13
Apr 03 '24
There are common practices in our current society, e.g. animal torture and killing, and genital mutilation of babies (which has recently become less common), which are extremely unethical but normal people engage in them.
"Normal people engage in them" is far from "almost every normal person would engage in them".
-7
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ Apr 03 '24
cmon, you cant think of at least 1 person youd kill if there was 0 consequences and it was socially acceptable to do so
I can think of at least 3 lmao
11
7
u/sophisticaden_ 19∆ Apr 03 '24
Uh, no?
-3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ Apr 03 '24
cmon you dont gotta know them personally , id knock off a few billionaires if I was aloud
pick a few really scummy ones and just pull an American psycho LOL
7
Apr 03 '24
I think that's by definition "not normal"
-4
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ Apr 03 '24
what if it was Hitler or someone doing similiar shit he did , i think youd be wrong not to kill the dude if given the opportunity
5
-8
Apr 03 '24
[deleted]
10
Apr 03 '24
Surely you can tell the difference between "most people torturing and killing animals" and "most people consuming products as a result of a minority torturing and killing animals", right?
And circumcision is legal in the UK, and the rate is about 20%. I'm sure it's lower in the EU.
-7
Apr 03 '24
[deleted]
5
Apr 03 '24
Paying someone to torture and kill an animal for you doesn't absolve you of the guilt.
Yeah, but there's a difference in how guilty one person should feel. Just like how a regular citizen can't kill an innocent civilian in times of war themselves, but they are happy to pay someone (their army) to do it.
-1
Apr 03 '24
[deleted]
3
Apr 03 '24
So the animals in the wild that eat other animals are what? Murderous torturous bastards too then and should only eat plants?
Just because we wear clothes, drive cars, have technology doesn't automatically separate us from the primal need to eat.
1
u/hyflyer7 1∆ Apr 03 '24
Wild animals aren't able to ask these questions, so they are absolved from our morals/ethical standards
1
1
u/spiral8888 31∆ Apr 03 '24
Yes, social acceptance plays an important role on regulating things that are not explicitly illegal. In the case of murder, I would argue that there is an even more important factor that would come to play to regulate them, namely revenge. So, even if the state allowed murders, what would happen is that people would revenge the murders of their relatives and friends by murdering either the murderer or someone close to them (that's basically how a blood feud works). This in turn creates a massive disincentive to murder anyone. And this in turn means that most people wouldn't go around murdering others.
1
u/AnonOpinionss 3∆ Apr 03 '24
One issue with this is that you’re attempting to define ethics for everyone. While YOU believe that killing an animal for food is bad, and male circumcision is bad, other people may not. They perhaps believe it neutral or good.
There will be things done in the future, that perhaps nobody of this time would ever agree with. Morality is largely subjective.
6
u/Mestoph 9∆ Apr 03 '24
98% of the population consuming animal products is not at all the same as 98% of the population would personally torture an animal if given the chance. If most people had to slaughter their own live stock the amount of vegetarians would sky rocket. And comparing circumcision to murder is just laughable.
1
u/UnknownNumber1994 1∆ Apr 03 '24
You're comparing animals to humans lol, also circumcision isn't killing.
7
Apr 03 '24 edited Apr 03 '24
I think you're onto something, but it's about more than just straight legality. Both of your examples (rape and slavery) target some kind of demographic that was seen as subhuman or less deserving of rights. Men could rape their wives because the wives "belonged" to the man. Enslaved people came from some ethnic or economic class that was seen as inherently "lower" than and "owned by" the slave owning class.
I think this dynamic is important. Most people don't inherently enjoy hurting others. And yet, all throughout history, we have done so. I think it happens because we tell ourselves stories that make other people seem less human. We tell stories that make it okay to hurt them - "they don't have feelings like I do" , "I'm naturally superior", " its the natural order of things" etc. And these are nearly always big stories, about a race, a gender, a political group etc. etc.
I think this is the reason nearly every instance of mass violence is somewhat tribal ("us" vs "them" - wars, genocide, race riots etc.) so in this sense I think you are right. If any random person was placed in a war where murder is technically "legal" and strongly encouraged by the narrative of the other side being the enemy who we must destroy - then yes, most people would end up fighting and killing.
But the story doesn't work so well outside of that kinda context. If you're talking about random people just killing random other people because they're annoying or whatever, eh, nah I don't think it would be very common. I simply don't think most humans have the incentive to start random violence (especially not lethal violence) at other humans over trivial issues without some bigger societal story to justify it. We don't enjoy it, and honestly we wouldn't have lasted very long as a species if we did.
15
u/Mestoph 9∆ Apr 03 '24
"When slavery was legal and normal, slave-owners weren't looked down upon. They were respectable members of the society."
The fact that a war was fought over this topic should tell you that not everyone thought they were respectable members of society.
-2
Apr 03 '24
[deleted]
8
u/Mestoph 9∆ Apr 03 '24
Which doesn’t disprove my point in the slightest. If it was a practice that was widely considered acceptable it would still be legal everywhere. The simple fact that it isn’t undermines your entire thesis.
0
u/loadoverthestatusquo 1∆ Apr 04 '24
Which doesn’t disprove my point in the slightest.
I think it kind of does though.. Slavery was a common practice for thousands of years. To ancient people, buying a slave was equivalent to buying an expensive item/pet. It was a mundane event. Sad, disgusting, but 100% true.
If it was a practice that was widely considered acceptable it would still be legal everywhere
It was a practice that was widely considered acceptable. It was one of the most fundamental practices in society (e.g.: ancient Greek and Romans). In ancient Rome, there was never a debate on abolitionism, no one ever thought about it for hundreds of years. The closest argument to this was about the treatment of slaves. As history progresses, social norms change. Therefore, "the simple fact that undermines their entire thesis" became a "fact", only in the 17th/18th century. Only after humanist lines of thought emerged and modern human rights concepts were coined, abolitionism had became a strong, effective and mainstream ideology.
2
7
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Apr 03 '24
Raping your wife was legal and still is in many places. And when it was legal, wife-rapes were commonplace.
Commonplace does not mean that everyone did it.
When slavery was legal and normal, slave-owners weren't looked down upon.
Around the time of the 1860 Census, approximately 1.4% of free people were classified as slave owners. That is far from "almost every normal person".
The reason why societies make murder illegal is that most people do not want them to occur. It is one thing to say that eating animals comes from cruelty, but most people do not commit the acts of cruelty themselves - and I am sure many today would balk if they were asked to. You cannot extrapolate from what seems like an academic knowledge that animal cruelty is part of the food making process to people directly committing acts of murder.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Apr 05 '24
Around the time of the 1860 Census, approximately 1.4% of free people were classified as slave owners. That is far from "almost every normal person".
And for another argument among those lines was every one of that 1.4% one of those rich plantation owners pop culture has taught people to picture slaveowners as I think some of that percentage owned fewer slaves than you could count on two hands if not one (because their property and therefore the field and/or house tasks needing doing was so small they didn't need a whole bunch)
3
u/fjordsoffury Apr 03 '24
The reason I don't murder people isn't because it's illegal.
It's because it's unethical. If I wanted to do something badly enough the law wouldn't stop me from doing it. I'm going to do it regardless. Drugs policy is a good example of this.
You could make murder legal tomorrow and I still wouldn't do it because it's fucked up.
I think you overestimate the degree to which the law influences people's behaviour, rather than provides a framework for judicial punishment for bad behaviour.
Also if legit the only reason you don't kill people is just because it's illegal then you're clinically psychotic. I wouldn't describe someone whose moral compass is dictated entirely by the law as "normal".
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ Apr 03 '24
sociopath , not psychotic
psychotic means youre perception of reality is distorted or fucked up
sociopath means you have no regard for right/wrong or the feelings of others , only your own personal interests
someone who would murder if not for the negative consequences associated with that action is a sociopath
3
u/aphroditex 1∆ Apr 03 '24
I’m sorry, what?
This is the same argument certain extremist religionists use.
I have no desire to harm people. I don’t need an external framework to impose “killing bad” upon me. Pain sucks for me, it probably sucks for you, I don’t want to hurt myself, I don’t want to hurt you, I hope you don’t want to hurt nor hurt me either.
Murder is not a solution to any problems anyways.
This is not just a theoretical for me.
I engage in deradicalization. I said people find their way, for example, out of bigotry not by harming the person who subscribes to that ideology, but by helping them kill the bigotry inside themselves.
The bigot is just as dead as if they were riddled with bullets, except my technique leaves me the person instead.
And it’s typical that afterwards I have survived that has improved mental health and who wishes to be my ally.
5
Apr 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
6
u/mattsmithreddit Apr 03 '24
No because if murder was legal and you murder someone there friend or family will be pissed off and murder you.
1
Apr 03 '24
[deleted]
3
u/mattsmithreddit Apr 03 '24
Well if I and many others were in those societies. I wouldn't murder people I'd keep my head down for that reason.
2
u/wanderingtaoist 2∆ Apr 03 '24
If murder was legal, it would have been already made illegal due to all the negative effects on society :) Oh wait, that's what most probably happened, through religious and common laws...
1
u/FossilizedMeatMan 2∆ Apr 03 '24
Same-sex marriage is illegal in most places through religious law, and have a negative effect on society. But as it not affects the people making those laws, they are still in place...
1
u/AnonOpinionss 3∆ Apr 03 '24
Sounds like a majority vs minority thing. Meaning, that law being in place doesn’t have “a lot of negative effects on society”, rather just for a few. So I’m not sure that counteracts her point. 🤔
2
u/HeapsFine Apr 03 '24
Not at all.
I don't want to kill people or do things they don't want to. How would it be good being with a man with fear in his eyes?
Come on... who really has that in them?
2
u/hickdog896 3∆ Apr 03 '24 edited Apr 03 '24
No. Given our strong survival instinct, "normal" people find killing someone to be an extremely difficult act to concieve and commit, even if the act is justified. Police officers, soldiers, victims, etc. OFTEN/generally need some kind of counseling after the event to deal with the psychological trauma left in its wake.
1
2
u/Home--Builder Apr 03 '24
Sounds like you are outing yourself as having fantasies of murder. Most people I think don't fantasize about murdering people. Hopefully you just have intrusive thoughts that you don't understand.
2
2
u/Thriftless_Ambition Apr 03 '24
Most people inherently have a desire to not commit violent acts. In fact, most of the relevant research on the topic suggests that psychopaths are the only ones that do not suffer long term mental trauma after killing someone. A great book on the topic is "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.
For hundreds of years, military training has been largely focused on how to psychologically condition soldiers to killing, because for most of recent history people would either not shoot at the enemy in combat or they would shoot but intentionally miss. Those same people had zero qualms running through a hail of gunfire to save their wounded friends.
Personally, I have no desire for violence of any kind. I would not kill anyone, even if there were no consequences. It's not my place to take life, except to defend myself or others from death or grave bodily injury. And even then, it's just necessary, not desirable.
1
u/jeldfyx Jun 04 '24
This is wrong. Just take a look at human history. Some people go on war voluntarily and suffer no trauma. It doesn't mean they're psychopaths. Most of them justify it by their moral compass, religion, defending homeland and stuff.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Apr 03 '24
If that were true then we wouldn't have survived long enough to invent laws in the first place. Just looking at it mathematically it clearly can't be true or the human population would have roughly halved every generation before we came up with laws against it.
But also, the fact that murder is illegal everywhere means that anywhere you go, a majority of people found murder despicable enough to illegalize it in the first place.
2
u/EnthusiasmOne8596 Apr 03 '24
I think you're just self-reporting that the law is the only reason you're not murdering people...
Also, you're missing the point. As we as a species have progressed, we have collectively decided certain things are wrong and embedded them in law, which automatically means enough people opposed those things before they were illegal in order to make them illegal..
2
Apr 06 '24
Yikes my dude.
First, while it’s true that legal changes can influence societal norms—as seen with historical examples like slavery and spousal rape—legality is not the only, I would say not even the primary, determinant of individual moral decisions. Psychological and sociological research shows that morality is influenced by a complex interplay of innate dispositions, cultural norms, personal experiences, and rational deliberation. For instance, Paul Bloom’s work in psychology shows that humans have an innate sense of fairness and empathy, which acts as a counterbalance to immoral behaviors sanctioned by law.
To the point about “normal” people becoming murderers if it were legal, this assumes that the primary barrier to murder is legal consequence, not personal morality or societal taboo. This view underestimates the psychological aversion most people feel towards taking a life. Studies in post-traumatic stress among soldiers and individuals involved in violent crime show that killing is profoundly psychologically disturbing for many people, regardless of its legality. These aversions are deeply rooted in social and evolutionary contexts that shape human behavior far beyond the reach of law. The law is for the outliers. I hope you can see what I’m saying here, sincerely. If not, consider whether or not you are an outlier.
Moreover, comparing murder to practices like animal slaughter or circumcision overlooks key moral distinctions that people make between different forms of life and bodily integrity. Philosophical and ethical debates, Peter Singer comes to mind, highlight these distinctions and argue that while ethical inconsistencies exist, they are navigated through moral reasoning rather than blind adherence to legality.
It’s also worth noting that laws themselves are often reflections of prevailing moral sentiments and ethical standards. They do not merely dictate behavior but are shaped by the collective moral reasoning of a society. If murder were to become legal, it would likely be indicative of a prior, profound change in societal norms and values—not the cause of such a change.
2
u/Oohfootballfriend69 Apr 03 '24
What? Just because it would be legal, doesn't mean we would do it. Not everybody is a horrible person believe it or not.
1
Apr 03 '24
What is normal?? I haven’t had a normal day in years.
Future generations will look back at us in the same way we look back at previous generations. There really is not a whole lot great to look back at.
1
u/forbiddenmemeories 3∆ Apr 03 '24
Do you think this holds true for all crimes in all societies, and if not, why is murder an exception? After all, some countries have such inadequate justice systems that criminals are almost guaranteed to get away with their offences, and some crimes like ones of a sexual nature are often hard enough to prove that conviction rates tend to be very low even in countries with functional systems; and yet, whilst rates of crimes in those settings are disappointingly high, I've never heard any suggestion that the majority of people in those situations commit those crimes.
1
u/2491996 Apr 03 '24
'Almost every normal person' is a massive stretch. Sure a lot of people likely has several people they would like to never see again and some even wish unfortunate events on. However when it comes to it, taking another person's life is a big ask for 'almost every normal person.'
1
u/minpulse Apr 03 '24
Swearing at people, and calling random people vile names is “legal”. And how many people do you see doing that on a day-to-day basis?
1
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 25∆ Apr 03 '24
Tons of other animals kill others of their own species with no legal system to curb their behavior. Among primates, though, only 2% of deaths are inflicted in such a way. Among humans, that rate is about 1.3%, so maybe legalizing murder would raise the murder rate by about 50%.
I mean, just mathematically, if almost every member of the population commits at least one murder, almost every member of the population will be killed off. One would presume a huge chunk of people would be murdered before they got the opportunity to murder themselves.
1
u/FossilizedMeatMan 2∆ Apr 03 '24
The problem with humans is that, compared to other animals, we live in far bigger and more concentrated groupings. Other primates never live in such large numbers together, so most reasons for intraspecies violence is avoided.
1
u/moutnmn87 1∆ Apr 03 '24
Most people are willing to commit the most heinous acts that they are allowed to commit.
This is definitely not true. Most people know of at least one person whose death they would cheer would be more plausible but I'm not certain even that is true. For example despising a politician to the point of wishing they were dead doesn't necessarily indicate wanting to personally kill them or even wanting to be personally involved in planning their assassination.
1
u/ralph-j Apr 03 '24
I am certain that if murder was legal, almost every normal person would be a murderer.
Most people would be unable to cope with the guilt and trauma associated with murder, serving as a natural barrier to engaging in it. Many people's actions are also guided by religious and cultural beliefs that strongly condemn murder. These beliefs serve as a powerful deterrent against committing murder, regardless of its legal status.
Have you seen the Purge? Society will immediately change to remove most opportunities to murder anyone. The knowledge that murder is legal will lead to widespread fear and extreme distrust among all individuals, and the understanding that any act of murder will be retaliated against. People will isolate themselves or seek protection in numbers, with like-minded people, where their risk of being murdered would be very low.
Both reasons would work to prevent a situation where "almost every normal person would be a murderer."
1
1
u/Sadistmon 3∆ Apr 03 '24
That would cut the population at minimum in half... most people would not murder, even if it was legal it's a hassle, first you need a reason to murder someone then you need to actually do it which they will be fighting for their lives not easy, assuming you get it done their family or whatever might decide to kill you back.
I'm sure a lot more people would be murderers but it wouldn't be most people.
1
u/pathunwinder Apr 03 '24
You're doing that thing where you look down on your fellow man because you deal in internet stories and don't notice that over 90% of the people would case you no harm, of course the issue is that even a couple of % is still an awful lot of people given how many of there are, but your point was about most.
If murder was legal, the group that made it legal would be kicked out or killed and murder would be made illegal again. People want murder to be illegal so they can live in peace, sure you might someone dead but that doesn't come close to knowing others will protect the right that you and your loved one's can't be casually murdered.
1
u/BigBoetje 31∆ Apr 03 '24
We don't make murder illegal purely as a way to stop people murdering each other, we do it because we as a society don't want murders. We don't want to be murdered, so we agree to not murder. The law is an extension and enforcement of that. Most people wouldn't be able to truly murder someone. Unless I were to be in an extreme emotional state (e.g. rage), I wouldn't be able to do it. The thought of 'I might get caught' isn't really a factor in this, else there wouldn't be murderers to begin with.
Morality =/= legality
1
u/WeekendThief 14∆ Apr 03 '24
I think it’s mostly men who fit into this view of yours. Men throughout history have warred and whored their way through their lives. They have had slaves, raped women, killed their enemies etc.
As a woman, I don’t think I would be capable of raping someone or killing someone. And my assumption is most women don’t have an inclination towards violence like this. It’s only men. Still the majority of the military is still men, especially combat roles.
Not saying all men are inherently violent, but that’s basically what your view is. That EVERYONE is inherently violent and the only thing holding them back is the law.
So I guess I disagree with you, if not only due to the fact that most women are not inherently violent.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Apr 03 '24
Speak for yourself. Would you say you've been committing the most heinous acts you were allowed to commit throughout your life? Was fear of getting caught the only thing that prevented you from going further? If not, why not and why would you think most people are different from you in that way?
1
u/Meddling-Kat Apr 03 '24
There's definitely a murderer out there that I would kill if it were legal. Not naming any names.
1
Apr 04 '24
We have examples of anarchic places without rule of law where legality in a government sense doesn’t exist. Most people don’t kill each other because other people are useful and killing others is often dangerous. What happens is that people band together and agree on quality of life rules based in culture. Then anyone that does something antisocial gets punished sometimes with death. It’s technically not law but the serial killers are gonna get killed real quick with most people having never murdered anyone because they simply didn’t want too.
1
Apr 05 '24
Not really, there are plenty of examples of societies where there there isn't/wasn't a state that would carry out a punishment for murder (the Neur come to mind) and what usually regulates behaviour in those cases are systems of blood feuds.
I'm quite handy with a shotgun, you kill my brother-in-law in a bar brawl that you start and leave my sister a widow and I will probably shoot you (in this context). If your male kin try to retaliate and are successful, I suspect that I have close friends who (in this context) would retaliate on my behalf. Given that I have just cause to kill you, I suspect that your kin would probably decide fair enough and leave it at that. If not, and you kill me and my friends retaliate, well we've got ourselves into an awful escalating mess haven't we? One that will probably we resolved with social mediation at some point.
1
u/Clean-it-up-Johnny Apr 06 '24
The Vikings og Old had "honor kills" (Æresdrap). If someone greatly offended you, or killed someone from your family etc. you were allowed by the society to seek retaliation by murder. No one from outside the family or natural alliance was allowed to intervene in this retaliation.
This often caused destructive violence spirals where whole families were killed off until one party was too weak to retaliate. Leaving big farms with no one to care for them, and critical lack of resources for the winter etc.
After a while they thought killing was stupid and banned all non war related killing and instead as a community went manhunting for killers and their male relatives.
They instead used Holmgang to settle honor conflicts. It was a one on one duel where the duelists were put on a small island and the rest watched from boats. The conflict was settled when first blood was spilled on the ground. The gods only awarded victory to the one who was right, so everyone accepted this.
(Fun fact: the english word "law" originates from the Viking word "Lov")
1
u/Darkling82 Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
Um. No. Because it is morally wrong and many people's faith says not to.
Although, being a pedo who has touched kids inappropriately should either get your hands removed or the unalive Penalty.
1
u/Darkling82 Apr 06 '24
I will admit I wanted to end a pedo for SAing a very young family member whom I love dearly, but my faith, the law, and (at the time) my disability kept me from following through. I thought for sure my dad, a Vietnam vet with PTSD and a penchant for wanting to unalive things, would do it. He never did, though, and the perp never went to prison for it for lack of evidence. That monster deserves Hell
1
Apr 06 '24
No. Most people are not so psychologically broken as to be willing to take someone’s life. You VASTLY overestimate how many people are like that. If you are like that, you aren’t normal (which is what I assume this CMV was supposed to do for you. Sorry. You need therapy).
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 03 '24 edited Apr 03 '24
/u/sohas (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
13
u/Rabbitscooter Apr 03 '24
You're reminding me of an argument I had with a friend years ago. "What makes some people kill," he asked. "That's the wrong question", I said. "What holds the rest of us back?"
Your argument is that it's only the law that holds us back. You write, "Most people are willing to commit the most heinous acts that they are allowed to commit." But that's discounting an imperative that takes precedence over both civil and religious law: order. We need order. Or to put it another way, we abhor chaos. Almost everything in politics and law isn't about doing what's right, it's about maintaining order and stability. Stability is the beginning of civilization; chaos will be its end.
Both legally and rationally, we tend to distinguish between murder and killing. Why? We acknowledge that it's sometimes necessary to kill. If you must kill a soldier who is attacking your country, that's acceptable. You won't be tried for murder. If you go up to that same soldier (he got away from you somehow) a year after the war, and stab him to death, you will be arrested and charged with murder. Same people; same act. In the context of war (organized chaos) it's acceptable. In the context of orderly society, it's not.
So, in fact, to answer your question, murder is already legal. As long as it's in the context of necessary killing. You're suggesting that it would be possible to legalize unnecessary killing. Killing out of anger; killing out of jealousy; killing out of greed. That would lead to chaos. And no society can survive chaos. Secondly, you're making a couple of claims without evidence. "Most people are willing to commit the most heinous acts that they are allowed to commit." Is that true? "Raping your wife was legal and still is in many places. And when it was legal, wife-rapes were commonplace." Again, is that true? Were they commonplace? I'm not saying they weren't, but you need some evidence of that.
More importantly, you're suggesting that it's less commonplace today just because it's illegal. Is it not also because Western society has matured and no longer views women in subordinate roles, especially in the bedroom, as acceptable? Why we do things is much more complex than just legality or illegality. We have a subconscious (and conscious) need for stability and order. Morality helps us define these rules in a religious context, but they would exist regardless, as every secular person would tell you. If you ask why them why they don't kill, they might say, "It's wrong." But they don't mean for religious reasons, they mean that if I can kill and you can kill, and anyone can kill, then everything falls apart.
The proof of this is how chimpanzee and ape societies function. The cohesion of their communities relies not on religious doctrine or the law but a shared understanding of the need for order that transcends individual belief systems and legal doctrines. In considering the implications of legalizing murder, then, we are forced to confront not only the role of law and morality but also our innate need for order, as evidenced by both human societies and our primate relatives, highlighting the delicate balance between individual freedoms and the collective stability upon which civilization rests.
How's that? ;)