Dear Peter
I was using the word "murder" in relation to my discussion of the
Oresteia, where the argument about the legitimacy of what are
(uncontroversially, I think) a series of murders become the impetus
that symbolically sets up the Athenian state. The council at the
end, which determines whether or not Orestes is to be further
punished for the murder of Clytemnestra, is a legal system. So using
this as a model, I was suggesting that murder is deeply embedded in
the concept of state: the state defines itself, to an extent, by
deciding for itself the legitimacy of some murders as opposed to the
illegitimacy of others. I have never heard of a state which does not
take to itself as a right in some form the right to murder other
human beings.
I was deliberately expanding the definition of murder to include the
intentional and violent killing of one human being by another and
taking it out of a legal definition. I was also trying to take all
moral judgement out of it and just look at that model. It seems to
me, according to this logic, that killings in war are murder as well.
The moral opprobrium we attach to such murders seem very much to
depend on whether we think such murders are legitimate or not. We
are very used to thinking that some murdering is ok, but to me that
is a result of cultural conditioning. I am quite aware that this
makes things like abortion (which I think is an important right for
women) or euthanasia (which I do not oppose either) extremely
problematic, but that problematic is the fact of the cases. Taking
another human life in any circumstance is problematic. There are
very few decisions we can make as human beings which are
unadulteratedly wrong or right.
Best
A
--
Alison Croggon
Editor
Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
|