Prompt: We all agree that murdering people is morally wrong under usual circumstances (i.e. not self-defense, not wartime killing, etc). But one central question in ethics is “why” – what makes it wrong?
The shortest, most concise way I can put it:
*(Assuming GOOD and BAD exist in the world)
1. Causing BAD outcomes is WRONG
2. A persons death is a BAD outcome
3. Causing a person’s death is WRONG
Actions that cause poor outcomes are wrong. A person’s death, is a bad outcome. Therefore, causing a person’s death is wrong. I discovered this logic on my own, but I am sure a Google search would reveal I wasn’t the first to come up with something like that.
A few counterpoints and a brief discussion follow:
One possible counterpoint could be: the death of a person is not inherently bad. If you look at the statement, “death is bad” you might find some examples of when a death actually ends up benefitting the involved parties, individuals, or the world as a whole. For example, the death (or demise) of a morally bad person who has caused or will cause harm to others, isn’t the same as the death of an innocent bystander. Nobody mourned Hitler’s death in WWII, and Americans didn’t lose a night of sleep over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in 2011.
While the previous counterpoint distorts the clarity of the argument that death is universally a bad outcome, it highlights the fact that the answer is not so straightforward. What does it take to determine a death is justified due to the actions of the person who has been killed?
Another added wrinkle to the problem, perception and truth. Who really deserves to die and who determines what is right and wrong on the plane of international diplomacy? More recently, laws regarding drugs, marriage, the internet, and other fields have approached uncharted territory: technology has surpassed the law and we are now playing catch up.
One other thought:
From any input, whether it be accidental, intentional, human-caused or completely by chance, death is a bad outcome. If the bad outcome is accidental, by the chance of nature, then nobody impacted negatively can seek remedy. But, when another human is at fault the individuals impacted negatively have a way to seek a remedy. Does the proliferation if the litigious US legal system coincide with the physical constraint to assign fault?
Unanswered Questions:
Is anything that impacts other people negatively wrong? What about when a whole lot of people are impacted by an action in different ways (i.e. legislation, court rulings, business, science)? If right and wrong cannot be determined then how can ethical scenarios be classified as right or wrong?
Kyle Huber 