It's the other way around. Homicide means killing another person. Yes, murder is defined a lot through the law, but I'm sure we can use murder and intentional aggressive killing interchangeably.

but that's still, as nielsio was saying, the same thing as saying 'murder is wrong because its murder'. why is an unwarranted killing of someone wrong?


nielsio plz share thesis?

That's what I said, and was at least clear from context. Murder is, by definition, "wrong". If you want to avoid people saying "murder is bad by definition" in response to your question "why is murder wrong?" one simply refers to homicide.

Is killing someone in an act of self-defense, murder?

Well, I think that the semantics are more that murder includes the judgment that the act is wrong as part of the definition of the word. The question "why is an unwarranted killing of someone wrong" makes more sense to me than the question "why is the murder of someone wrong".

It's not a very important point, but it seemed to cause some confusion.

But as you can see in the link of homicide I made, that homicide doesn't mean aggressive intentional killing.

Still, if you say murder is by definition wrong, that doesn't answer the question why wrong is in the definition, and why we have a concept of right and wrong in the first place.

No. Murder is intentional aggressive killing.

Ok, well then is evicting a child from your womb necessarily an act of murder?

It depends how you do it, but yes, an eviction is definitionally not murder. But it could still be wrong for the reasons that murder is wrong.

But definitionally speaking, murder is always wrong.

?

What?

The point is that no matter how you use the word "murder," it always assumes an unjust act.

To be clear, I don't think I am disagreeing with your intention of asking the original question, I am just questioning the tautological use of the word murder.

What does that have to do with what I said?

i can has thesis?

You asked why murder is wrong.

I am saying it is wrong by the very definition of the word murder. I think a more appropriate question would be:} what makes an act of killing an act murder?

I've been trying to get myself to write it all down, but haven't gotten around to it all week. Right now it's still a full sheet with notes and stuff in my head. I'll try to do it soon and post the first draft. I just want to do it properly and not half-assed.

Because it is, by definition, unwarranted ?.....

an unwarranted definition is by definition unwarranted.

yes, correct.

why is an unwarranted killing WRONG? we know its unwarranted. why does unwarranted killing = immoral?


something being unwarranted doesn't make it wrong. if a hot chick gives me an unwarranted blowjob right now, i won't call it immoral.

Initiation of violence against anything?

The question is: why is murder wrong. Or phrased another way: why is immoral killing immoral.

When I ask "what makes a fast car fast", then I'd like to hear something about engineering and physics.

Murder is wrong for many reasons, which is why there is such widespread agreement on the issue.

Outside of a societal framework, murder isn't wrong because nothing is right or wrong, everything just is. Inside a societal framework, murder is wrong because societies that believed this historically were able to survive and thrive and we have inherited their moral and legal codes.

Alternatively, if one believes in the non-aggression principle then murder is wrong because it conflicts with this belief.

The abortion issue is very complex, mainly because of ethical reasons (is a fetus considered a human being? if so, is abortion consent murder? if its murder, is it wrong? etc, ...).

There is no possible social consent to be made in the present considering all the previously mentioned problems. We know that in practice there is just no way one can stop people from getting abortions, since prohibitive methods in various domains have shown its inefficiency. IMO, the best way to handle such a problem is to expand on the issue and leave it open for discussion until we have more palpaple solutions to engage all the problems related to abortion (psychological, moral and physical). That basically means letting people decide for themselves what their actions should be, but in a safe and information heavy environment. Yes, abortion can ultimately be morally wrong and even murder, but at least keep the environment as such that women can make the best possible choice regarding the subject. This means not turning abortion into TABU and social crucification. It means that women can seek for information without being socially and legally murdered. It means possible psychological assistance before taking choices. Basically, giving women the necessary environment to make the best possible choice, something you don't usually get when you turn them into criminals.

Those are the reasons why i'm inclined to be pro-choice, but the ethical reasons haunt me nevertheless. I know women that had abortions and they are mostly psichologically devastated, it's a complex issue...

Interestingly there was some evidence that early pregnancy termination is less likely to result in death of woman than full term birth in the United States.

I have nothing to add to this thread except that my wife was a paralegal for an adoption lawyer for many years and I can confirm this is completely true.