What is morally objectionable about murder?  Do not mention legality of killing...Why is murder bad from a philosophical stand point?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    Many people believe that violating the law is morally objectionable.

    Many people believe that taking a life for any reason is immoral.

    For many people, moral determinations are based on the situational details that relate to the murder. The character of the victim for example; "the murder of a harmful person might be considered less objectionable than the murder of an innocent. The degree of the moral objectionability might be based on the objective consequences resulting from the murder. For example, depriving a family of a provider, and/or loved one, can be very detrimental, whereas the killing of someone that is going to die anyway, and is begging to be spared their misery, might be thought of as merciful, rather than cruel.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Murder can be supported in the doctrines of revolutionary political violence. It's moral philosophy that you are asking about, and this has a lot to do with Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that it is immoral to treat another person as an object, as a means to an end. That argument has never been refuted. It's often ignored, but it hasn't been refuted. If it's immoral for me to treat you as an object by exploiting you or cheating you, how much more immoral is it for me to kill you?

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    If one understands "morality" as relativistic notions of a group re any activity, then murdering Jews is moral in 1930s Third Reich, and immoral in 1980s Israel.

    So-called "philosophy" re morality is generally classified as ethics, whether of the deontic or consequentialist subsets.  Your question tends to deny the deontic approach (duty as codified law), and so consequentialism as applied by Tracy (the act you're considering takes autonomy from another human; and, we rightly esteem ourselves above avocados and armadillos) is the way to consider Kant's Categorical reasoning:  what would a best-informed judge do--shades of Plato's Guardians and Rawls' original position (Republic or other desired system of governance) and veil of ignorance (Justice blindfolded), and is Kant's Enlightenment 5-sense go-it-alone repositioning of Man as judging righteous judgment (without the helpful Mind-abiding of Paul, John, and Jesus, et al.).

  • P
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    What is morally objectional is it's acceptability in terms of justice or duty but it's condemnation in terms of vengeance or compassion. It's a philosophic inconsistency. 

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    I object to it because it is uncivilized. And if I object to it them millions of other people must feel the same.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    Because (almost) everyone has a right to live, and at least the right decide that they no longer want to live. Can you truthfully say that you wouldn't object to one of us hunting you down and trying to kill you? I think not.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Life is generally preferable to death. it might be arbitrary, but so is the basis for the rules of Chess. Who decided knights a can only move in such a way? doesn't matter, those are the rules. and IF those are the rules, we can find out what moves are strategically better than another for achieving a given goal. In Secular moral systems, thyat goal tends to be human well-being.

    it harms human well-being to kill someone. Ending their existence is the biggest possible violation of another person.

  • Tracy
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Murder removes autonomy for the murdered.  This is objectionable, because all sentient (or non-sentient, for that matter) life has autonomy as its one prerogative.  The paradox is that all life feeds on death, so we are all inherently murderers on a daily basis.  With that said, there is nothing morally objectionable about murder.  Please note, I include plants, animals and humans (which are animals) as murderable.  There should be no delineation...life is life.

  • The real question here is:  By what right or virtue can any person claim the ability to take the life of another person?

    It's not that I have to prove that murder is objectionable.  Advocates for the right to murder must prove why they would or should have such a right.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.