Murder is neutral

There is nothing bad or wrong about murder itself. The only reason why we consider it to be is because somebody or something else tells us so or perhaps because most of the time there are negative consequences and so we associate them as one thing and generalise all murders to have negative consequences following.

Murders and killing are not bad things. They can only be judged (just like every other action) by the negative consequences that follow. I slit an old lady's throat, the blood goes all over my couch, it makes a mess that needs to be cleaned up. Is that a negative consequence? No.

Then what makes a consequence negative? For a bloody couch is a consequence as a consequence is just a second event that follows a first event because of the first event. Human emotion is what makes it negative. If 1,000 cows go through torture, I do not see what is wrong with it, it is NOT 'unethical' as some people put it, it's merely 1,000 cows going through alot of pain. So what? They're not human. Yes, they can feel, but so what? They're COWS.

Some use the analogy, 'Then what if a more intelligent and physically stronger race captures you and treats you like an animal, torturing you and running experiments on you. How would YOU feel?'

Well technically I AM an animal compared to them. Just like a cow is less intelligent than me, so am I to this superior race. So them doing that to me is wrong on human terms but neutral on their terms. Just as torturing cows is bad on cow terms but neutral on human terms. Make sense?

To answer their question, 'I would feel similar to the cow, just on a higher scale. I probably would know the torture going on, just as the cow would but I won't be able to escape, just like the cow. I probably would not know why they are doing it but they probably have good or better reasons since they are more intelligent than me.' As humans, human emotions are used as the judge for the positivity/negativity of a consequence.

The blood on the couch is merely a consequence, say I LIKED to clean my furniture. It made me feel useful and happy, then the bloody couch would be a positive consequence as it made me happy and therefore the killing of the old lady is positive.

Once the old lady is dead, she cannot feel and therefore the 'You're taking away life from a living thing' arguement is redundant. Simply because it will be NO LONGER LIVING! Too many people see humans as people of infinite value or a value you cannot put a number on. Humans are merely comodities. There are over 7 billion humans walking this earth. 7,000,000,000. That's alot. Humans are not rare, a few of them killed shouldn't make much of a difference. Humans are SPECIAL, why? They are just a bundle of psychological mechanics, aren't they? Humans are overated. We're just chunks of intelligent organic matter. And we're not that rare.

If the old lady had no friends and no family then the killing of the old lady would have ultimately been a positive action. 'Good' as somebody could put it. Of course in most cases, killing somebody would cause many many tears and a lot of emotional pain. A clearly negative consequence.

If there was a 13 year old schoolboy and you stabbed him to death while you and him were alone, that is a very bad thing to do, because he will be experiencing pain. The moment he DIES however, it is merely a neutral act, the murder, I mean.

Once his classmates find out, the murder once again becomes a negative or 'bad' action. Once you kill the classmates too, it becomes neutral once again. This chain reaction will echo throughout the school, into the families and eventually all over the world. If somehow you managed to kill all humans (except yourself of course) the first murder, and all the murders are neutral. It is EXTREMELY bad, because of the pain all the humans would have to endure.

But if somehow you did it and now they are dead, the deaths are in the past now. It is all neutral. HOW CAN THE EXTINCTION OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATIONS, A WHOLE SPECIES DONE BY ONE MURDEROUS MAN BE A NEUTRAL ACT?!?! many will ask. Well, WHY is it bad? Because I'm wiping out an entire species? Pfft, so what? Stop assuming I share the beliefs you do, EXPLAIN to me WHY it is such a bad thing!

Don't use religion on me, religion cannot be proved with facts and solid evidence and so all religions will have to be taken into account, even the non-religious humans.

Why is murder is an innate belief that ALL humans naturally resent?
For the continuation of the human species, of course. That is fairly obvious. But I see nothing wrong with the extinction of humans. Anyhow, BACK to murder....

The only reason we consider murder wrong is because in most cases negative consequences follow and so we group them as one and generalise that to all murder cases.

Take for example the holocaust. Yes it was a 'bad' thing. WAS. Now it is a relevantly good thing, what if it never happened? Then what? We wouldn't exist. An alternate timeline would have occured. There are many good things that came out of the holocaust.

Take for example, me. This is my blog, I wrote all the posts, I wrote this post. And how about YOU, you're reading my blog. You exist. Probably wouldn't if it weren't for the holocaust. It is in the past, the pain is over. We cannot change the past, we can only view it in a positive or negative way. If we view it as a negative event, it will impact our emotional state negatively. Be optimistic, it's not that bad afterall, right?

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger and if it does kill us, who cares? We can't, WE'RE DEAD! Bahahahahaha. In the end, everything will end up positively (y)

Murder is not as bad as people make it out to be.