A Quick Question

[Iriohm]

Honestly I think alot of people would just try to justify it. Someone yeu don't like? Well murder is now a permanent option! Sure yeu maybe wanted to hurt them before, but yeu would've gotten in trouble for it, despite that they probably deserved it. Now, without restrictions, there's no reason NOT to do so!

People tend to hate each other, often with little to no reason. They hate so strongly they're often willing to kill even when it IS illegal. Often, the fact that it's illegal is the only thing holding people back and making them grit their teeth, because they know they'd get in as much trouble for it; remove that and they lack that necessary hook to keep them from going too far.

Yeu want to see a good example of whot happens when the law disappears? Check out a major natural disaster. Looting, vandalism, murders, without a penalty, people tend to figure it doesn't matter.

They'll steal pens from work, because they justify it in their mind. And they will kill other people, because they justify it in their mind. The severity of the infraction honestly doesn't matter; the only difference is the severity of the punishment, which prevents some things more than others.

There's alot of people who WON'T do that as well, but there's far too many who can, and would, work themselves into some insane delusional self justified killing spree, simply because they think they're right and that the group they hate just has to die. Be it god's plan, racism, or whotever excuse they go for, they will do so.

It's best we don't remove the one thing that is stopping them from saying "God's will changed the law so that we could smite the sinners". We have enough nutjobs with enough munitions to level a small country as it is >.>

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm starting to think you're right. How very sad is that?

 

[Iriohm]

Summarizes my opinion nicely. Many laws define things that the majority of people would never do anyway, or could handle with responsibility, but need to exist as to prevent abuse from the minority who either cannot exercise proper self-control or would willingly abuse it.

Speaking to murder specifically, society requires security and stability to function properly. That includes reasonable confidence that one can function without being randomly assaulted. Murders will still happen of course, but laws restrict these incidents to extreme situations.

True, true...

 

[ragashree]

A point I want to raise if anyone's still interested:

Can you define "Murder"?

 

[miss fortune]

technically speaking, the murder rate would go down, since murder tends to be defined as "the unlawful killing of another human"... I don't see the homocide rate changing too much either though, because most of the people who are warped enough to kill someone would do so if there is a law against it or if there is not

 

[swordpath]

If murder were legal, then vigilantism would too be legal. I guess in weighing an option to kill or not would be dependent on which party has the bigger Army behind them. Eye for an eye would result in much blood shed. I think murder rate would skyrocket, ultimately.

 

[Iriohm]

A point I want to raise if anyone's still interested:

Can you define "Murder"?

Did I not already do that? Or is it still too unspecific?

 

[Rebe]

I think when people are given an inch, they take a whole mile. I don't know how many people weigh the consequences of a lifetime in jail when they decide to murder someone or does something careless. I do think the law is needed as a severe consequence for those with anger and hatred problems, prejudice, etc, etc, etc. Sadly, I believe that the number of murders will go up if people take the absence of law to mean there will be no reprimands from society and they can freely go about seeking revenge, justice, whatever whatever. Crazy people out there. We need structure and boundaries, like children and dogs.

 

[Valiant]

What do you imagine would happen if murder was legalized? Have we advanced to the point where such serious infractions are hard-coded into our systems as facts and behaviors so common that it would be redundant to put to words that they're morally objectionable? How many people are held back only by the law?

There are a whole bunch of people that I would go for immediately if the police had no objections.
Some would be human filth. Pedophiles, rapists, etc.
Other would simply be people that I hate on a personal basis.
Some of those, I would also strip of possessions.
A couple of fairly large scale business owners who together have caused me a year or so of poverty and debt.
Ripped me off for a lot of cash.
That's all over now, but some day I will have my revenge. I never forget.

 

[ragashree]

Did I not already do that? Or is it still too unspecific?

Well, Whatevs defined my apparently very nerdy question, and made a significant point in the process:

technically speaking, the murder rate would go down, since murder tends to be defined as "the unlawful killing of another human"... I don't see the homocide rate changing too much either though, because most of the people who are warped enough to kill someone would do so if there is a law against it or if there is not

Murder is whatever killing is classified as unlawful in a given society. Without a law to define it, we may have a moral perspective on when a homicide has taken place that is not justified, and we may choose to call it murder, but this is going to end up being a very fluid, and probably very subjective perspective. Further, if the society in question, having abolised a legal definition of murder, doesn't share an essentially unified moral perspective (such as a religious code or philosophy) which is understood and agreed upon by all its members, murder is open to be defined as any homicide, by any individual, at any time. I hope people see the problem with this situation, if not I'll try to elaborate later.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

There are a whole bunch of people that I would go for immediately if the police had no objections.
Some would be human filth. Pedophiles, rapists, etc.
Other would simply be people that I hate on a personal basis.
Some of those, I would also strip of possessions.
A couple of fairly large scale business owners who together have caused me a year or so of poverty and debt.
Ripped me off for a lot of cash.
That's all over now, but some day I will have my revenge. I never forget.

Apparantly, legalizing murder would turn life into a giant D&D game, lol.

 

[Iriohm]

Well, Whatevs defined my apparently very nerdy question, and made a significant point in the process:

Murder is whatever killing is classified as unlawful in a given society. Without a law to define it, we may have a moral perspective on when a homicide has taken place that is not justified, and we may choose to call it murder, but this is going to end up being a very fluid, and probably very subjective perspective. Further, if the society in question, having abolised a legal definition of murder, doesn't share an essentially unified moral perspective (such as a religious code or philosophy) which is understood and agreed upon by all its members, murder is open to be defined as any homicide, by any individual, at any time. I hope people see the problem with this situation, if not I'll try to elaborate later.

Some people define things differently, and some people only say they do.

I wikied the definitions of both murder and homocide, and their definition of the former was pretty good. See this link.

 

[Valiant]

Apparantly, legalizing murder would turn life into a giant D&D game, lol.

Sort of.
A bit more natural. Don't you think?
It seems right.
Rape my sister => You die.
Double-cross me and cause me suffering => I beat you up, or kill you.
Rob me => I kill you later, from a distance.

etc. Today's society makes ordinary people put up with way too much crap from the big dogs, that aren't really that big if you stack them against a rifle a block away.
People are just afraid of consequences, and society is all fucked up.