If someone told you they needed to murder someone in order to teach you that murder was wrong, what would you say or do in response?
I’m genuinely asking this question. I would love to hear your true responses.
If someone told you they needed to murder someone in order to teach you that murder was wrong, what would you say or do in response?
I’m genuinely asking this question. I would love to hear your true responses.
I’m interested in what’s caused the question 😊
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s an unrelated polarizing subject sweeping the internet. I thought if the question got asked with different words, people might think about the situation differently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would phone the police.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would likely be inclined to do the same.
LikeLike
Umm… I guess I’d rather not learn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is an important outlook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
LikeLike
Are you referring to the death penalty?
LikeLiked by 3 people
No, actually. That hadn’t crossed my mind when I was thinking about this premise. But I guess this question could relate to that as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evil begets evil… plain and simple.
However, we are human and what constitutes “murder” morally or otherwise should be decided upon “one’s true intent” preceding and during the act. imho…
LikeLiked by 1 person
As in… if someone were mentally unstable they couldn’t be considered someone who knew what they were doing? If that were the case, they likely wouldn’t be teaching others murder was wrong, would they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The infirm can’t be held responsible when we, as a society failed in keeping them and others safe from them in the first place.
LikeLike
There are two universal evils across all societies and culture: murder and stealing. I don’t believe taking someone’s life is required to teach morals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the concept stayed the same, but the subject changed, would your answer stay the same? Say… taking the murder out of it. If someone said they needed to chop off their leg to prove to prove that people with all four limbs have more advantages in life than those who don’t… similar concept, completely different situation. What do you say?
I’m asking not because I’m testing you but because I genuinely follow your train of thought and I want to see if you follow mine if I change the subject matter but the concept stays the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certain morals are innate and accepted as so because it keeps order in society. Context matters. Chopping off a leg is unnecessary since people are born with two legs for normal function, having one less is a disability. If everyone has two hands and two feet and society is made to accommodate that, anything less is in hinderance. We don’t need to chop one off to know that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t have to be a drug dealer to know that I shouldn’t be dealing drugs. Nor do you have to be a user to know that you shouldn’t be using drugs!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh, okay we’re definitely on the same page with the train of thought. Thank you for making me feel less alone in my thoughts on the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We innately know what is right and what is wrong. It’s built into us as humans. That can be skewed by society, family, culture, TV, etc. So I would probably point out that I feel that each life is precious so I would think taking that away would be wrong and would not have to see a murder take place to learn that lesson.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good answer.
LikeLike
I’d say “so OK, who’s the guinea pig?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remind me not to get on your bad side!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this a hypothetical where they think I don’t look upon murder as wrong, as in, “You’re going to think murder is OK until it actually hits home! I’d have to actually murder someone for you to change your position on moral relativity!” Or is it that they are actually going to go murder someone, because they think that’s a good way to ensure I learn a morality lesson?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would suggest it’s because they think it’s a good way to ensure you learn a morality lesson. In the subject I’m drawing comparisons too, 95% of the human race knows it’s wrong, but someone is still feeling the need to make an example anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting — because of the 5% that doesn’t know it’s wrong? Like, they won’t be satisfied until it’s at 100%, and they think the solution is actually committing the wrongful act so the 5% is faced with the tragedy of it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder if that’s what people are trying to advocate for, committing the act so that the remaining 5% can understand by seeing. When in reality, the remaining 5% are likely the individuals who are mentally unstable, or have some sort of condition that clouds their judgement or ability to understand.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right. I suspect it comes from a theory that abstract thinking won’t result in the same level of morality. That for some people, some things have to be experienced to be understood and part of a person’s core. Then there’s the part of the population that actually doesn’t think murder is wrong, but that’s another topic.
LikeLike
If someone asked me the question, I would assume they didn’t actually intend acting on it!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You would have to act. Doing nothing might just be the wrong thing. You may end up being charge as being complicit in the deed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that this is the general consensus of most, whilst if you change the crime to a different one, the general consensus changes drastically!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah I suppose it would V.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would probably hit them
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or maybe hug them. Toss up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Batman has no fears, running around hugging murderers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOULD BE murderers
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I don’t already know that murder is wrong, teaching me that lesson by committing the act, I would think, is more likely to show me that exceptions can be made. Like, if I’m on the fence about murder and you kill someone, then it must be okay.
For the record, I am aware that murder is definitely wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I follow these sentiments wholly and I agree with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say don’t insult my intelligence. I don’t have to experience everything to gain insight into it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I 100% appreciate this comment and agree.
LikeLike
Well, I can’t imagine someone saying that to me, but just in case, hypothetically speaking, my immediate response would be a laughter. And if this person was still rather serious, I wouldn’t waste time in making it clear how unruly ideas are not welcome in my world. I don’t have to consume poison or make someone else consume it to confirm if it’s poisonous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, so there’s a very similar situation polarizing the internet right now. I just changed the crime from what crime people are speaking about to murder, to see if it would change the majority’s answer. And… it did. But, the actual situation sweeping the internet is to do a much more ‘mainstream’ crime, but still, a crime no less. Your response makes a lot of sense and I wholly agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d say that fucked up. 🤷♀️
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t think of any situation in which actually committing murder would help someone to understand that it’s wrong. Most people just know that and if they don’t I’m pretty sure that killing someone isn’t going to teach them the lesson we’d want them to learn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But, if you change the crime of murder to a different crime, the internet’s opinions seem to change swiftly. Which is odd to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess people do view some crimes as worse than others which is why they have different penalties in law? I don’t know what crime you’re referring to so I don’t know if my answer would be any different but I can’t imagine that a way to teach that something is wrong would be by doing it. That does seem odd.
LikeLike
Murder is a really negative word, well to me it is anyway. My instinct would be that only bad came from it so I wouldn’t want to know what it was.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m with you, my dear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Don’t be so obtuse’ in a very authoritarian voice, and refuse to engage any further on the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obtuse! I like that word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Of course not.
LikeLike