Last week in class, our discussion focused on morality. As strange as it was, for the better part of the class, it appeared as if we students were pretty much in agreement as to what we deemed moral within a certain assigned reading. However, someone made a very important point in noting that when a country decides that it has an enemy, it is deemed moral for that country to kill citizens of the enemy nation in order to protect itself. A very common sense approach, yet one that is and was clearly overlooked during the main conversation. This person’s observation was one that began a train of thought for me that I have been going over and over in my head ever since.
In the Bible, God sends three angels to Abraham and tells him he is going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if at least 10 righteous people cannot be found (Bible Gateway). This story immediately came to my mind because it justifies the destruction of what God deemed to be immoral people. Wow… With this in mind, I had to look up the common definition of morality.
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines morality as:
a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct: virtue
With this in mind, why is it ok to kill some and not others? What defines what is good? What gives someone the right to take the life of another?
Although I ask these questions, I can only provide answers that I think are right and fair. I, like many of you who may read this particular blog submission, was taught to believe that if you have an enemy and they try to kill or maim you, you have a right to kill or maim them first. Does this make your defense right? Maybe. There are thousands of people who occupy jail cells because they attempted to defend themselves against someone who tried to hurt them first. At the same time, there are others who live freely because they defended themselves against someone attempting to do harm to them. In today’s world, there are so many different circumstances in which people can claim self-defense and still get away with outright murderous acts. However, the bottom line is while we live in a society in which it is immoral to commit murder, we still have a flexible moral code which allows for murder. What is even more interesting is that we appear to have a Biblical basis in which to back it up.
Morality and Politics 
While this is an awesome post, I feel that there are many “grey areas” here. You talk about what is morally right and wrong, then make an analogy that it is comparable to murder or self defense killings. The moral issue here is only morally obligatory to the person committing the act. Murder to them may not be immoral at all, so therefore it is not a moral miscue made but rather a different sense of morality. The same can be said about the self defense killings as well. Since you referred to the bible, I will also refer to that text, seeing as most people set their moral compass to it’s teachings. The commandments are often translated wrong and it ends up being told, “thou shall not kill”, which in reality the Hebrew translation is “thou shall not murder”. So in the eyes of “The Lord”, self defense killings are morally justified. But what if you don’t believe in god? What if your moral compass is completely different? Here lies the grey area I spoke about earlier; there is no universal morality, even within the bible itself. Everything in life is situational, and it’s those situations that test our moral fortitude and allow us to decide what WE feel is right. In essence, that is how individual morality is assembled and reinforced.
Thank you so much for identifying the fact that morality contains “many grey areas!” I believe that is what I was trying to say, but couldn’t quite put it into the correct words. Your comment regarding the situational portion of life is dead on I believe because we do not know when or if we will ever be put into a situation where we may have to actually carry through the act of killing someone whether justified or not. Additionally, thank you also for identifying that we still live in a society where many people do set their moral compasses to the Bible, which is why I used it for my composition. Regardless of our religious beliefs, it never fails to amaze me how many people use various religious-based texts (Quran, Talmud, etc.) in defining their beliefs whether they realize it or not. While I do not think that this is a bad thing, it only enhances in my opinion the fact that our morals come from somewhere and that overall we all seek to define and use them as best we know how.
Great post!! I agree with codemann4 in the sense that when it comes to morality, there is no black and white. I will admit that I myself is conflicted with the questions you asked. If I was a mother, and someone wanted to inflict harm onto my child and I caught that person hurting my baby, I feel that I would go to any extent to protect him/her. Protecting yourself or your loved ones from someone trying to hurt you or kill you, I think it is morally okay. I feel that this person made a choice that if you are willing to take the life of someone, you put your own life at risk as well. However, when it comes to the death penalty, I strongly disagree with it. I think of Gandhi of when he says, “an eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Why do we murder murderers to show that murdering is wrong? We don’t rape rapists to show that raping is wrong? I feel like a hypocrite for feeling this way but I am being completely honest that this is how I see it. I do feel however, that capital punishment has many other variables that play a huge factor for me as to why I don’t support it and killing in self defense is something that I do feel that is okay. But then I think of the Jodi Arias case. She claims she murdered her boyfriend in self defense. Some part of me believes her. He must have treated her so bad or did something to drive her insanely mad to make her murder him. But the other part of me is just horrified on how she did it. She butchered the man and she planned his murder. I think it goes back to what someone brought up in class is the persons initial intention. Their second agenda. I feel that when it comes to a case of murder and morality, its a whole lot of grey and not enough black and white. Depending on all of the variables and how they played out and the intentions in place will indicate if the murder was/is justified or not. It is nor will it ever be one of those questions that has a direct answer.
Morals perception do precipitate a LOT of questions, don’t they? I agree wholeheartedly that there is no direct yes or no answer when it comes to morals and our understanding of them. Some argue that we are born with a sense of right and wrong and while I would have agreed with that a week ago, I do not today. That one question posed in class has truly made me rethink the whole process of our understanding of morals. When we are taught as children not to lie, we later hear that sometimes we tell “little white lies” for a variety of reasons ranging from hurting others feelings to lying about something insignificant. Such thinking allows one to believe that this particular moral is flexible, but this is not something we are initially taught–again, another grey area. Being as complicated as we humans are, murdering someone is an area which questions so many components of our moral convictions and sometimes, as several comments have pointed out, there is no room for rigidity.
Interesting post, and the fact that you draw back to the Bible will always bring the discussion to life. We as a society have established laws around the Bible and its beliefs, but I want to draw that out further. This country was founded by Christianity and many in the U.S. base their beliefs, as well as, acting in accordance to what the Bible does and does not allow. Why do we as a society ask for justifications for everything? Is it the Bible’s sayings and principles or do we not allow any mistakes by our leaders? Why are they not allowed to have a hiccup?
I would like to draw back to the question that was brought up in class, are the any moral politicians? In class, we made the claim that a utilitarian politician always has a justification for why they make the decisions they do. According to the class, an idealist politician claims that they would have an excuse for why they act a certain way. Many in the United States do not like politicians and in class I seen a lot of heads shaking, no. In my opinion, I can not say if a politician is a morally bad person. The reason being, they make and are faced with tough decisions everyday that most do not want to decide on. Codemann4 states, “life is situational, and it’s those situations that test our moral fortitude and allow us to decide what WE feel is right.” Are politicians morally bad because they will make decisions based off what they feel is right? Although we may disagree with them, does that mean they are a bad person? Then, I draw back to the post to answer that question when they discussed how society allows murder and uses the Bible to back it up. Does the Bible create and call for people to consistently ask for justifications? I believe it does have great influence and we claim that politicians are bad because we disagree with a decision they make. Society calls for justifications and do not allow an idealist politician, that the class strives for. Instead of claiming all politicians are bad, we must take a look at ourselves, attempt to “walk a mile in their shoes”. We need to ask questions and challenge ourselves to answer certain questions because we as a society create the monsters we condemn.
I couldn’t agree more! From a societal aspect, I am convinced that you are absolutely correct in your belief that “we as a society create the monsters we condemn.” I honestly believe that because we are imperfect as human beings, it is very hard to judge with the righteous indignation we all wish we had. Politicians sometimes have a difficult job and like the rest of us, they are completely imperfect. As you say, they make decisions that I personally wouldn’t wish on any one person. However, this is the life they choose and while I do not expect politicians to be perfect, I do expect for them to do their best and to operate as honestly as they can although I know that total honest is not only impossible, but completely irrational as well.
When you referred to the statement made in class and called it a common sense approach, I couldn’t help but disagree. I think such a mindset would be the product of a bad environment or one that is very prone to violence. But I suppose depending on where you go or who you are surrounded by there may be a different sense of morality. As far as your question as to why it is okay to kill some and not others, I think it depends on the situation one would find themself in. Like the above comment said, everything in life is situational. I also agree that there is no universal morality. I do agree though that we have a flexible moral code that allows for murder. But this is only because , as I believe, basic human instinct tells us to protect ourselves when threatened.
I understand your point, however, I do not believe that the referenced mindset would be the product of a bad environment or one that is prone to violence. It is, like you state, dependent on one’s sense of morality. Additionally, I strongly agree with the previous comment that everything in life is situational, which however allows for the flexible moral code that you speak of.
I agree that there are a lot of grey areas for us to find within class. I think that when presented with a specific set of circumstance we can all sit there and say, if I was present with this situation I would do x,y, and z. I think that we as humans have many factors that effect our personal “morality”. Religion, culture and familial status all play into what one may do. Persons who come from broken homes who watched their mother get beaten, may repeat the cycle or may end it. I think that all of us sitting in a classroom pondering but are not presenting us with the real life situations that would actually test or said morality. It I am presented with the choose of taking a man’s life or have a horrible life altering attack happen to me, although murder is “immoral” I would take a man’s life to protect my own. I firmly believe that unless with have been place in certain positions or have personally had to face these moral challenges we do not understand the thought process that go into making one.
I think that we are consistently presented with the what-if’s and like voiceofmorality said. ” walk a mile in their shoes”. Who are we to judge?
As you note, we are all very good at “Monday morning quarterbacking”, aren’t we? As hard as we try, we cannot specifically determine what we would do in a situation where it is fight or flight. Although we hate to admit it, we are judgmental and hypocritical beings who until we have “walk[ed] a mile in their shoes” will condemn anyone who is different or possess different views than us. As a previous comment indicates, we have a tendency to want a justification for everything. However, sometimes we have to realize that while we may not like what the justification is, we have to understand that not everything is black and white and that some questions cannot be answered in a short, concise manner. If you think about it, variety is the nature of who we are.
Murder is defined as “the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.” (The People’s Law Dictionary). Obviously, even in legal terms there are degrees assigned to killing, and they absolutely cannot be lumped together as one, and all called “murder” such as your example of self-defense. We would like to make it clean and simple and wrap it up in a pretty bow and say that anytime a human life is taken it is murder, but it’s just not that simple, not legally, much less morally. “Intent, malice [and] aforethought” are the key words here, planning a “murder” or planning a robbery in which someone is killed is “intent, malice [and] aforethought”, which cannot be lumped together with the father or husband who shoots an intruder who is raping his wife or trying to kidnap his baby, or the mother who shoots and kills the man who is burning her one year old on the stove for having a potty training accident (real case by the way). It cannot all be defined as illegal nor can it all be defined as immoral. I find your biblical example to be interesting, as it is precisely why our society justifies the death penalty.
Your comment made me think of a recently-decided murder case in Illinois. A 13-year old girl walked in on a robber and startles him. He stabbed her to death as a result. He of course left DNA evidence and some of the gold coins he stole during the robbery were found on him. However, he pleads innocent as expected, but then his defense attorney attempted to say that the girl killed herself because it was found that she had recently been depressed. Needless to say, his defense fell apart because it was garbage, but what I found most interesting is that he didn’t expect to kill her. He truly thought he was robbing a house with no one home and that he would get away with simple home invasion. He panicked and killed the poor girl. Of course, he was found guilty. What is also noteworthy is that he had only petty thefts and home invasion charges on his record, but no violent crimes to speak of. Unfortunately, his fight or flight instincts failed him and he did the wrong thing. His acts proved to be malicious and stupid and now he gets to spend the rest of his life thinking about them.
Your post captures the nuance and the important attributes that are not accurately represented within the discourse of morality. The examples provided are consistent and a great portrait of what’s really going on. Trying to adapt a universal approach to morality would create so many problems, that it would be extremely difficult to reasonably convict an individual. Just like you’ve mentioned, every case is different and their intentions of self-defense are also different. Therefore, it is crucial to approach issues with a situational morality.
Because you mentioned how some individuals get away with outright murderous acts, one pivotal case came to mind. The case of Dan White and the heinous murder of San Francisco’s Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978. The prison sentence of Dan White was only five years. According to the sentencing reports, White was convicted of manslaughter not murder. What makes this particular case interesting is that “Mr. Milk was one of the nation’s first acknowledged homosexuals to be elected to major public office” (Lindsey, 1).
This case raises a few questions. Did White kill Milk because of his homosexuality? Did White receive a lighter sentence because he was a political figure? Was it morally justified that White only received manslaughter although he killed two substantial figures?
There is no doubt that there was a moral compass regarding White’s reasoning to kill Mr. Milk. Although this case has many underlying issues, this simply demonstrates how some individuals who have certain advantages get away with heinous crimes and our legal system allows them to. When cases such as this become more prevalent, this must indicate that there are problems with our penalty approach to crimes and individuals. By approaching life with a situational perspective, it would eliminate occurrences such as this.