CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Despite your predisposition to abhor murder, anyone attacking you may not feel the same way. Thus, to protect one's own life or the life of one's children (as we are genetically wired to do), it is acceptable to use aggressive action as a form of defense.
2) War. Self-explanatory.
Declared war comes with certain risks that combatants are aware of. Death is a plausibility and, in this scenario, the means through which peace/territorial expansion/wealth/etc. are achieved. The justification of said war is irrelevant as, from a purists's perspective, it is also a form of self-defense even for the aggressor.
NOTE: The killing of unarmed civilians (or even enemy combatants) is NOT acceptable as it is not a defensive action.
3) Capital Punishment. Again, this is another form of self-defense. The killing of someone who has proven themselves to be incapable of using their life for purposes other than killing innocent people is a form of defending the people. This can be argued. It is "acceptable" in the sense that it is tolerable.
"2) War. Self-explanatory..." (the proceeds to explain it)
I’m sorry, I’m picking on you, I just thought that was funny :)
Anyway, I don't think that any of the examples you provided really fit the literal definition of what murder is, which is 'unlawful' killing of another human being. Neither example you gave is actually against the law.
Perhaps if what the OPer actually meant by ‘murder’ was ‘killing,’ I could see where you’re coming from and would actually agree on one of the points (self defense), but it’s unclear to me if that be the case considering there is no description provided in the OP.
But I was assuming the negation of the "unlawful" part of the definition. If I had assumed that, legally, there is no way to say "yes' as (since we are using murder as a legal definition) "acceptability" is also a legal issue, and if something is declared legally as murder, it is by definition not acceptable.
I was assuming the negation of the "unlawful" part of the definition.
Understandable, it is a common mistake to assume that murder simply means killing. But the fact of the matter (regardless of how common of a mistake it is) the 'unlawful' part of the definition is not supposed to be removed, murder is a legal term.
It wouldn't be too farfetched to assume that the OPer meant 'killing' with the word murder, and if that is the case, your answer would be more valid in as much as it pertains to the OP.
If I had assumed that, legally, there is no way to say "yes' as (since we are using murder as a legal definition) "acceptability" is also a legal issue, and if something is declared legally as murder, it is by definition not acceptable.
This is why I didn't post an original response and instead replied to your comment (more out of mere humor than anything). Without a description in the OP, it is hard to discern what was meant by the word 'murder' and thus hard to formulate a proper position.
Considering the common misuse of the word murder, I originally assumed too that the OPer meant ‘killing,’ but when I assume something, I often times hesitate and consider the possibility that my assumption is wrong, and I wouldn’t want to formulate an argument based on a wrong assumption, but that’s me.
Well assuming the legal definition would have been no fun. Then the question is fact and the debate would be do you accept facts? Facts are facts. There is no room for debate under the legal definition. Then it is just: Is the earth flat?
Murder, is when you're not giving someone the chance to decide whether they want to end their lives and killing them against their will. So I think that abortion is unacceptable, because the fetus has life in it and by taking away it's life when it isn't yours is murder.
There are so many movies out there where a bunch of people get murdered, and we side with the good guys as they murder a bunch of bad people. However, we never really stop to think about whether this is ethically correct. According to the Old Testament, most Jews who followed our God would murder people to claim land, and this was seen as ethically okay. So yes, murder is acceptable. If there was no murder of Osama Bin Laden, he'd still be alive. So would Hitler. People think murdering is a cruel thing, but by murdering certain people we are helping keep humanity stable.
If you are defending yourself in a violent situation. I think you should try and do everything else possible to resolve said situation before taking a life, but yes if it comes to that.
Murder rather is already an accepted function of society. And murder is an essential element of today's World. A thousands were killed in the WTC Tragedy and a millions were killed in the Iraq war. I call it murder. Innocent people died for no good reason. And are dying today and will die most likely in the future.
I know it was off the beat but my point is that, in order to avenge an event another event was created. And it had more than half of the population agree with it.
Every time in a war or in a terrorist shoot out death is appreciated. If a cop is killed we call him a martyr, sacrificed soul of his patriotic land or if a terrorist is killed we medal him.
Murder is accepted.
I hope you don't find it totally out of context but I was just saying that Murder is a murder on field or off, of a good person or bad, for good reason or not. A murder is a murder. And is hypocritically well accepted in so many genres and criticized rather hated in so many other.
I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree with how you arrived at the conclusion. Here's why...
I call it murder. Innocent people died for no good reason.
This is not the definition of murder. According to the OED, murder is defined as, "To kill (a human being) unlawfully with malice aforethought; in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence."
And it had more than half of the population agree with it.
This is classic argumentum ad populum. Your argument is fallacious because even if many people believe something to be true, valid or sound, it does not mean that it is inherently true, valid or sound.
This is not the definition of murder. According to the OED, murder is defined as, "To kill (a human being) unlawfully with malice aforethought; in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence."
Well... Lol... First off I did accept that I was a little off beat. But, if you see it in a way that I have put it, people were killed here too. With malice aforethought... As you put it. They had a predetermined notion of killing. Just not someone specific.
Your argument is fallacious because even if many people believe something to be true, valid or sound, it does not mean that it is inherently true, valid or sound.
I think you didn't get what I was saying. I was trying to portray the exact same thing. That people agreed with it. Said that they were fine and they justified to the terrorist attacks or the wars because it avenged them or that it justified the struggle they had faced.
So basically I was trying to emphasis that as human race we have accepted murder in it's sense of it. It is perhaps the most practiced as well. So what I meant to say was that people are okay with men and women dying if it means a deal to them. But, falsely conclude that murder is perhaps invalid if you do it in a context invariable and unappealing to you.
But, if you see it in a way that I have put it, people were killed here too.
I have no qualms with that except that there is a fundamental difference between the terms "killing" and "murdering". According to the OED, killing means, "Any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc." Simply put, "murdering" is a mere subset of "killing".
I was trying to emphasis that as human race we have accepted murder in it's sense of it.
You didn't get what I was saying. I am speculating here, but it seems to me that you aren't as well versed in epistemology as myself. What you have committed here is called the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. This is a fallacy where one suggests that a belief is true, valid or coherent merely based on the fact that most people agree to it. Look, even if murder is, not to use the word too loosely, "acceptable" to most people, it still does not make it morally acceptable. To claim that it is merely based on the fact that most people "accept" it would be to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
So what I meant to say was that people are okay with men and women dying if it means a deal to them. But, falsely conclude that murder is perhaps invalid if you do it in a context invariable and unappealing to you.
First, why should any murder be considered contextually invariable and unappealing to anyone? Even if that were true, does it still justify whether murder is acceptable or not?
First, why should any murder be considered contextually invariable and unappealing to anyone?
For the same reason why murder is accepted. Murder is accepted in a broader sense, the sense most often ignored, when you are in defense. When there is an innocent snake before you trying to get away simply using one of it's defense mechanisms. It is probably a poisonous snake, probably not. But, to you it is danger. So it is simply ''murdered.'' This is where murder is justified and accepted. When Osama Bin Laden was "murdered", Saddam Hussien was hanged, when Indian terror hero (who helped the poor with stolen money,) was murdered. They all died. Despite their supporters. I'm not condoning it. But, that was a murder. The reasons maybe plenty but it was finally accepted.
Similarly, murder is looked down and condemned when it has no reason to rejoice. When the murder is to be dealt with your family and friends. In a macro level with your country, community or region.
Even if that were true, does it still justify whether murder is acceptable or not?
My earliest comment stated that I didn't mean what I said in the most direct sense. I spoke very largely on the societal means of acceptance of the most unacceptable deeds where knees fall for needs.
Murder is practiced and it is accepted. Where people cheer at the death of a terrorist. He sure was a terrorist. But, he was murdered. He must have murdered a thousand of people. But, he was murdered too. At the end of the day, people rejoiced at a murder. What ever context it was in. Moral or immoral.
Look, even if murder is, not to use the word too loosely, "acceptable" to most people, it still does not make it morally acceptable.
And it is not. It is not suppose to be morally acceptable. Humanity is a cycle where it is in itself responsible for most of what it is affected with. To murder someone is probably accepted for it serves it's deeds. But, it is not in human judgement if it is justified.
Murder is not moral. But, it is accepted. Hypocritically.
This is a phrase that you have repeated throughout most of your replies, including this latest one. The problem is that you're confusing cause and effect. The question is, "Is murder ever acceptable?" And not, "Is murder ever accepted?" Therefore, even if murder is accepted, it does not mean that it is acceptable.
I'm not condoning it.
By saying that murder is acceptable, you're definitely condoning it.
At the end of the day, people rejoiced at a murder. What ever context it was in. Moral or immoral.
That is simply an appeal to emotion. The fact that people rejoiced at a particular act, it does not necessarily mean that committing such an act is morally acceptable or unacceptable.
Therefore, even if murder is accepted, it does not mean that it is acceptable.
That is exactly what I'm trying to say. It is not acceptable. And my foremost comment mentioned that I felt that Humanity is hypocritically okay with a murder. So it is faintly a concept that endears a human mind unconsciously despite it being such a rogue.
By saying that murder is acceptable, you're definitely condoning it.
Are you even reading my comments? I said that ''people'' accept it in different contexts. But, that is not moral. I'm stating what to my understanding is a fact. Of what some people HYPOCRITICALLY feel and say about murders. You are accusing me of condoning murder while I have already stated that it is immoral.
The fact that people rejoiced at a particular act, it does not necessarily mean that committing such an act is morally acceptable or unacceptable.
The fact that people rejoiced at a particular act is a proof that they are okay with it. But, I'm repeating myself that it is not moral. Hence it is acceptable or not is not in your ends or my ends or anybody's ends to decide if it is acceptable.
And it is not. It is not suppose to be morally acceptable. Humanity is a cycle where it is in itself responsible for most of what it is affected with. To murder someone is probably accepted for it serves it's deeds. But, it is not in human judgement if it is justified.
Murder is not moral. But, it is accepted. Hypocritically.
What I said earlier.
it does not necessarily mean that committing such an act is morally acceptable or unacceptable.
I'm sorry if I'm offending you by saying this. But, instead of disputing the very arguments of mine you have been pointing my grammar and misuse of terms.
I'm actually in agreement with you that it is not ethical. But, my only other point is that people around the World have accepted murder in it's sense of it.
I'm really sorry again for all the offensive talk. I dislike getting personal while I'm debating but you were unable to understand what I was saying.
I don't think that murder is ever accecptable because you are sometimes killing someone. Also it says in the Bible in the Ten Commandments thou shall not kill. Murder means killing someone. So I think murder is NEVER acceptable!
Yes, in the ten commandments, it states "thou shall not kill." However, God killed many people. The great flood...for example.
I think murder is acceptable because in case of defense. Im not saying i will enjoy killing another person in defense. I think killing someone in defense is rare. In most cases, i would just separate the criminal a safe distance away from the victim.
I respect your arguement srom1883. Im not implying that i don't.
Yes in the flood God killed many people because Noah told them to stop sinning and they didn't stop sinning and so God trusted Noah and got all the animals into the ark and then He flooded the earth. Also God has still kept his promise for not flooding the whole earth again.
Your comment didn't really dispute mine. I don't mean to be rude. I respect you.
I don't know much about the bible so im going with what you stated.
Did you imply that because the people sinned that it was an excuse for God to kill them? If you didn't imply this, then the rest of this arguement is pointless for you to read. :)
If that is the case then why does the commandment say "thou shall not kill unless they sinned." It says that "thou shall not kill." God, whether or not the victims sinned, has sinned Himself.
The world in Noah's time God saw that there was a lot of violence and full of corruption and God didn't want them to be corrupted or violent. Also this was before the Ten Commandments so God wanted to be put an end to all the corrupution and violence that was going on.
Also this was before the Ten Commandments so God wanted to be put an end to all the corrupution and violence that was going on.
So what if it was before the Ten Commandments? Does it mean that if the Ten Commandments were not 'set in stone' (literally and figuratively), then murder would be acceptable, according to the Bible? That just commits the genetic fallacy of saying the truth of something lies in how it originates.
"The world in Noah's time God saw that there was a lot of violence and full of corruption and God didn't want them to be corrupted or violent"
Can you give me an estimate, accurate to within a reasonale degree of accruacy (say, +/- 100yrs., i.e. a century), of what period in history the world of Noah's time was?
"Also this was before the Ten Commandments so God wanted to be put an end to all the corrupution and violence that was going on."
Yes, it all makes perfect sense, just like when i cover my eyes with my hands the world (and all its contents) ceases to exist;-)
Yes in the flood God killed many people because Noah told them to stop sinning and they didn't stop sinning
What about the mentally retarded and children or all the other animals, did they deserve to die a most horrible death, so God could say oops I think I need to start over, that is, the omniscient god we are talking about, right?
Assuming that God exists( a view that I do not support), how would you know that He would not do so in the future?
I know that He keeps his promises because if you break a promise its a sin so if God broke his promise then God would not be perfect and He would have sinned too.
For that situation though, it's different. We are the creations of God, so surely if He made us, He can unmake us, right? The creator should be allowed to destroy his creations, or at least I think he should. Others might have different opinions of that.
it says in the Bible in the Ten Commandments thou shall not kill
What the bible says is irrelevant on EVERY level. Murder (and its a acceptability in the context of this question) is a moral dilemma. The Bible is not a guide to morality, nor is it acceptable as evidence for any case. To say something is wrong because an ancient text says so is ludicrous.
Completely agree. In my argument, I mentioned how the Bible actually DOES support murder, so let's take the Bible out of the picture and think about the people that would have destroyed our world if we hadn't killed them (for example Hitler.)
True, the Ten Commandments said not to murder, but God also endorsed the Israelites in wars where they killed people that wanted to invade and destroy their way of life. So it seems to be a paradox, until you realize that the Ten Commandments were set in place as a general code of conduct of sorts, and that it refers to murder in cold blood out of avarice or cruelty.
God can "kill" people because he's the one who gives life, so only the "giver of life" has the right to take it back. Therefore, we humans have no right to take some other person's life, no matter what the situation is. So no, murder isn't acceptable.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! An invisible force 'hugged you'?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Either you need to get the fuck back on your meds or stop smoking so much crack XD
This does not in any way prove that God exists! For all we know, you could be under a serious delusion or have an undiagnosed mental disorder which causes you to have the illusion that God is touching you. Furthermore, where is the evidence?
we humans have no right to take some other person's life, no matter what the situation is.
I find statements like this one enraging and it can only be made by an individual that has never experienced a life or death situation. Believe me if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a kill or be killed scenario (and I hope you never are) you will no longer cling this ideology. Instinct will take over and you will do whatever is necessary to preserve your life.
Murder is wrong no matter what. does two wrongs make a right?? Does fire and fire create peace??? NO!!!! Then how can we expect to get justice fairly by taking others lives?? Is killing for revenge, killing for equality really justifiable??? I'll let you be the judge. But... Remember this: What if that were you?? Would you want to die for revenge or equality as said in our Justice System????
