problem that needed to be delt with? And if so then the murders occured before the law against it was created.Corran said:
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Corran, what meaning does murder have if we restrict it only to unlawful killings? We say that we create laws against murder, and then define murder as a killing against the law. This definition means that murder cannot exist without law, (so there was no problem to make the law to stop, I gues) and it also means that the definition of murder with law is more or less abitrary. If we defined murder as only "killing someone unjustifiably on Tuesday" but allowed such killings on other days, does that mean me killing someone for fun is not murder?Corran said:
Murder as a word just doesn't imply anything meaningful unless it is given a definition outside of a legal context.
Upvote
0
Thank you. I was searching for a way to say that but you did it better.MoonlessNight said:
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight said:
It doesnt need to have a deeper meaning it is a word we use to describe a certain form of homicide.
MoonlessNight said:
That is correct.
MoonlessNight said:
Not at all. One does not need morality or a concept of right and wrong to make meaningfull laws.
MoonlessNight said:
If there would be a law that said i can kill ppl on fridays, and i killed some one on friday i would not be a murderer nor could the killing be called murder.
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Perhaps not (thought I would argue that this isn't true, but I'll just grant it for now). But we at least have to have a reason for making the law, and if we want to outlaw murder we need to be able to describe what it is that we are trying to prevent by outlawing the practice. But the way that you've defined murder the act we are trying to prevent can not be called murder until we create the law. So we have two cases here:
A.) We have a good idea of the act we are trying to prevent and create good laws to prevent it. It just can't be properly be called murder until we outlaw it. In this case we have to have another term for the act that we would call murder in the case that it has not been outlawed yet. I don't see why we can't use murder for that as well, and it seems to me that common usage supports this position. But in any case even if it doesn't then we'll just have to use another word, in which case all arguments presented can be perfectly valid if we just replace "murder" with whatever we want to call that act. So it's just semantics in this case.
OR
B.) We can't have a good idea of what we want to prevent when we create laws against murder until we create the laws. To me this is evidentally ridiculous, because the only way it can work is if laws are only created to create law; that is illegal acts have no other reasoning for being illegal than that they are illegal. A system of laws this arbitrary and this lacking in any qualified authority (though it may be backed up with force) is not even worth mentioning in a philosophical discussion, I think.
I can't see any other cases. So we have the case that we are arguing over at worst a problem of semantics, or the case that illegality is completely arbitrary and so we shouldn't worry about it anyway. Either way I'm not sure how much it profits anyone to insist that only illegal acts can qualify as murder.
Upvote
0
So if OJ really killed his wife, he was still not a murderer since the jury found him innocent?Corran said:
Upvote
0
elman said:
I dont know enough about the law to be 100% certain that the answer i give is correct but I think he would still be a murderer. Again i dont know enough about the law to be sure.
Upvote
0
Salubri
Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist
The only thing I can really say that would be actual "evil" would be for somone to plan something...know that it will hurt people/do some great wrong or harm and not care and do it anyway. That's the only real "definition" I can venture anyway.
Upvote
0
I agree he would still be a murderer if he did the murder and it does not matter what the law is on that question.Corran said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
