Friday Ethics Class #2, 8-10am

[brambless.livejournal.com]

Tara looks excited, as students trickle in, bouncing slightly on the balls of her feet.

"Okay, we've got a lot to get through today. Two announcements to start:

First, Teacher's Assistants have been chosen. I have a carrot - Major K! - and a stick - Angelus. If you're having trouble grasping a concept, talk to Major K!. He'll guide you through the thinking. If you think you've got a hold on it, talk to Angelus. He'll challenge your thinking, give you the opportunity to clarify your position.

Second, and related to the latter - this class is not an easy A. At some point in this course you will find yourself challenged and confronted. For many of you, that will be today. If you walk out of this classroom before class is over, and without checking it with me, I may be understandably upset. However, I recognise that if you get angry or upset, you may need some time alone, or away from the group. To that end, I present to you the Emo Closet Time Out Room." She walks to the back of the classroom and opens the door to what previously was a supply cabinet. Inside is what looks very much like a white padded room. "This room is soundproofed. You can cry, scream and punch things all you want, and I will not penalise you for leaving the class or the discussion. Major K! or I will come to check on anyone who goes to the Emo Closet Time Out Room, in case you need help or support. Feel free to tell us to leave you alone.

Now, we've got our first debate to hear, a discussion topic to... um, discuss, and your first out of class assignment. Which you are going to kill, or at least seriously maim, me for giving you.

Comments

Re: Debate

[auroryborealis.livejournal.com]

Rory clears her throat, and smiles nervously. She begins to speak in a clear, articulate voice.

“Our opponents have made an extremely fair point as far as the dictionary definition of murder goes. Because we concur that in a multi-verse school that any definition of murder should be as broad and inclusive as possible, we're absolutely willing accept their assertion that for debate purposes murder should be used in its moral sense, as opposed to the cut-and-dry definition that so many are quick to jump to.

However, our opponents are wrong to assert that a moral definition of murder allows for acceptable murders at all. Murder in the moral sense must be defined as an unlawful and unethical killing. It’s only under law that certain acts otherwise considered to be murder can be mitigated by self-defense, passion or circumstance. We recognize that this definition is an exercise in semantics, and basically defines away the debate.

Therefore, as an alternative, we return to a legal definition of murder. The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that the word murder comes from Old English. It means, like Cameron said, the unlawful premeditated killing of another person. Any culture that chooses the word ‘murder’ to translate a word in their own language, does so knowing what the term means in English. It is both fair and appropriate to use the common English meaning of the word as the basis of debate.

Now to turn to specific circumstances under which it might be argued – absolutely incorrectly – that murder is acceptable.

The first and most common argument for ‘acceptable murder’ is self-defense or defense of loved ones. For example, a mother is with her child in the park at night. A large vampire man grabs the child and begins to beat it. The mother withdraws a handgun from her purse and shoots the man several times, and as she has been trained to do, kills him. Under law, self-defense or defense of others is allowed. The question of whether lethal force is authorized depends entirely on the situation. And yet, under law, the mother would not be convicted of murder because there is no premeditation. Still, an able counselor might argue that there was premeditation, because the mother learned how to kill in the first place, for just this situation. The very fact that the mother learned how to kill shows an intention to do so. Therefore even though the act of defending the child is justified, murder on the child’s behalf is unacceptable. With the skill to kill the man, she might easily have wounded him rather than kill him. Either this killing is not murder under law, or it is murder but is still unacceptable."

Re: Debate

[auroryborealis.livejournal.com]

She takes a deep breath, and continues.

"Another common argument for ‘acceptable murder’ is the related ‘crime of passion’. For example, my boyfriend catches me kissing in bed with Jake in girlform another man. In his rage, he punches kills the other man and/or me. Under law, in some jurisdictions, the rage would be likened to a form of insanity, which would shield my boyfriend from a murder conviction. It would be homicide, probably manslaughter and aggravated assault. Once again, the law says this is not murder. But even if we accept that it is murder, it is only said to be ‘more acceptable’ because of the passion, not acceptable. We concur. It is not acceptable to murder someone simply because they had sex with your partner. The death solves nothing.

Stipulated, however, that there are cultures in which it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone for that behavior, we nevertheless argue that such cultures would not consider that killing to be a murder.

A final example is euthanasia or other forms of mercy killing. Even the term ‘mercy killing’ is designed to suggest that this form of murder is or ought to be acceptable. A beautiful young woman, captured and tortured by terrorists, is found by an arms trader during the course of one of his deals with the terrorists. The girl has been raped, beaten, cut, is essentially destroyed. He cannot take the girl with him, he cannot argue on her behalf. He can strangle her and ‘put her out of her misery’. He does. Murder? Yes. Acceptable? Undoubtedly we have sympathy for the man, and the girl. The death seems like a mercy of a sort. But is it acceptable? No. She might’ve escaped, rebuilt herself, become something wonderful and powerful and valuable to society. She might’ve become a nun. She might’ve killed herself. The arms trader took away her choice. That is unacceptable.

There are other circumstances in which it might be argued that murder is acceptable. However, whether under a legal or moral definition, we reject that contention. Irrevocably ending the life of another person, permanently severing them from free will and freedom of action, is an unacceptable exercise of personal power.”

Re: Debate

[valentine-tart.livejournal.com]

Beka nodded an appreciative smile to Rory. She'd done well with a lot of material. "Great job," she mouthed.