Sample Debate

Is it Murder?


CHARACTERS:
A) A judge.
B) Somebody who understands semantic reasoning.
C) A murderer.

Situation:
        Scientists manage to recreate 10 human ancestors at various points along the evolutionary process by transplanting DNA. C murders one of them half-way through the evolutionary process.

Debate:
A: So what I really need to figure out was: Was this murder? Murder is the wrongful killing of a human, but was this creature a human?

B: Ultimately that question isn't strictly relevant.

A: Whether or not something is human is very relevant to whether it's murder; or would you arrest all butchers?

B: You assume that it always makes sense to arrest somebody because he or she is a murder. This is invalid. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that there was an individual with super-powers. Imagine he commits one crime and you were absolutely certain that if you arrest him he will only kill more people than if you do not arrest him. Would you arrest him?

A: No.

B: The measurement of whether or not to arrest somebody isn't simply a group of terms, it's a process of weighing consequences .

A: I know that.

B: Do you see how that same system applies to this current situation?

A: No, not at all.

B: What would happen if you let C, the killer, go?

A: Well considering that C didn't even know that these creatures weren't fully evolved humans it wouldn't surprise me at all if he would go on and kill some humans.

B: So then arrest him.

A: Well by that reasoning shouldn't I just put him to death. And every murderer? And every suspected murderer? If my only aim is to reduce future murders without any concern for the possibility of the criminal?

B: It depends. By that tone of voice I assume you have a reason not to? Well why not?

A: It would be unjust!

B: Come now, it's not that simple. Take the opposite counter-example. Imagine that there was an innocent person and if you did not arrest him millions would die. Would you arrest him?

A: In a heartbeat.

B: And what would your motivation be?

A: The greater good.

B: So, if your only motivation as a human is to maximize human pleasure then we can calculate an answer to our question. [Note the author is not saying that utilitarianism is correct. He is only explaining how the judge's declared motivation can be satisfied in this situation.]

A: How?

B: Calculate the sum of the happiness of saving lives summed with the loss of happiness to C in each choice you are considering. Example choices being letting him go, putting him to death, giving him a ten year sentence, or sending him to therapy.

A: Okay, I suppose that makes some sense. But let's say somebody else now comes and kills one of these human ancestors knowing it's an ancestor. Do I count the greater good of these ancestors in my calculations?

B: That's a question you need to ask yourself. You're the one who seems to care about the greater good; do you happen to care if human ancestors die?

A: If human ancestors dying doesn't represent the greater good then I care.

B: It sounds like you're saying that doing the greater good isn't what makes you happy then. It's what you believe to be the greater good which makes you happy. If you were to commit an atrocity and believe you were increasing the greater good, how would you feel at the time?

A: Hmm..... Good.

B: So it sounds like you could go either way. Are you at risk of losing your job as a judge if you choose either way?

 A: No.... But you haven't really answered the question. You've just told me to ignore the question.

B: I'm trying to illustrate that question is arbitrary and inefficient. The very idea of "human" is just an arbitrary idea. Evolution shows humans evolved on a continuum.

A: Wow, I need to think about that.

B: Even the idea of death is arbitrary. Take a caterpillar which goes through metamorphasis. How would one take a moral stance on forcing a catepillar to go into metamorhasis against its will? True; people mostly have no concern for catepillars, but it's simple enough to imagine alien life forms that are as intelligent as humans and do go through metamorphasis.


A: I suppose.

B: Your idea of "murder" is just as arbitrary as it relies on the concepts of fault, human, death, and other things. By showing that the question is of no relevance I am trying to show it's of no significance.