What does this tell us about arguments?
1. Some people, like O. J. Simpson, are able to find good enough lawyers to get them acquitted if they commit a murder. This is an economic injustice which needs to be rectified. So murder should be legalized so that everyone, rich or poor, can knock people off without being punished.
2. The illegality of murder means that people are depending on the government, instead of on themselves, to protect their lives. Such government dependence is a bad thing, and would be eliminated if murder were legalized.
3. The unborn, since Roe. V. Wade, can be murdered at will. But protecting the lives of people after they are born is birth discrimination. Therefore, murder should be legalized.
4. “Thou shalt not kill” is a religious commandment, and to enforce it as law it to impose religion on the public. Since church and state should be separate, and the imposition of religion by government is unconstitutional, murder should be legalized.
5. Government’s protection of people’s lives, instead of letting those who allow themselves to be murdered to die, weakens the gene pool. So we should legalize murder and let natural selection do its job.
6. The anti-natalist philosopher David Benatar has argued that it is better for people if they were never born. Legalizing murder will allow people to improve the lives of the victims.
12 comments:
Excellent post. It tells me that we should follow Hume and let the passions guide our morals rather than rely on principles to tell us. Moral principles should be inductive not deductive.
What should we do with arguments like these? We should take them at their word. Agree. And then shoot them. If they survive, I'm certain they will argue it was wrong to try to murder them.
I jest of course. But only sort of.
1. The Menendez brothers were not aquitted.
2. Government doesn't protect civilians except by detterents because law is there only for after the fact of murder. The government-through the Secret Service--protects only the president. Other high profile persons have always had to protect themselves either by arming themselves, hiring body guards or buiding a reputation of psychological fear (God or the Mafia, for example).
3. The unborn, by definition, cannot be murdered.
4. Killing and murder are two different issues. Murder includes killing but killing does not necessarily mean murder.
5. A sharp-shooter can fire a rifle a mile away and hit his targetted victim. Unless the future depends on cowardly acts then the gene pool has created by natural selection the illegalization of murder.
6. This is true except at the very end of the murder of all inhabitants on Earth there will be the last murderer standing.
And then suicide, not murder, must be considered.
Similar logic put in video format. "Cruel Logic"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI
Doc Reppert's sounding rather sensible for a change.
Benatar tries to distinguish between "lives worth starting" and "lives worth continuing" in order to avoid having to say that killing people is good for them.
7. Laws exist to protect victims. Someone who is dead does not feel any pain or raise any complaints in court, so there is no harm done to him or her. Thus, murder should be legal.
8. Some people are a net drag on society, and have very little chance of becoming productive. Killing them would be best for society.
I used to have a bunch more...
Anyone who fights against God's laws is a fool because God gave these laws to people for their own good. Besides, the genepool doesn't need murderers' genes to become stronger and viable infact for humanity to be sustained it needs people who would lay down their lives for others if required.
Remember, those who live by the sword shall also perish by it!
I think that the anti-murder fuckheads never should have been born in the first place. Also the best time to murder a human is immediately after their birth by drowning them in a rain barrel. It's what they deserve.
This is true except at the very end of the murder of all inhabitants on Earth there will be the last murderer standing in the scholarship essay writing help
Genocide.
1. Cures cancer, AIDS, obesity, and any other curable and incurable disease.
2. World hunger would be cured.
3. Rich and poor would be gone, only middle class.
4. More land to build more mini malls and mega malls.
5. No more murder, no one to kill = no murder
6. Only 1 official language in the world.
7. No religion.
7 logical reasons why the complete eradication of the human race would solve everything. I cured AIDS, where is my Nobel prize?
1. Sometimes rich people get away with it so that means it should just be legal to "help" make it fair for the poor to kill?
2. What are you even saying? It is not illegal to murder in self defense.
3. Abortion is not the same as murder and there is no such thing as age discrimination if that person is the parent or the child is not yet 18.
4. Are you just saying shit off the top of your head? Should we be able to steal too? Seperation of church and state doesn't mean that common sense shit in one or multiple religious texts should suddenly be made illegal/legal.
5. That's NOT how evolution works. Also do you really consider would-be murderers the strong of the gene pool if it was?
6. Good job on reading some Wikipedia or blog entry on a philospher I suppose, but there are tons of views in philosphies and most contradict each other which even you've established by saying "anti-nationalist" which means there is a "nationlist" philosphy. Why assign importanxce to one? Also this same argument could be used for abortion which you're seemingly against? If not there still lies the issue of how "improving" something is based in opinion without further qualifiers.
Post a Comment