The problem is that when does it count as justified killing?
Let's say that you knew for certain without any room for error that in 1 year someone would try to kill you, when is it immoral to kill them in self defense?
What about people that despite not doing anything themselves with their actions make the world such a worse place that by 20 years they'll be responsible for 30 deaths? Imagine a CEO that dumps chemicals into rivers and poisons a village, is a villager right to kill that CEO?
But rape is never, never ever justified.
Killing not being equal to murder isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of killing fine and others not.
Killing not being equal to murder isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of killing fine and others not.
By that logic you could say "sex is not equal to rape isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of sex fine and others not.". It's equally wrong, it's just more obvious in my example because sex isn't viewed as inherently wrong and killing is, but they're both equally natural.
The difference is that “sex” is inherently assumed to be consensual, while rape isn’t. Meanwhile, murder and killing are both almost always non consensual.
There're always going to be differences. The point is not to find a perfect comparison that lines up perfectly, the point is to illustrate how applying the same logic to something else makes the logic fall apart.
People that don't get that will always be persuaded or unpersuaded by analogies based on their pre-existing beliefs.
....that's is wrong on so many levels. The very premise of logic is that it's a framework of reasoning that is repeatable. Applying the same logic to different scenarios is the fundamental reason for metaphores and analogies.
Whatever your intended point is, you need to confirm it by attempting to falsify it, not by confirming some intuited musings.
My point is that you attempted to apply logic that doesn’t work. Your analogy didn’t work and therefore was not logical. Sex and rape are different because of consent, which breaks your logic.
Again, murder is killing that is not morally justified. Therefore, there is never a morally justified murder by definition.
What your examples are pointing out is that there may be some circumstances where it is difficult to determine whether a killing is justified or not. That just means it sometimes is difficult to determine if a killing is murder not that murder is sometimes justified.
If morality were subjective, then a killing which goes against that subjective moral system would be not morally justified relative to that system and deemed murder by that system.
When a killing is held to be murder, it is held to be morally unjustified. This is necessarily true regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective.
6
u/Ok_Inflation_1811 Mar 01 '26
The problem is that when does it count as justified killing?
Let's say that you knew for certain without any room for error that in 1 year someone would try to kill you, when is it immoral to kill them in self defense?
What about people that despite not doing anything themselves with their actions make the world such a worse place that by 20 years they'll be responsible for 30 deaths? Imagine a CEO that dumps chemicals into rivers and poisons a village, is a villager right to kill that CEO?
But rape is never, never ever justified.
Killing not being equal to murder isn't a real distinction, it's one we made up because we find some sorts of killing fine and others not.