Moderation and murder. Possible?

I'd hafta say if one takes "Murder" in the commonly accepted sense of wrongfully causin' the death of another, by definition it would not be a "moderate" behavior. "Killing", on the other hand, would be subject to a spectrum of permutations along the line of inquiry you've opened here.

Is that so. I need to think about that further. Is killing ever moderate?

TF

Well, can we all agree that Ted Bundy was not a moderate murderer?

Euthanasia? Can that be considered a "moderate" killing? Or where, in war, a wounded person knows they'll be tortured to death if captured and persuades a comrade to dispatch them. Could that be "moderate"?

Killing, in any case, would be extreme whether or not you're doing it to ease someone's pain or to prevent future suffering.

You could say that going into a war with the intention of keeping civilian casualties to a low and actually succeeding is "moderation," but then who's to say how much a life is worth or where to draw the line?

Re: Moderation and murder. Possible?
TTF

I think we must look for moderation in the action itself. Murder is never moderate, even if you are completely calm when killing someone. I don't think Epicurus or Aristotle would include murder in their concepts of virtue.Except perhaps in the case of an executioner- if you accept death penalty- who is doing nothing but a job. But then, a professional killer does the same ...
Moderation has to do with the actions we choose to do. Killing may be justified, but is never moderate.
Epicurus considered pleasure as the basis of all moral. But pleasure, to him, was absence of pain, including here hunger, thirst, cold. Moderation means to eat until the unpleasant sensation of hunger disappears. The same with thirst or cold. If you continue to eat when you have satiate your hunger, then you are not moderate.
Murder has nothing to do with those natural pleasures. It means violence against someone. And violence is always excessive, even against yourself. Remember that Epicurus died in extreme physical pain, but never had the idea of suicide.

val



Moderation is an evaluation so it's not ?'in' the act, anymore then good or bad reside ?'in' the act.

Because death is at the extreme end of life, murder and killing are also. So it's akin to asking, Is the blackest black we can find a moderate color? In other words, in order for action A to be deemed ?'moderate' there has to be a more extreme solution or choice of action that renders A a moderate act, as a comparative relation.


E.g. Is euthanasia moderate or is it ?'always' an extreme solution?


Since moderation is an evaluation, a judgement call and there is no ?'right' answer, though that's not to say we couldn't get a consensus.




Depends how violence is defined. Opened heart surgery is violent. So is yelling at someone. Violence is not always excessive. Again, it's a determination.

I am very much enjoying this conversation. I often hear people belief that everything can be in moderation. I do not think this is the case.

Certain acts - by thier nature seem immoderate in any context.

TTF

twyvel

When I mentioned moderation in the action, I was thinking about Epicurus definition of natural pleasures. Eating when you are hungry is a natural pleasure. Eating when you are not hungry is not.

About violence I think you are right. In fact, Aristotle also gave the example of medical actions.
Perhaps the problem is not the definition of moderation, but the moral evaluation we make of moderation itself. I mean, sometimes moderation can be, morally, a bad choice.

Val - I am not sure.

If you walked up and slapped my son in the face - I would probably blast you in the grill. I am not sure as though that is immoderate.

Punching you in the face might seem immoderate - but I think the reaction could be argued to be moderation in the afformentioned case.

Thoughts?

TTF

ttf

In a juridical point of view, moderation could be defined as adequation. Your reaction of punching my nose, in the example you gave, is in proportion to my offensive action. Taking a knife and cutting my throat would be an excessive reaction.
I think in those cases we define the reaction according to the well known principle of the "bonus pater familias". The ideal "normal man" - not far from Aristotle's concept of moderation.

So - I was agreeing with you and not knowing it.

I have a tendacy to do that.

Thanks for the patience and clarification.

TTF

If someone's miles aways from death then yes, it's extreme. If someone's got cancer, dying in 2-3 days and barely concious/sentient then moving them those few inches would be moderate if not minor.

In this case WG would this not be considered something other than murder?

Or is euthenasia just murder in sheeps clothing?

TTF

According to dictionary.com murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". Thus depending on the legal status of the country in which it is performed it may or may not be murder.

occassionally 'murder' is used by an individual with high motives to 'moderate' society; eliminating another who is perceived to be the cause of much harm and unhappiness.
this act is not immune from the laws which we make to keep us all from such harm, but displays the executioners willingness to discard his own rights for the general welfare.

[is this a 'moderate' position?]

Some believe that Jack the Ripper acted on such impulses.

Nice observation WG.

I think that virtue ethics are abandoned because of the lack a clear answer. But Aristotle and his ilk never said it would be easy.

TTF

Would it be moderation if you were walking down the streets of germany and you just so happen to be carrying a pistol when you spot hitler(and you are aware of the attrocities he is committing in war and on mankind) would it be justified to kill this man. If you said it was for the greater good of man. I think youd still get arrested but youd be thanked in prison. Whereas if an american soldier had done this he might have come home a war hero