Is murder wrong?

[Daffy Duck]

I'm not sure who moved it. It fits well into either category, in my opinion.

I can understand why it was moved. "Is murder wrong?" seems to be a question about values... and here's the description for this forum: "Values, integrity, finding your purpose, living your purpose, serving the greater good, making a difference, changing the world, charity, polarity, lightworkers, darkworkers"

So yeah, it fits perfectly well here. Hmm. Whatever.

[themaster]

I wanted to share the gist of what I'm getting at about murder(s) and ideas of negativity..

Transcribed myself from my teachers latest lecturer..

Q: Do you still have darkness?

B: There is always the choice of darkness, we do not experience it because we do not choose it because we validate it as a equal choice.

Q: So there is no..?

B: There is no negative experience in our reality.. because we recognize we all contain equal light and dark and thus by allowing ourselves to know we contain it and allowing the darkness to be a equal choice we could choose, not judging, not invalidating, not giving it any extra energy, not putting a charge on it just because it's there.. because we recognize its part of existence because it is a part of all existence

Then by recognizing that and equalizing it and validating it, we are capable thus then of simply choosing what we prefer..

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by siryessir08

Yeah, why was it moved?

I would think this thread would fall under the realm of "truth" or "philosophy," which would put it firmly in the consciousness section.

I moved it to the Character & Contribution because I saw the thread as being about whether an action is wrong or right, as well about morality, and that's what part of what Character and Contribution is about. I don't see the thread fitting under Truth, as truth is about the nature of existence, however, I can see your point about the thread fitting under Philosophy and thus under the Spirituality, Consciousness, and Awareness forum. If you'd like it to be moved back let me know and I'll move it back.

[Plays With Life]

Firstly .. *judges everyone*. OK, consider yourself judged. Now, with that out of the way :

(I write this without any isness words, for those who don't know. If my language sounds odd / jilted, I apologize)

My thoughts remain disconnected on this subject. I present them here regardless ..

It seems that to consider killing wrong requires first considering death wrong / bad. I question that idea.

I never understand what people mean when they talk about "wrong". The idea of "right" and the idea of "wrong" both elude me. With any judgement of right or wrong I would ask: Right For Whom? Wrong For Whom?

Good and bad only exist in relation to some purpose.

The light path and the dark path are both equally valid.

Not classifying something "wrong" in your reasoning mind, does not mean a) you classify it "right"; or b) you want to do it; or c) you would do it if presented the opportunity. I do not consider slicing my flesh open "wrong", but I have an aversion to doing it. I do not consider ending a person's life "wrong", but I have an aversion to doing it. The aversion has no foundation in a judgement of the possibility of doing it, as "right" or "wrong" or anything else.

[Plato]

PWL, I agree with that. We have destroyed custom but we have no affirmative world view yet.

I would argue it is aesthetic taste mingled with instinct. A sense of style, art, beauty, glory, passion, creativity and power.

[Plays With Life]

Taking this a little further .. you don't need to consider something wrong to experience a response of disgust, anger, or indignance when you see it, or to walk over there and stop it. A common complaint seems to arise: "if you don't consider it wrong, then you'll just let it happen." In fact, you might still attempt to stop it - forcefully - and succeed, all the while never considering the action wrong. It seems to me that depending on reasoning judgement as a basis for morality - and then using morality as a motivation for action - just invites all kinds of confusion and conflict.

It also seems that allowing (even expecting) yourself to judge an action, a behaviour, an approach to life as "wrong" allows you to then justify heinous acts to the people you have judged are "doing it wrong". :

"But what they did was WRONG!"
"He shouldn't have done that!"
"She was misbehaving!"

All on trial for murder ^ The judgement of an action as wrong, served as justification and motivation for them to commit murder. Without the judgement, the motivation to murder would not have arisen.

Whew, writing without "be" forces me to expound my thoughts in new ways. I hope I got them across.

[siryessir08]

All right, so some of us have established that one can live a perfectly normal life without any moral (right/wrong) judgments.

How about value judgments? Can we live without those?

What would a man without any value judgments be like?

Right now, I can't think of any other types of judgment beyond moral and value...what other types of judgment do we use?

[Plays With Life]

Could someone give examples of each kind of judgement (and maybe descriptions?), to clarify the difference?

[Remiel]

Probably off topic by now but just to be clear:

Murder? Yes it is wrong.
Killing? Not the same thing as Murder and is not necessarily wrong. (Self-Defense, War, Accident, etc)

Now keep in mind that a war may be wrong but that responsibility lies on the shoulder's of the leaders.

[Plays With Life]

I fail to see the difference between murder and killing.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I fail to see the difference between murder and killing.

killing can be accidental, manslaughter

ie mr..... was killed in an accident. killing doesnt have to be commited by an individual. (mr.... was killed by carbon monoxide poisining)

murder on the other hand is intentional. it is a more intentional commited action.

[Plays With Life]

Thanks. It sounds like killing in a war, or in self-defense, also constitutes murder, then.

[kimberleee]

You know... I'm going to go with NO.

It's not wrong.

But it's not right either.

It's just something that has to be done sometimes.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Thanks. It sounds like killing in a war, or in self-defense, also constitutes murder, then.

In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

So self-defense is not considered the same thing as murder. Killing in a war is also not usually considered the same exact thing as murder, even though it is strategic and planned out.

[Plays With Life]

So murder means killing in a situation the law considers wrong ..?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by kimberleee

You know... I'm going to go with NO.

It's not wrong.

But it's not right either.

It's just something that has to be done sometimes.

that sounds awfully contradictory. can the same be said for theft?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Thanks. It sounds like killing in a war, or in self-defense, also constitutes murder, then.

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

So murder means killing in a situation the law considers wrong ..?

2 men are having sex with different women

2 men are shooting 2 other men dead

1 of the men is giving his wife an orgasm while she says i love you

1 of the men is a policeman defending a bunch of kids about to be shot by a deranged lunatic psycho, who has ignored the warning to drop his own gun

the other man is forcibly having sex with a stranger (who happens to be an underage virgin) he has kidnapped and dragged into bushes who is crying, pleading and screaming

the other man is robbing a bank and has shot dead a security guard.

so here you have 4 different men, 2 acts, 4 characters

a lover, a rapist, a murderer, and what would you name the policeman?

a murderer? killer? hero? a man who has unwantedly killed but not quite the identity of a killer definately not as strong as a murderer? after all would you call a soldier a murderer, would you call any leader who instructs troops a murderer, in which case what would you call people that elect him?

or if you accidently put peanut oil in the food of someone who then goes on to die of allergy poisining would you tolerate being called a murderer, killer? do you think you should be treated as a cold-blooded killer?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Remiel

Probably off topic by now but just to be clear:

Now keep in mind that a war may be wrong but that responsibility lies on the shoulder's of the leaders.

thats what the germans said when asked to justify why knowingly allowed the Jews they had known all there lives to be killed and why they didnt stand up to their leaders in nazi germany

[kimberleee]

Originally Posted by Orecle

that sounds awfully contradictory. can the same be said for theft?

it could be said about anything, really.

It depends on how you define "right" and "wrong."

OR you could just chuck all definitions and understand that there isn't any right or wrong... there just IS.

[Plays With Life]

@ Orecle - I read your whole post and I still don't know what you intended to say. Your questions: I wouldn't call anyone a murderer - I've never used the word. If I perform some act, people are welcome to call it whatever they want and respond however they want.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

So murder means killing in a situation the law considers wrong ..?

Yes, that's the common definition; The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Remiel]

Originally Posted by Orecle

thats what the germans said when asked to justify why knowingly allowed the Jews they had known all there lives to be killed and why they didnt stand up to their leaders in nazi germany

How was that a war though?

I suppose it's a miscommunication on my end. By war I am talking about soldiers fighting soldiers. Not the attrocities that sometimes happen within the context or guise of a war.

It is a very very convoluted thing though. Take for example the nuclear bomb dropped on Japan. Was it a good thing? Yes, in my opinion. Did it kill alot of innocent people? Yes there too. Who was responsible for those deaths? The person / people who made the decision to drop the bomb. The person who turned the key (or is that only in war movies?) was not responsible from my point of view.

If two armies face off and kill each other, the one's participating are not the one's responsible for whether that war and battle are just. They are responsible for their individual actions, but not for the entire war itself. Neither is death in a war necessarily an evil act as murder is.

[Brutha]

I think that the thread isn't focused anymore on the main question.
If someone wants to continue to debate the orginal question, please open a new thread.