Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Why is it normally wrong to kill a person?	tonyrey	08/08/06
Would killing a person in normal circumstances cease to be wrong if the majority decided it is not wrong? If not why not?
Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/08/06 8:17 pm: MG, It would obviously be detrimental to the human race if everybody were entitled to kill but (acting as the devil's advocate) why should one be concerned about the human race or human happiness? Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/08/06 8:23 pm: I don't think the question of perspective affects the issue. Why should time or space be relevant to the value of life? Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/09/06 9:29 am: Tonyrey, your question was specifically frames as killing "in normal circumstances," so that needs to be better defined. Also, regarding the moral argument I first established, if in is in the greater good, then so be it, but then you have to define greater. Bush framed the invasion of Iraq in the terms of US or Them. Just saying it, doesn't make it so. If there were, a God, and Bush should hope there isn't, I feel he might be in some hot water...or fire and brimstone. Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/09/06 9:33 am: Dark Crow, Vasectomy is first, rather self-inflicted; second, reversable; third, there are alternative methods of impregnation. You are applying the same logic the Catholic church applies to condoms. Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/09/06 9:50 am: MG, Please refer to my clarification for Jim.
Answered By		Answered On
MicroGlyphics		08/08/06
Jon is right. If we assume morality to derive from a single source (which is debatable), then it is not a majority rules issue. It is wrong because some moral authority says it is wrong. Absent of this authority, we can induct this morality. In the early formulation of morality, the question was focused on "what if everyone did this or that?" Then we couch that in terms of our accepted population, whether it be adult, male, land owners, or extend it to include the human race, or extend it to the natural world, and so on... Applying this thought to your question, it would obviously be detrimental to the human race if everybody was entitled to kill, so we relegate this is being immoral. We can look at it to maximise happiness. Of course, when we extend our scope to the natural world or the universe, we might arrive at a different solution. After all, the earth, and in fact the universe, existed long before there were any humans and will likely exist long after we're gone. I guess this might be seen through a nihilistic lens, but the approach can otherwise be accepted as valid. Technically, you could apply this rule to suicide, but at least there the killer is in control of his own destiny, which is quite existential indeed.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!