Why Do We Murder?

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Taking life. Killing. Massacre. Homicide. Murder is the intentional act of ceasing and irreversibly breaking the faculties of another living being. It can be a fly, and it can be a person. It can be a colony of ants, or a city of people.

This is not an easy topic, but it is a fact of life that we either deal with, or suffer from.

Murder is bad, first and foremost, because none of us wants it to be done to them. We all want to live the entire extent of our biological ability. We want to grow up, reproduce, and quietly die as old as we can, without it becoming an intolerable experience. Idealy.

However, under the realm of self-defense, murder may become a reasonable choice. Mosquitoes that suck our blood commit an act of aggression towards us, even adding a risk of catching some nasty disease, and so we smack & electrocute them to death. And that is reasonable.

What is, then, the factor that makes murder a good thing?

Perceivable threats to our well-being, while requiring us to defend ourselves, do not justify murder. But, when negotiation is not a possibility, or the perceived threat puts our lives at risk, then we cannot take any chances! We must commit entirely to our defense!

We are unable to negotiate with wild animals. Even if it may be because we have not made the effort to learn their logic, it is still the common state of things. So, when an animal acts in aggression towards us, we must either take its' life, or risk injury and death. We cannot talk it out.

Feeding ourselves comes before the well-being of others. If the only way to feed is to use the lives of others, then pity might as well mean suicide. And no person can hold the standard of pity for all living beings, while being ready to commit self-harm or suicide.

Self-defense arts, such as Krav Maga that I practiced, are highly recommended!

And last, but not least, is the case of a negotiation that is insufficient. When another person threatens our lives, but we may negotiate the situation, it does not mean that killing is no longer an option. Negotiations may fail. The other side might lie or have a change of heart. Until it is clearly established that a death-threat is no longer held, then we must be prepared to make the first move, and kill those who do not care to kill us; be it directly and on purpose, or indirectly and by willing neglect.

Responsibility VS Ownership !

All human conflict derives from the ideological conflict between responsibility and ownership.

Responsibility is the measure of how much a person is willing to give, time or resources or even risk, in order to support his ideals. A natural example is that of investing in a child. The child is given his needs from the parents, because the parent idealizes, to a degree, the importance of their child.

Ownership is the attempt to control the ideas of other people. In order for a person to own anything, they must convince others that they (the others) have no power, over the choices of the owner, in regard to the owned object. For example, the only way in which I can own an apple, is if other people accept that my choices about the apple are superior to their own ideas about the apple.

It is possible for both ideologies to overlap:
1. Own & take responsibility, over something.
2. Not own, but take responsibility, over something.
3. Own, but not take responsibility, over something.
4. Not own & not take responsibility, over something.

The greatest conflict of interests is when one person or group decides to take responsibility without ownership, while another person or group decides to take ownership without responsibility. I first tackled this issue over at the FDR forums, here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36950-responsibility-versus-ownership/

I propose that this is best solved by acknowledging that responsibility is a higher ideal than ownership. I do not propose, however, that ownership does not have a right to exist. Only, that in the case of dispute, that side which proves the need for taking responsibility, must be allowed priority, over the side that claims ownership.

First, we recognize the fact that being the owner of something, for example a tree, does not mean that you would always have all the rights to it. If the owner does not take care of the tree, so that it is rotting and might fall on others, then it is fair for others to take responsibility, and cut the tree down, for their own safety. This is in the case of the owner not doing so, beforehand.

Second, we realize that it is not enough to simply disagree with the owner's opinions, but that actual proof is required, for intervention. If it is not evident why intervention must be required, then no intervention should exist! When an owner and an interventor (someone who wants to take responsibility) go to court, in order to resolve a dispute, then it is up to social rule to dictate the result.

This is why we talk and argue our ideas. So, that we can imply what is right and what is wrong, in society, as a whole, and so be able to trust our fellow peoples' decisions.

Eventually, I wanted Stefan Molyneux's opinion in the matter; him being a person I share a lot of views in common with and who is able to debate well, and so sent him an email and received this response:

"I think that everything that is enforced rather than inflicted is superior, [so] I think we agree."

I conclude that he, and many on the forums, sum this idea into, 'we either have a contract or we don't.'

This is my final conclusion, which I consider the most practical:

In order to enforce conflict resolutions, we must decide which person has the higher moral ground. The ideals of the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership are insufficient for the resolution of conflicts, without proper investigation into the facts and nature of each conflict.

Only when there is no doubt that one side has a clearly higher moral position, over the other, then that side must enjoy the support of the community, as a whole, and of us as individuals, in private.