99Percent

I recently saw this great movie.

Those who have been following the "why murder is objectively wrong" threads, will recall how I said that once you commit murder you will live in a perpetual state of violence. This movie is a perfect example of this.

The protagonist of the movie is Michael O'Sullivan, a "soldier" of the mob. He tries to cover the truth of his horrendous "job" to his two son trying to appear as a normal father with an honorable ordinary job. But he is unable to and eventually his older son, burning with curiosity as to what his father actually does, discovers it by actually witnessing a murder where his father participates. O'Sullivan's son is effectively the catalyst of truth.

It goes all down hill from there with the inevitable conclusion of self-destruction.

Granted, its only a movie, but its a movie that has a moral that IMO rings as strongly valid.

pug846

But surely you see there is no logical necessity that by committing murder you put yourself in a perpetual state of violence? You just increase the chances which brings us back to the cost-benefit anaylsis.

99Percent

Not strictly a logical necessity but through a reasonable necessity. Murder does put you in a perpetual state of violence because you don't live in isolation of others who have intent. If you murder you are liable to be killed, simple as that, no cost-benefit analysis needed.

echidna

Some of the strongest pacifists are war veterans.

99Percent

What's your point? War veterans aren't necessarily murderers.

echidna

It seems clear. Michael O'Sullivan is a "soldier" of the mob. He is as much a murderer as any war veteran who has killed in warfare.

Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “a perpetual state of violence”, but many war veterans seem to age quite placidly, even those who painfully admit committing war atrocities such as civilian murder.

RogerLeeCooke

Hmm, are you sure you wouldn't like to rephrase that? I don't consider war veterans who have killed in battle to be murderers. I do consider dogmatic pacifists a menace to civilization, however.

echidna

OK, no offence. Guess I was thinking of that other thread in PD.

How about : On the basis that he is only following orders, he is morally comparable with a war veteran who also kills when ordered.

I realise that’s still potentially offensive, however the point is mainly to illustrate that people can kill and yet seemingly not “live in a state of perpetual violence”.

RogerLeeCooke

Understood. I see your point. It's a hard case to make, but I do consider motivation when judging these things. Killing in battle for one's country is somehow more excusable, if only because the prevailing ethos makes it nearly impossible to avoid being a soldier sometimes. But nobody is under any social pressure to become a hitman, and killing for money just seems sordid. A better comparison would probably be with mercenaries, a profession I'd find very hard to justify.

But, the bottom line is, killing, even murder, doesn't necessarily entail perpetual violence. On that point we agree.

99Percent

For example?