xingu wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote:Is there a difference between murder and evil?
Is murder evil?
The answer to both is yes.
Murder and evil are not synonyms. One is a subset of the other.
All murder is evil, but not everything evil is murder.
But killing and murder are evil. So what's the difference if they are both equally evil. They both are killing innocent people and both are evil. Putting the label murder doesn't make it any worse.
Not all killing is evil.
Killing for self defense would be one example.
But we weren't talking about self defense. We were talking about a government killing people. We're talking about killing innocent people. You say that's not murder but it's evil. You say murder is evil. So if they're both evil what does the label murder have to do with it.
Innocent people have been found on death row. If not by chance or luck they could have been executed. If they were would that be evil? If so then shouldn't the death penalty be abolished since we have seen that our system of determining guilt is imperfect.
If we continue to support the death penalty, knowing that some innocent people will be executed, then does that make the state and the criminal justice system a party to evil?
We had been talking about murder. Eorl then brought up capital punishment, equating it with murder. I mentioned that CP does not fit the definition of murder which is 'unlawful killing'.
You then broadened 'murder' to 'killing' and said all killing is evil, but it's not. Self defense is one example of killing which is not evil.
If you want to go back to the topic of CP , that's fine. CP is not murder, and it's not the killing of the 'innocent' either.
It's the killing of someone, who after due process, the right to defend and multiple appeals, have been found guilty under the law.
If they have been found legally guilty, then by definition CP does not kill the legally innocent.
Now, do some people who did not commit a crime get convicted in court? Yes they do.
But that is not generally due to evil jurors who want to kill them, as you seem to suppose.
Do I believe that CP needs to have as many safeguards as possible to avoid executing those who didn't commit the crime? Of course, don't be ridiculous.
I also believe that NON-capital cases ought to have the same safeguards to avoid sending a person who didn't commit a crime to jail for 1 year or 10 years or 75 years. Naturally.
But we don't close the jails because some have been incarcerated by mistake.
And we don't end capital punishment because mistakes have been made either.
Should all policemen be fired because some officers make mistakes, or even do bad things on purpose? No.
Should all judges and prosecutors be fired because some are incompetent or so ambitious that they are willing to put the innocent behind bars? No.
We must have a system of criminal justice, and, imperfect as it is, we have one and CP is a part of it.
Your statement that punishment (such as CP) should be abolished because we have an imperfect method of determining guilt is simply ridiculous.
More people are in jail because they have been taught there is no right and wrong than people in jail due to bad prosecutors or cops, I'm sure.
Ask most folks in jail and they'll tell you they had a very good reason for doing what they did and it wasn't 'wrong' to them.
So, ask yourself what effect the philosophy of moral relativism has on putting people behind bars and on death row.
