The Necessity of Committing the Act of Murder

Sometimes, murder can be necessary. Don't you think? Yes, it's certainly something we must consider.

 

Are you asking whether or not you should utilize the frontier justice function of the game or if people should agree not to use it, or what?

 

Just making conversation. Have you thought about the act of murder lately? I think about it all the time. More cabbage stew?

 

I have considered the necessity of murder.

 

Yes I have. I discuss ethics and morality every day and often the 3 basic unethical acts come up: Theft, Rape, Murder.

What definition do you use for the word murder? This is critical for getting anywhere on this topic. My definition is "killing intentionally, with premeditation, and not in self-defense."

Based on my definition, I have not thought of a way to say that murder is ever justified. Ending someones life may be justified. Unintentionally ending someones life may be excused. Intentionally murdering someone, can not be excused. Killing and murder are not equivalent. Self defense killing and murder are not equivalent.

Are you familiar with the nonaggression principle (NAP)? It is a concept that initiating violence is invalid and immoral. This concept is the core principle for my system of ethics and philosophy.

If someone is running at you with a knife poised to stab you, I believe you are justified in shooting that person in whatever the safest way required to protect yourself. If he is sufficiently far away for you to safely yell out, "STOP RUNNING AT ME WITH THAT KNIFE OR I WILL SHOOT YOU," and he keeps running with demonstrated intent, then you are justified. If you are not sufficiently far away to warn, then protecting yourself using violence against the initiator, is justified. The person running at you initiated the violence. You are responding to it. This does not mean an unreasonable response of force is justified. If someone tosses a napkin at you, and you are aware it is a napkin, and you respond by shooting him in the head, then you are a murderer - unless you are mentally ill - which is basically the only kind of person who would claim this was an ethical violent response.

I can go into a lot of detail on this. My basic argument is that if the words morals and ethics are to have any value, then they must derive from an indisputable first principle. I believe that first principle is the NAP. Entire systems of ethics can be built on it, and entire systems of ethics are invalidated by it because they violate it.

I've yet to hear a logically consistent argument that justifies the initiation of violence. I've heard many, many scenarios that attempt to skirt around it, such as the most insane lifeboat scenarios possible (islands infested with zombies), and people running into traffic, and suicide attempts, and so on, but I'm prepared and experience with arguing probably all of them. Maybe someone will come up with an actual new one that isn't just a version of another one - that would be interesting.

In my experience, the people who are concerned with their desired behavior being unavoidably exposed as immoral will start diving into anything whatsoever to invalidate the NAP. Such as, moral relativism, determinism, collectivism, even objectivism, and so forth.

I'm also willing to go into detail about an attempt at making an objective argument to validate the NAP, if this conversation goes that far.

Here is how far I take the NAP. The moment you violate the NAP, you know you need to be doing something different. No matter what institution or organization you are supporting or utilizing, violating the NAP means you are being unethical. There is no point after deriving a philosophy from this first principle that you can start violating the NAP. And I will argue that any system that violates it, is logically and ethically inconsistent.

 

Ledskof, thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. It sounds like you've talked about this a lot already, and I'm sure you've already been asked things like this, so don't feel obliged to answer if it bores you, but here's the questions that occur to me:
1. What about killing in the defense of others?
2. What about dealing with threat that is real, but not immediate? For instance, if you receive a credible death threat. Could killing in response to that be justified?
3. What about what one could loosely call "political" killing - what if someone has mistaken, harmful beliefs based on incorrect logic that they refuse to reconsider, and they try to push them on others? Could it ever be justified to kill someone who you think is making the world a worse place?
4. What about in a situation where you are immediately dependent on others for survival - for instance, suppose hypothetically you are a member of a small, isolated, close-knit community, who must all contribute and rely on each other for everyone to be fed. Then suppose some idiotic commoner is spending their time and effort planting some goddamn WEIRD CACTUS PLANTS or something, when they are supposed to be planting CABBAGES, cabbages that the community DESPERATELY NEEDS. Now someone else is going to have to come along and dig those up!

Alephred, that is a beautiful screenshot. Tales from the Colonies: Kate Steelthompton, the Unutterable Widowmaker.

 

I deeply appreciate your expression of concern about how I would feel having this conversation. You are showing a level of empathy and awareness that I greatly respect. I don't run into a lot of people who have a lot of concept of such a thing going into a conversation.

It doesn't bore me. The more I discuss these things the more opportunity I have to correct my mistakes and grow.

1) By saying, "in the defense of others," you've already defined this scenario within the guidelines of the NAP. If someone is being defended, then someone else already initiated violence. So you are acting as a 3rd party in their defense.

2) A death threat is the initiation of violence. If a person says, "I'm going to kill you," then they are initiating violence.

3) This would have to be a very specific scenario, otherwise I'm just going to come up with a scenario. I can't think of one that breaks the NAP so it will sound like I'm just coming up with one that supports my position. Did you have something specific in mind? To try and go a little deeper into it with what you've provided: what does "world worse place" ? Does it mean, increasing the suffering of people? Does it mean murdering people? Does it mean hurting the environment? Unless violence is being initiated against people or being premeditated against people, then I don't see the justification. If a person is acting innocently but their innocent action is threatening peoples lives, then they still initiated violence. It might not be preferable or the best option to kill them, but it may be an ethical option, as sad as it makes me to think of such a thing.

4) "small, isolated, close-knit community, who must all contribute and rely on each other for everyone to be fed." Did the people agree to this? If they have a contract then the consequences should be outlined in the contract. If he is wittingly doing something that hurts the community he volunteered to participate in, then the community can ethically take action. I think ejecting him from society would be the action though, not killing. If he unwittingly took harmful action and the community couldn't possibly survive without exiling him, then they can still do that ethically.

Something about this concept of collective justice is that it has a habit of taking on a life of its own. When you have a contract, the contract can't just change unless you agreed to allow it to change. But if there is no clear agreements in place, then the concept of what is "good for the community," can expand into all kinds of dangerous territory that is used to justify punishment against individuals. Collectivism is an ideology, and like every ideology, it doesn't require ethics and logic to validate its conclusions and effects.

 

"The Necessity of Committing the Act of Murder" to make the Elder Gods happy and bring about their return. Thats how I always took it.

Or maybe, "That cabbage eating overseer keeps pulling up my claw bulbs. Maybe next fish person raid he has a little accident."

Cultists will destroy the town and try to bring about the end of the world as we know it so I would say that is it is okay to kill cultists. Just do it in the woods so the squeamish don't get too bothered.

Maybe have a special out in the woods grave site as well. "Murdery McCulterson had to take a walk up to the woods. Go ahead and eat his cooked steak. He won't be coming back."