Discussion Morality of murder and the significance of bodily autonomy

[AbusedInnocent]

I would like to discuss the significance of the right to bodily autonomy and how that equates to the morality of murdering conscious beings, sorry if I'm missing something here but this is the only place I can discuss something like this and I created my account mainly to discuss philosophy.

For the first example I'll assume they are an average adult human being with full cognitive abilities (they won't cure cancer or start WW3), here are the reasons I see against murdering them:

1. It will most likely cause more suffering for those grieving their death and those dependent on them financially.

2. Murder becoming normalized would make everyone live in fear thus creating a lot of unnecessary suffering.

3. It infringes on their right to bodily autonomy, as a human with equivalent cognitive abilities their choice to continue living should be respected as it is just as valid as our choice to kill them.

Whether these reasons are enough to say that in most cases murder is immoral seems to me to be quite subjective, also if these are the only reasons then technically killing an orphaned baby while making it look like an accident would be moral, nobody would grieve for their death, nobody would know they were murdered, and considering the cognitive abilities of a baby they have no more right to bodily autonomy than a dog that you would put down if they have a chronic/incurable condition or a cow you would turn into a burger, and you would be saving them a lifetime of suffering and saving others the work of having to provide for their needs (farming food, manufacturing products, providing services, etc.).

What if we knew beyond reasonable doubt the subject would cause significant harm to others? surely it would be moral to murder Hitler to save millions of people a lot of suffering, but at what point exactly could we say that the suffering they would create outweighs their right to bodily autonomy?

As for an animal of low/moderate cognitive ability like a dog (not a human, primate, dolphin, octopus, etc.) I can't see how any of the previous reasons would apply, as humans with superior cognitive abilities we know more about what is best for these animals so we have a right to make decisions on their behalf, if death really is the end of all suffering would it not be moral to kill as many of these animals as possible assuming the ecological damage could not affect us? would like to hear how this applies to veganism as well.

Would like to hear your thoughts on each example:
Subject 1. Average adult human.
Subject 2. Orphaned baby
Subject 3. Adult Hitler
Subject 4. Animal of moderate cognitive ability (dog/cat/cow)

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

Thanks for the post, this is something I've thought about as well. Mainly because I feel like a potential pro-lifer counterargument to "life is not inherently valuable and nonexistence cannot harm someone" is "well if that's the case then murder is okay, since the victim isn't harmed in death!" I would actually agree that murder is not wrong on the grounds that someone is being harmed, because if they're dead then they can't feel pain, but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons for being against it, as you pointed out.

Personally I think what's so abhorrent about murder is that you are taking away someone else's ability to make that choice for themself (basically your autonomy point). Being pro-choice means I want people to be able to choose to live or die on their own terms.

So my answers are:
1. Immoral for reasons discussed above
2. Immoral because that baby will eventually be in a position to make that choice for themself
3. Bit more tough to answer but I would still say immoral, not so much for bodily autonomy reasons but because the consequences of changing history like that would be unforeseeable and could lead to even more suffering, for all you know
4. Moral so long as suffering is minimized (I am anti-suffering in general)

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Thanks for the post, this is something I've thought about as well. Mainly because I feel like a potential pro-lifer counterargument to "life is not inherently valuable and nonexistence cannot harm someone" is "well if that's the case then murder is okay, since the victim isn't harmed in death!" I would actually agree that murder is not wrong on the grounds that someone is being harmed, because if they're dead then they can't feel pain, but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons for being against it, as you pointed out.

Personally I think what's so abhorrent about murder is that you are taking away someone else's ability to make that choice for themself (basically your autonomy point). Being pro-choice means I want people to be able to choose to live or die on their own terms.

So my answers are:
1. Immoral for reasons discussed above
2. Immoral because that baby will eventually be in a position to make that choice for themself
3. Bit more tough to answer but I would still say immoral, not so much for bodily autonomy reasons but because the consequences of changing history like that would be unforeseeable and could lead to even more suffering, for all you know
4. Moral so long as suffering is minimized (I am anti-suffering in general)

I mostly agree with you but your response to Subject 2 was not something I expected.

Are you saying that killing the baby would deprive them of the desire to make the choice on their own even later if they don't currently have a right to bodily autonomy? I don't see how they can be deprived of something they have no desire for yet.

Wouldn't that also mean we should try to bring as many people into existence to give them the choice to continue living or commit suicide?

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

I mostly agree with you but your response to Subject 2 was not something I expected.

Are you saying that killing the baby would deprive them of the desire to make the choice on their own even later if they don't currently have a right to bodily autonomy? I don't see how they can be deprived of something they have no desire for yet.

I don't see it as "deprivation" so much as "intervention." You would be preventing a natural course of development from taking place, which would have otherwise resulted in them being able to decide for themself if they want to continue life or not. It's like if someone was walking towards a certain destination, and you knew that if they just kept on walking, they would eventually arrive there, but then you stepped in front of them and blocked their path.

Wouldn't that also mean we should try to bring as many people into existence to give them the choice to continue living or commit suicide?

No, because that would mean starting new life. Usually I disagree with David Benatar's distinction between a life that has already been started and one that doesn't exist yet, but I think in this particular question about murder, it's a useful distinction; in the one case, with a life that already exists, you're blocking their path, but in the other, there's no path to begin with.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd argue that it is our freedom to choose that the law protects. Rape and theft are also illegal because that person didn't consent.

If a person is impaired by a mental illness or they are considered too young to be able to fully comprehend a choice- we still try to protect them in the way we believe will do them the most good. Sex with a minor is rape. Getting a grandparent with dementia to sign away all their money could be coersion. Similarly, criminals that are found to have mental illness can sometimes be given lesser sentences due to 'grounds of diminished responsibility.' I'd say the right to choose is the important one. Except where it comes to suicide apparently- in which case- other people insist they know better. Of course, they usually play the mental illness card to be able to do that.

It's a very tricky issue though. Fair warning that this is an extremely disturbing case. I won't go into the specifics but be warned- they are bad. But, the 2001 case of Meiwes and Brandes is a complicated one. Meiwes ran an advert that he wanted to kill and eat someone. Brandes responded and consented to being killed and eaten. So- was it murder? It was consensual after all. I'd say it was still murder. The intention was murder. The motives were likely sadistic. I'm not a psychologist but consenting to being murdered and eaten also sends up red flags for me. So, I'd question whether Brandes was in a fit state of mind. So- the duty to protect ought to fall with him. Even though he consented. (To my view.)

For your examples though:

1. Average human being: I'd say murder was wrong. They likely want to live. Even if they don't, they have the right to suicide or they should have the right to assisted suicide. Murders are quite often violent and sadistically/ sexually/ financially motivated. They benefit the murderer, not the victim. Why is it ever right to expose someone to that?

2. Orphaned baby: Murder still feels wrong. Now the child is here, it will be the responsibility of the state to care for it if its parents have abandoned it. Personally, I support abortion so- it would have been better if it hadn't been born if it wasn't wanted (in my view.) But, now that it has, it has unknown potential. It may actually end up being fostered by a loving family and be ok. Still- once it reaches 18, it ought to gain access to assisted suicide- like everyone else (in my view.)

3. Hitler: Yes- kill him but make sure to do a clean sweep. Make sure any other generals that would take his place are also eliminated. Plus, ensure that there are measures ready to fill the gap that that regime would have left. Don't just take out a dictatorship and leave the country on its knees.

4. Cognitative animals: Depends if they are in pain. If they are and a decent quality of life isn't likely- then yes. It should be humane though and humans should be getting that option too. Really, it's always murder with animals when you think about it though. I am vegetarian, so I try to lessen my impact that way. Not vegan though- so- not that good. I hate what we do to animals.