Murder

[Lil Red]

is murder ever justified?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hehe...Zach and I were debating this the other night...

I think you need to define murder first, and very specifically...

[Guest Aluigi]

no MURDER is never justified. you should have made it KILLING, because sometimes killing is justified

murder is not, the commandment is explicit: thou shalt not murder.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 17 2004, 05:57 PM'] no MURDER is never justified. you should have made it KILLING, because sometimes killing is justified

murder is not, the commandment is explicit: thou shalt not murder. [/quote]
I agree.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 17 2004, 05:57 PM'] no MURDER is never justified. you should have made it KILLING, because sometimes killing is justified

murder is not, the commandment is explicit: thou shalt not murder. [/quote]
fine.

[qfnol31]

Murder is a synthetic term for intentionally killing an innocent person. That's an intrinsic evil, so it can never be justified.

[Lil Red]

:shootme: :leave:

[toledo_jesus]

murder is never justified, because murder is the unjust taking of another's life. Killing can be justified in self-defense or in war, though not wars of conquest or genocide. The distinction must be made between murder and killing.

Vengeance killing is never good. It serves our notion of justice, not God's.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Dec 17 2004, 08:20 PM'] :shootme: :leave: [/quote]
dont leave.

come back!!!!!!!

[Dreamweaver]

Yes, murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent's life, and can never be justified. Killing (in self defense, in some cases of war) is justified.

Another interesting debate. If you could go back into time, would it be justifiable to kill Hitler before he came to power and killed nearly all the Jews?

Hopefully the correct answer isn't too hard to figure out. I'd be interested in how non-religious people would answer these questions.

[drewmeister2]

CCC teaching on Murder:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:


If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

I stand with the Church's teaching on this.

[cooltuba]

LilRed,

Don't you just love semantics? Everyone takes your EXACT word and completely misses the point.

I know you meant killing, and I think killing can be justified. The reasons are all stated above.

One thing I'd like to adress here is the death penalty. I remember reading an abundance of posts about Scott Peterson getting the death penalty and how the state is justified in imposing that sentance on people. My message to those people is to read "Humanae Vitae". The Pope says that all life is sacred and in times such as ours we are never justified in killing a criminal because we have the means and ways to keep them seperated from society for the rest of their natural lives. I agree, and on a more personal level, I am against the death penalty because it grants criminals one of the greatest luxuries man can ever hope for: knowing well in advance the day and hour he is to meet his maker. Ex: Timothy McVeigh went to confession with a Catholic priest one hour before he was executed. If he was truly repentant, he's in Heaven right now. How many of us (the non murderous population) have that luxury? Not many. Also, I'd rather see them rotting in prision, miserable for the rest of their lives than have them take the easy way out. It's not even a painful death like their victims suffered. It's the most humane, peaceful way to go. (lethal injection, that is) Well, I've rambled for long enough. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Tim

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:32 AM'] LilRed,

Don't you just love semantics? Everyone takes your EXACT word and completely misses the point.

[/quote]
yeah, that's what this was about

:shootme: :leave:

[cmotherofpirl]

Red re -do your poll and I can delete this one.

[Phatmasser777]

From what I was taught at school (Aus, might have a different tense in the US and elsewhere). Murder cannot be justified, since murder installs a tense of innocence on the victim. Killing can be justified, quite easily.

[Socrates]

MURDER is wrongful or unlawful killing.

By its definition, it cannot be justified.

(What's the point of this poll?)

[toledo_jesus]

yeah, murder is the word that I was looking at. not killing.

[Guest Aluigi]

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Part III: The Fifth Commandment Thou Shall Not Kill

"Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to civil authorities, to whom is entrusted the power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishment inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence the words of David 'In the morning I put to death all the wicked in the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.'"

Vatican II [list]
[*]“The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent [remain] intact...” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 37).
[*]“Therefore, the following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, p. 678).
[/list]John Paul II [list]
[*] The doctrines of the council of Trent "maintain all their value"
[/list] “it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” -Pope Pius XII

“[civil authority] can pass sentence requiring the shedding of blood without mortal sin as long as it proceed to exact the penalty not from hatred, but after judicial process; not rashly, but according to the law.” Pope Innocent III

[b]"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and [i]applying [/i]the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/b]

Considering the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, we know that all who commit murder FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN LIFE. Pope John Paul II is awesome and he is right in calling upon nations to consider mercy when they can by non-lethal means keep a murderer under control. But if they do not, the execution is still ALWAYS JUSTFIED because that person has forfeited the right to his own life.

Edited December 18, 2004 by Aluigi

[qfnol31]

Actually, it's not always justified because if the state is getting vengence, then the object of the interior act of the will does not align with the object of the exterior act of the will.

[Guest Aluigi]

the execution of a murderer is just. the state can sin by not considering mercy or by doing it out of vengence, but the actual execution once it happens is just because the person deserved it. the state is not guilty of murder, the state is guilty of not being merciful, the state is guilty of being vengeful (sp?) but if the person is guilty of murder, his life is justly taken away. he did not deserve to stay alive because his life caused the death of another. the death is just, the death is good, the death cannot be considered murder (so long as the person is guilty of a grave crime.)