A question on death and suffering.

[Chad32]

It's wrong because you're taking something from that person that isn't yours to take. Even if you don't get caught, as can't have a system where "It's not wrong if you don't get caught". Now the killed person may not have suffered, but they still lost something vital, and that's why it's unethical.

You just have to take things to their logical conclusion. Why investigate witnessless crimes? Actions don't really exist in a vacuum. Sooner or later, people will find out, and it will effect them.

[GrandizerII]

As far as I am concerned, this here is more than enough to answer your question overall.

If this is the reason why killing is wrong:

"Cutting off their life prematurely and thus denying them of any experience they might have had..."

...then I don't see why ya'll think abortion is just dandy, but whatever.

First, I didn't argue that that's the reason. It's one way to reasonably answer the question of the OP in the specific case illustrated.

Second, unlike with the case described in the OP, abortion is complicated (the rights of the woman must be considered above all else in this case) and holding laws against it does lead to bad consequences.

[brewer]

OP: I don't think that you're considering the dead persons possibility of future contributions to society. Maybe they are "unconnected" at the time that you wack them but that does not necessarily mean that they will continue to be unconnected. 

You should not have the right to eliminate human potential.

[The Grand Nudger]

What, if anything, makes an action completely free of suffering, wrong?

Say a person exists with no connections.  Nobody knows they exist, so nobody would miss them.  Say you walked up behind this person and shot them in the head, killing them instantly.  They never knew what hit them.  Did the person who killed them do something wrong?

You're asking what the murderer did wrong.  

I have three answers to this I can think of, but both seem unsatisfactory.  The first is that this would be wrong because others could find out about it, and fear for their own lives.  If we thought there were murderers running around, just waiting for a chance to pick us off the second we have no connections, we’d be terrified.  It would create a terrible society to live in.

Roughly, the social contract.

The second is that it would negatively affect the murderer, either giving them crippling guilt or enabling them to be a psychopath.  They’d probably end up killing more indiscriminately in the future.

Self interest (rational or otherwise).  Notice, btw, that now they're a murderer..whereas before they were a killer.

The third is that it would cut off a person’s life prematurely, and deny them any experiences they might have in the future.  But I have trouble seeing why this is a “wrong action”, apart from any actual tangible suffering experienced.

Slapping a sucker out of your mouth and slapping your mouth so hard you can never put a sucker in it are remarkably similar, at least in regards to your ability to enjoy a sucker..except that one is a more complete and permanent theft of joy than the other.  Of the three..this is the only one that begins to approach -why- something may be wrong.  The other two were comments on why a person might adhere to a moral proclamation.  

Thinking theoretically, imagine we could take away the first two issues.  Assume one would ever find out, and assume the person involved would also not be harmed.  Basically, what I’m trying to get at, is what makes the action of killing wrong, apart from causing pain and suffering?

Is it really the killing, itself, that's taken to be wrong?  Probably not.  If one soldier sneaks up on another and ends his life in silence and no one knows..we call that a job very well done.  Probably get a coin out of it, at least, if not a ribbon or medal.  Same with the people who work the slaughterhouse floor. It;s kindof amusing..but we broadly seem to think that..if you'e going to do some killing..there's a right and a wrong way to go about it in any given circumstance.

My question is way more hypothetical, I guess.  *If* there was a way to kill someone without causing *any* suffering, would you still consider it a wrong?  And if so why?

IDK, if you want an answer that conforms to moral realism, for example..you'd have to be a hell of alot more specific in the details of the killing...as there may be killings that do cause suffering and yet still aren't taken to be wrong, or are considered to be the best course of action in a field of exclusively sub-optimal options.

If you're willing to accept less, though..."because I said so" and "because I like it that way" does the trick handily - regardless of whether the response is that it's wrong or not wrong.

[vorlon13]

You've wasted ammo instead of using it on someone more deserving.

[brewer]

If this is the reason why killing is wrong:

"Cutting off their life prematurely and thus denying them of any experience they might have had..."

...then I don't see why ya'll think abortion is just dandy, but whatever.

You discussing something that is not a human yet.

[robvalue]

"Objectively wrong" doesn't mean anything, so you have to establish some sort of value system before you can gauge what is "wrong".

If we put a positive value on a human life, then taking it away is a negative action. With nothing positive to balance it, it's instantly wrong.

If instead we give a moderate positive value to enjoyment and a high negative value to suffering, we might estimate that any particular life ends up with a net negative value. In such a case it could be argued that killing is in fact a good thing, ignoring the effect on anyone else.

It all entirely depends on the individual and the value system. None of them are "correct". All we can do is compare our systems and see if we can come up with agreements or compromises. Since we are fairly similar and evolved together, overlaps aren't surprising.

[vorlon13]

If this is the reason why killing is wrong:

"Cutting off their life prematurely and thus denying them of any experience they might have had..."

...then I don't see why ya'll think abortion is just dandy, but whatever.

You discussing something that is not a human yet.

Indeed. The Bible sezzso.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Objectively wrong" doesn't mean anything, so you have to establish some sort of value system before you can gauge what is "wrong".

If we put a positive value on a human life, then taking it away is a negative action. With nothing positive to balance it, it's instantly wrong.

If instead we give a moderate positive value to enjoyment and a high negative value to suffering, we might estimate that any particular life ends up with a net negative value. In such a case it could be argued that killing is in fact a good thing, ignoring the effect on anyone else.

Putting something..or someone, out of their misery - for example..eh? There's mercy in death..for some.  It's something we understand and do.  We don't generally consider that murder. I've never murdered a dog or a horse or a human being in my life. That statement, however, doesn;t rule out my having killed one or all of the three.

It all entirely depends on the individual and the value system. None of them are "correct". All we can do is compare our systems and see if we can come up with agreements or compromises. Since we are fairly similar and evolved together, overlaps aren't surprising.

An objective moral statement is one which considers those dependencies in a factual manner.  That's what "objectively wrong" means. That x, y and z are the relevant facts of the matter, they are true, therefore the moral statement is true.