This is a vast topic. At a first glance it may easily be supposed that murder is an abhorrent act for which there can be - or with very little exception - never be committed, much less admired. However, first glances are equitable to first impressions; they carry great weight but rarely bespeak the truth of a matter. The fact is that murder, for which I here define as the act of taking life, is a common occurrence, with many causes, methods, and outcomes.
It here stands for me to show how this is a topic relevant to morality, or, more specifically, how this act - relatively rare in everyday life to most citizens of The United Kingdom - is one that can be a constituent to 'being bad'. Setting aside the massive subjectivity (perhaps even objectivity) of what it is, exactly, that 'bad' morality is, it can be hardly argued that many people consider murder to be anything other than an act of 'bad'.
However, in the words of the immortal Socrates, can it be the case that 'the majority are always wrong' (albeit that being said in the context of a democratic vote)? To asses this, we must consider some of the very causes that produce this act.
For many, undoubtedly, the first vague idea formulated when the word murder is spoken is that of some unknown individual killing an equally unknown individual, that perhaps they have heard of from the news. Murder is one of those criminal acts that most people will happily not be affected by directly though their lie, but which is always happening somewhere (I see only take a murderer has been sentence of at least 35 years in prison, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8555221.stm). While this true, it is beyond doubt that, in fact, most murders occur not within a well governed (arguably) society such as the UK, but in war zones. The very purpose of, or act of, war is, after all, to kill people. With this I mean war as a general act, and not any specific war. There are those for whom war is never acceptable, not even in self defence, whereas for others war is regrettable, yet necessary warrants it, and for some who consider war to be a noble action. The questions to be addressed here are what can be said both in favour of war as an action, as well as can be used against such arguments. And, further, what draws people to their beliefs.
With very little exception, any war is called a war of defence. The current Iraq War was marketed under such justification. This is a truth, it seems, that remains eternal. Even Julius Caesar claimed his Gallic Conquest was for such reasons. True it is, that due to the nature of war, at least one side is determined by the very aggression against it to be fighting in self defence. But what is it that makes acting in self defence morally excusable for the horrors of war? Indeed, this question can be expanded outwards. In British law, acting in self defence is a legally allowed for causing the death of another (it should be understood here, however, that there are key differences; in British law one can kill only after an offence action has been undertake, and not before. And that further, I here define self defence as that of the person rather than another or his private property, for which it is equally excusable to commit murder, even the liberal John Locke, with which one notorious recent case in British law disagreed with the eminent philosopher in verdict).
Without wishing to discuss the various notions of 'Just War' that have circulated throughout history, it is true that hardly anyone will disagree with war - or murder between individuals - if unless this action is committed the other will harm. The key point here is the exclusion this is attached to. As a general rule, it is human nature to will for self survival, even at the expense of others, and that this principle is only further reinforced with noble concepts such as nationalism. Others however may also be included love for family and friends; religion; greed; civil and personal pride and of course revenge. Setting these all aside, we are left with one key fact. Whereas murder, war and conflict are deemed immoral on behalf of the aggressor, even the aggressor can be seen as justified - if not perhaps admirable - in undertaking to kill in the name of self defence. We have here then, at least one example in which it is possible for murder to be justified, even if only be necessity, and thus not ignoble, which is to say 'bad' in moral terms. This is, assuredly, against the commonly held belief that murder, in principle, is 'bad'. And, I may mention incidentally, as an example contrary to what are disputable the very foundation of Western morality, the 10 Commandments.
Yet perhaps there is another example in which it can be said that murder - again the principle of taking life - is not 'bad'. I speak, of course, of euthanasia. Here the term is to be understood as taking the life of another with their consent, with or without any terminal illness afflicting the recipient. Not contrary to the Hippocratic Oath as is commonly thought, this is now legal in a few countries and US states - if my memory doesn't deceive me in Belgium, Switzerland, and Oregon being examples - this issue has been raised to the front of the political agenda, especially in the US, and ever more often nowadays the UK. We might therefore ask again, what is to be said in favour of this? And, in addition, what draws people to it?
The latter of the above is normally quite easy to answer. The person wishing to die is ill with such an affliction that life is either only the prolongation of pain - physical or mental - or that it is to be a short life not worth enduring. Thus, euthanasia is seen as the lesser of two evils. I myself subscribe to this belief, and I am strongly of the belief that law has no business in regulating how one decides to die, as long as this action is designed to affected themself only, and not infringe the liberty of another citizen. But, perhaps with greater inspection, we can see that the answer to this question is the same to the former above. That is to say that what draws people to euthanasia is what can also be said in favour for it. It is true that euthanasia is, as war and murder in general, contrary to the mainstay of belief, the 10 Commandments. According to this view, God has sovereignty over an individual, who while this person exercises free will, they do so only this has been provided by God's grace, and can be exerted only within the parameters God has set, if one wishes to avoid eternal agony. This is of a course a grossly simplified view of euthanasia in Abrahamic tradition (Judaism and Islam as well as Christianity). Others meanwhile venture to assert that euthanasia is, in a way, depriving God of his property (this is a very lose paraphrasing of the beliefs of both Plato and Aristotle). However, setting aside the fact that this belief is one of extreme high subjectivity even among those who endorse it, and that religion has no right in the lay sphere under secularism, one may still conjure up various arguments against euthanasia. Maybe that it does affect other people in their emotional turmoil of loss, that it is misguided and that perhaps medical officials lie, or are wrong. For the sake of fluidity, I will not seek to rebuke these claims. I will instead address the question I asked myself directly; what is to be said in favour of euthanasia, and perhaps by extension suicide, as well.
I have already expressed above that what draws people to this action is what equally is perhaps the best justification for it, and what again by necessity, renders the action not contemptible. That is to say, of course, that the want to end the suffering of the person is itself not only a commendable act (that of compassion on the side of the assistant in euthnasia) but also a beneficial service to they that shall die. There is here however another aspect to be explored, which is in a word the will of the person seeking to die. John Stuart Mill, the infamous Utilitarian and champion of liberty, explained how that individual liberty amounts to near sovereignty on all aspects of the individual in relation to both themself and the state, as long as their actions do not breech the liberty of another (it will be noted by more attentive readers that this was the opinion I expressed above in relation to this subject, as it is one in which I agree with JSM). In this he wasn't far different from the infamous Romantic Jean Jacques Rousseau, who in his Social Contract expressed similar views. But what relevance does this hold to euthanasia? The answer is quite simple. At base, one of the (though not only) most fundamental aspects of liberty is the ability to exercise individual will within the civil entity, which is to say state. Under law in any Western nation no one, for example, has the right to tell me I cannot hop on one leg for the rest of the day if I so will it, and they cannot do this because this action does not encroach upon their own liberty. They can however (as referenced above) stop be from murdering themself, or another, or committing rape, theft, or some other crime. This is because, as a general rule, any action which breeches individual liberty of one person by another is considered a crime. I thus ask, that what moral right does one have to enforce their will (or, cynically, normally their religious belief) on another person? Or by extension, what right does the state have to regulate against the expressed will of the individual. Is it to true that liberty - that most noble concept - is extended to every individual, and that integral to this liberty is the ability to exercise will? In a word, what right does anyone have to enforce their own belief on anther? These questions relate not to the morality of anyone concerned insofar as these morals are personal. But these questions relate to what moral right one has to assert these beliefs on another. It can be seen that this is of dubious credibility.
As for other related topics, abortion comes straight to mind. However, this is for anther day.
