What would you do in this murder case?

So what's your first order utility then?

Because I don't see any way of setting up a utilitarian system of ethics (as you have) and also not valuing life in itself, but only for its consequences (as you do).

If there is no inherant value to life, than how can you assign value to things in life? If there's no reason I couldn't kill you, if we were both totally absent from society, how can it be wrong for me to kill your uncle?

So again, what is your first order utility and how does it have any value without life itself?

Life does have an inherent value, and every human being is infinitely valuable from the moment they're born. But why should this inherent value be unconditional, and eternal? If a person chooses to kill other human beings, to willfully take away such tremendous value from the world forever, then they no longer deserve to live. This is why it's appropriate to kill in self-defense. If someone with an intent to murder had a right to life, then it would be a criminal offense to kill in self-defense, or at the very least a felony akin to hitting someone while driving drunk. The understanding is that by attacking you, they are forfeiting their protection from attack.

However, once they are caught and detained and the threat neutralized, it's not just a question about whether they deserve to live or not. It becomes broader, a question of what everyone else in society deserves. The murderer's loved ones deserve not to be subjected to avoidable grief, and taxpayers deserve not to have blood on their hands, and children deserve to be raised in a society that values mercy over justice. And if he/she's going to be sentenced to labor, then society deserves to gain some value from the person that took away so much value, even if the debt could never be repayed in full.

edited 19th Feb '11 9:17:28 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

And again, you do not need to devalue the murderer's life to justify killing in self-defense. (My argument for self-defense without devaluing the murderer's life was made about half a page ago, in fact.)

In fact, it kind of turns into a one-sided argument if you do that, and no argument is ever truly one-sided. In fact, you would say that someone who refused to kill anyone, even in self-defense, is especially moral, yes? So therefore a murderer's life must still have value, if it's moral to spare it.

I would actually not believe that someone who refused to kill in self-defense was more moral than one who would make that allowance. In fact, it seems akin to suicide to let someone murder you without fighting back (this is assuming fleeing is not a viable option). And in many cases suicide is a rather selfish act, since you're abandoning your responsibilities and leaving your dependants in the lurch.

Edit: About your argument on justifying killing in self-defense: you said that it's no more wrong to kill the murderer than it is to let yourself be killed, and obviously given that choice anyone would choose the scenario in which they live. But what about a situation where an assailant attacks you, you fight back, and they then kill you? They could also argue that this was a situation where one of you was going to die for sure, and they obviously chose the option where they would live. That certainly wouldn't fly in court, and nor should it. The fact is that they started the fight, and yes, that matters. Because they were the first aggressor, they're more at fault, and thus have fewer rights. If you had killed in self-defense, you would have gotten off without a sentence. If they had killed you in self-defense against your self-defense, they're getting jail time.

edited 19th Feb '11 9:32:27 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

Suppose fleeing is a viable option, then. It doesn't change the conclusion.

Yes it does. If fleeing was a viable option, they would be moral to choose that over killing. But if it wasn't, I don't consider it particularly noble to let yourself die and let a murderer live.

"@kash: Actually, she was probably only too weak to fight back near the end of her life. Why is the concept of psychological abuse so hard for you to wrap your mind around?"

Frankly, I'm not too interested in what you think is probable or not. The facts of the case is that she was a young, undernourished teenager when she died abused by her much larger mother. Fighting back, assuming she hadn't tried, would have likely brought on more severe punishment. The husband, on the other hand, as Morven pointed out, was not brought up by the woman and had experienced enough of life to know to expect and perform better.

"Of course. However, I think it would be safe to start with the assumption that, since he was manifestly incompetent (at the very least) in protecting one child in his care, he's likely to be unable to protect his children in general. If you allowed one child you were legally the guardian of to be slowly and cruelly killed in your home with your complete knowledge, that says you are unlikely to be a good parent."

This, absolutely this.

edited 19th Feb '11 10:19:46 PM by kashchei

Wait, aren't there some laws in place to punish people who don't try to stop a crime when it's taking place? I assume it must be very difficult to stop a mugging, but the law still seems to expect you to do it. I don't know if that's the right attitude to have, but the husband will probably be tried, won't he?

The article does say the husband is being charged - negligent homicide, I think it was.

I actually remember an episode of "Disorder in the Court" in which the judge, after sentencing the husband for abusing his children, then turned to the wife and practically scolded her, even calling her "Despicable" for allowing such a thing to continue. After that case, the judge retired so he could spend more time with his own family.

It depends on the individual case, of course, but I would be suspicious of any parent who sat there and let their kids be abused. The kids are financially and emotionally dependent on their parents. They haven't known anything else - there's a good chance they believe this is the way life works. The spouse? They certainly know better. If they're not financially dependent, they can grab the kids and run. If they are, they could call the police. This case might be special, with the mom being such a control freak that she forbids having cell phones and monitors the home phone, etc. but in most such cases I would be pretty miffed at the spouse that was essentially enabling the abuse. If it turns out that this guy wasn't being abused himself, and had access to a phone line, and didn't call 911, then he has aided and abetted murder.

Yes it does. If fleeing was a viable option, they would be moral to choose that over killing. But if it wasn't, I don't consider it particularly noble to let yourself die and let a murderer live.

Well, yes, exactly. It doesn't change my conclusion.

Since it's more moral to run than to kill the attacker, the attacker's life must have value even while he's attacking you.

EDIT: Also, I dunno about child abuse, but the law definitely doesn't require you to stop a mugging.

It doesn't even require you to stop for a car accident. If you're not involved you have no legal obligation whatsoever.

edited 20th Feb '11 9:18:56 AM by BlackHumor

Or you're calling it more moral because the fundamental nature of humans balks at using violence directly. That's a gut reaction, it's not morality. Instinctual aversion to killing doesn't equal morality. In that situation, you don't know enough to make an informed moral judgment. Killing your attacker if he has obviously showed means and intention to kill you is not immoral. You're justified to use whatever means are at your disposal to ensure your own survival. If you think you can do so without retaliating, that's great, but if not... then not.

The fundamental nature of humans does not balk at using violence.

Hunter-gatherer tribes kill animals (obviously) all the time and war with each other often. There's nothing in the human psyche itself that says "don't kill people". (Perhaps "don't kill people unless you have a good reason", but I would think someone attacking you would be better reason than "you guys have really nice hunting grounds over there".)

Yes, there is. People have an aversion to directly killing others even if they know it to be the correct decision. I don't remember the name of the thought experiment, but it goes like this.

An out of control trolley is racing down the tracks and will crash into five men, killing them all. However, you are in a position where you can flip a switch and have the trolley go to an alternate track and only kill one person. No other method of intervention is possible. What do you do? Almost everyone says they flip the switch. 5 > 1.

Now, an out of control trolley is racing down the tracks and will crash into five men, killing them all. There is no alternate track. However, there is a guy standing next to you that you can push into the tracks and save all the men, because you know that the man next to you is big enough to do that somehow. No other method of intervention is possible. Do you push the man? Almost everyone says no. Yet at the core it's still 5 > 1, only you have to directly, personally kill someone. Moral aversion says not do it even when it's basically the same situation in the end.

Also, I don't really care what you personally would do, I'm merely illustrating the point.

edited 20th Feb '11 9:57:55 AM by Arha

I've heard of that thought experiment before, but I doubt that's because it's actually moral to kill the one guy and everyone is too squeamish to do it.

I think rather that the moral decision to kill one person on the track or five people on the track is symmetrical, and therefore easy; once it's one man murdered vs. five people allowed to die it gets more complicated, and most people go for the status quo of "do nothing".

No, there's no difference except that in the latter case you have to actively kill the person. In the first case, you kill the lone guy just as surely as if you'd pushed him in front of the tracks.

But anyway, the point is the gut instinct people have of directly killing someone. It seems wrong, but give it a little distance and it ceases to matter.

I think it does make a moral difference.

Sure, they're both just as dead, but the fat man wasn't on the tracks, and so didn't expect to be killed.

It's kind of the difference between shooting a guy in a war and shooting a guy back home. Sure, they're both bad; but the guy in the war took some of the risk himself, so he's partially responsible for it and it's less evil to shoot him.

I don't mean to poke fun, but it's kind of funny how much your arguments resemble the ones I've heard before in relation to this. In any case, the guy on the other track didn't expect to have this happen either. He's not involved either. You made him get involved.

By the way, this is the position I expected you to take based on the earlier argument we had due to this.

edited 20th Feb '11 11:01:05 AM by Arha

He's standing on the track when a train comes. He's plenty involved.

How so? I don't see why he's got anything to do with a trolley going down the tracks. Maybe he's just a guy having a smoke after working in the office all day. You're trying to change the conditions here to get the result that agrees with your gut. Your instinctive reactions do not equal morality. The moral decision would be to do the same thing in both situations, whether one person dies or five.

Why do you assume that your instincts are wrong?

I don't see any reason to discard instinct here. In fact, I take it as a signal that a moral theory is wrong if it goes against most people's instincts.

Because relying on your gut to do your thinking isn't a valid response when as illustrated there is no problem with killing the man so long as you don't have to do it yourself with your own hands.

More elaboration on that:

A system of morality that entirely conflicts with normal human morality is clearly not what we mean by morality, no matter how "logical" it is. There's no logical reason to assume there's such a thing as morality in the first place, for one, and even if so there seems to be no logical system of morality that does not lead to at least "abhorrant conclusion". For utilitarianism, it's the whole "torture one man to amuse thousands" paradox; for most forms of religion, it's that the God as described in the holy book is not perfectly moral itself, and it goes on.

So therefore what we want in a system of morality is not a way of figuring out what is moral from scratch; we already, for the most part, know what is moral. What we want in a definition of moral is akin to what we want in a definition of blue or a definition of living; we already have some things we know are moral/blue/living, and some things that are definitely not moral/blue/living, and all we need is a way of determining which of the things that seem to be on the line are moral and which are not.

Therefore a morality that says something 90% of humans agree is immoral is actually moral is no more use to us than a definition of blue that says my hair is blue, or a definition of alive that says rocks are alive.

You're evading the point when at the root of it all you're arguing in this case that morality is something that makes you feel better. Also, we don't know what morality is. There is no one true morality no more than there is one true definition of justice. For example, revenge would feel good and by one definition of justice is the right thing to do. But you're still getting revenge, and revenge isn't moral.

You can't simply rely on your gut to tell you what the right thing to do is. It may be able to help you, but that's all.

Also, since morality is a human invention by definition morality is what the majority calls it, but let's not go off on that tangent. Please.

edited 20th Feb '11 12:55:29 PM by Arha