Sunday, July 19, 2009

On defining murder

The claim that abortion is murder is frequently made. Now if by murder you mean an act of homicide without sufficient moral justification, then the claim has some initial plausibility. Whether it's true or not depends upon the outcome of disputed issues in the abortion debate. But is there something else required? Is there an element of malice toward the person murdered that is required in the definition?

Should all homicides be prosecutable if they are done with insufficient moral justification?

12 comments:

Ilíon said...

Does anyone accidentally commit an abortion? Or, is abortion deliberate?

Is it not the deliberateness of the slaying which distinguishes a ‘murder’ from, say, a ‘negligent homicide?’

For that matter, is it not the deliberateness of legal execution which the anti-capital punishment fools use as their preferred sophistical means of equating it with murder.

Anonymous said...

not respecting or caring for a innocence! defenseless human life is that not deep-seated meanness
and therefore a malice action?
there are some women however who get very emotional and upset about getting a abortion and indeed do care at some level.

Victor Reppert said...

Could a reasonable person think that they were ending the life of a non-person, even though in fact in turns out that a true philosophical analysis of personhood (or a divine perspective) would reveal that what they killed was indeed a person?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Reppert:

Can you give an example of the "life of a non-person" besides an embryo or fetus? I am having difficulty cross-referencing the word "life" with "non-person." If this "life" fell under any other classfication, presumably you would use said classfication (animal, plant, element, etc.). However, the continued intermingling of "life" and "non-person" seemingly presents as a misnomer (in my opinion only, I could be wrong). I raise this issue because the discussion thrives upon the topic of murder; inherent to the common law and statutory definition of murder is the requirement of human life. Accordingly (and I think Mr. Illion alludes to this), if the embroyo is properly classified as human life (as opposed to the "life" of a "non-person"), then the discussion ceases. The act of abortion is murder.

NB

Victor Reppert said...

Well, that is the point at issue in the abortion controversy, or one of them. Does biological identity as homo sapiens, which we all agree a human fetus is (it's not a chimpanzee or a baboon), guarantee personhood, given that it lacks the sorts of mental states that we think of humans as having. Further, if you think that humans are dead when they are brain-dead, then what do we say about someone who has other organs working but whose brain has not yet come together.

If I think of my life on earth as the career of a spatio-temporal continuer, then conception looks like a good starting place. If we think if my life on earth as a series of mental states, then what do we say about this spatio-temporal continuer before the mental states have started occurring.

I think that there is a reasonable doubt about the personhood of the fetus. In the face of reasonable doubt, what do we do. Arguments pull in both directions. In criminal courts, we convict someone of murder only if we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they killed a person. But when we are deer hunting, we have a moral obligation not to fire if we are unsure of the status of the object on which our guns are trained.

This is why the abortion issue is so difficult, in my mind.

Kyle said...

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that even accidental homicide was illegal and liable for criminal charges.

On the other issue, by what criteria would somebody argue that mental facilities were a necessary factor to qualify as a person, above merely being human? Doesn't that open a door to the general idea that some are "more human" than others on some kind of sliding scale?

Anonymous said...

Victor Reppert,

Could a reasonable person think that they were ending the life of a non-person, even though in fact in turns out that a true philosophical analysis of personhood (or a divine perspective) would reveal that what they killed was indeed a person?

For someone with your sophistication and philosophical rigor, I was taken aback to see you missed a rejoinder as obvious as something along these lines:


Is Singer a "reasonable person"? Could he reasonably think he was ending the life of a non-person when killing a born human infant, "even though, in fact, it turns out that a true philosophical analysis of personhood (or a divine perspective) would reveal that what they killed was indeed a person?"

In other words, if it is not 'murder' to kill the unborn, since there may be a necessary feature of the act missing that is needed to classify it as a murder, namely: "an element of malice toward the person murdered that is required in the definition," and "a reasonable person must think it is a human person he is killing," then it seems your question/argument is shown to be invalid by a counterexample; unless you want to now defend infanticide as "debatable" and possibly not "murder"?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Good stuff. Ya, by Victor's line of reasoning, early America(ns) is not guilty of mistreating black people since they viewed them as 3/5 human. Africans were not persons, so you can't really blame white slave owners for whipping them to death! You can't really be racist against non-persons.

Ilíon said...

Anonymous: "... early America(ns) is not guilty of mistreating black people since they viewed them as 3/5 human."

That idea is a "liberal" deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Anonymous said...

Ilion,

There was nothing "dliberate", but your uncharitability and conclusion-jumping seems deliberate. Actually, it was using common language to express a more substantive point (not to comment on the history of voting), which thinking about for no more than five minutes, rather than immediately responding with something so as to to get your daily fix of internet warrioring, would easily reveal. I'm sure you're smart enough to get the underlying point. If so, then you prove that your above comment was nothing more than your usual trolling. If not, then you're not smart enough to continue the conversation with.

Mike Darus said...

What I find commendable about the "Abortion is murder" statement is the position that there is a moral code separate from our legal code. Just because something is legal, it is not right (insert just, permissible, righteous, acceptable,...). The person who makes the statement is appealing to a moral code currently not reflected in US law. They are asking for a better world.

Compare it saying, "Driving 35 in a posted 40 mph zone is speeding." It is a cry to live life on a higher level and an invitation to others to live there too. Driving would be a much more pleasant experience if everyone bought into the idea of driving 5 under instead of 5 over. Victor is right when he suggests that this debate is best won outside the courtroom. It is a battle for hearts and minds that changes a non person into a person not yet born. My fifth grandchild is due in August. There is a sense of "not yet" but there is also the sense of "done deal."

Ilíon said...

Anonymous, or Anonymouse,
To use common language, which I think even you can understand, it is not you jumping to conclusions and getting your fix of internet warrioring?

I didn’t accuse you of deliberately spreading a falsehood, I said that your statement reflects a deliberate falsehood invented by “liberals.”

Now, certainly, what I posted was ambiguous, and I’m sorry for that; I should have taken more care in what I wrote.