It is my contention that for something to be labeled as "murder" it must meet at least all of six criteria:
Number one: to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. Meeting this criterion alone is insufficient reason to label something a "murder," however, because we often kill things in situations where no one would ever think of uttering the term "murder." We kill germs with disinfectants, and weeds with defoliants. We kill insects and rodents and cows and pigs and never get charged with murder. We even kill each other in accidents, in war, in self-defense and no one screams out the dreaded "m"-word. "Killing" is not the problem: we do it all the time.
Number two: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "life." I mention this obvious fact in order to get the word "life" into the discussion. Notice, I did not say, "a life." I did not because the term "a life" has been misused by many people who have turned it into a stealth term: a euphemism they have secretly substituted for a different, much more important term, a term which represents the last, the most difficult to meet, and yet, the most crucial of all these six criteria.
Number three: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "human" life. When you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine, you have not committed murder. When butchers slaughter pigs for hot dogs and cows for steaks, they have not committed murder. If the life you kill is porcine, bovine, feline, canine, or anything other than "human," then your action cannot ethically be described as "murder."
Number four: to be "murder" an action must involve the "intentional" killing of human life. Imagine two scenarios. In each one you hurriedly back your car out of your driveway. In one scenario, you fail to notice that your elderly neighbor has just walked behind your car. In the second scenario you notice that someone you despise has just walked behind your car. In both scenarios you back your car over the victim and kill him. In the first case you did so by accident, and in the second case you did so intentionally. No one would doubt that the second killing was a "murder"; but, whatever else they might call it-an accident, a tragedy, a misfortune-no one would label the first scenario a "murder" precisely because it was not done intentionally.
Number five: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life. As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical problem. We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment, and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment, and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable forms of killing. The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were considered ethically unjustifiable. What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.
Number six: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed.
But what is "personhood"? Some ethicists list more than a dozen criteria for defining "personhood." But I believe there are just three which are absolutely necessary: they are "consciousness," "self-awareness," and "memory." In order for me to be a person, to be "Robert," it is essential that I possess the ability to experience "consciousness"-by which I mean an awareness of my environment. I must also have the ability to recognize the difference between my environment and myself, which is what I mean by "self-awareness." Despite temporary lapses into unconsciousness and loss of self-awareness due to sleep, sedation, and so on, I remain the "person" I am only so long as I am able to return to consciousness and self-awareness with the memory of my own past intact.
What is it that gives someone consciousness, self-awareness, and memory? It is only one thing: a brain. . With a mature, fully functioning human brain, there can be consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and "personhood." Without a brain, personhood is absent.
Let me offer two examples:
First: imagine that a bank robber intentionally shoots at the hand of a cashier who is reaching for an alarm button, and the bullet completely destroys the woman's thumb. Here we have the intentional killing of innocent human life: he shot at her hand, not at her head or heart; and it was, after all, not a horse's hoof nor a dog's paw, but a human hand!
Notice: I once again did not use the term "a life." Why? Because, while no one can deny that this thumb was innocent human life which was intentionally killed, the term "a life" is misused by some in the abortion debate to refer to more than merely living human tissue: it is, instead, a euphemism for "personhood."
Second: imagine that someone has been mugged, is brain-dead, but still exists only because of life-support equipment. Then, at the request of his family, physicians unplug the patient from those machines, and he dies. The physicians are not arrested. Nor are they charged with murder. Instead, the state's attorney upgrades the original charge against the man's attacker from assault to murder. Why? The beating obviously did not kill the victim's body which was alive until the machines were stopped. What did the beating kill? It killed the victim's brain-which itself was innocent human life. Had it been his thumb, his kidney, or his lung that was killed, no charge of murder would have been contemplated. But the brain is special: it is the organ of personhood. When someone intentionally kills an innocent living, mature and fully functioning human brain, he has also killed a person; and that destruction is what constitutes "murder."
To repeat, here are my six criteria: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of an innocent human life which is a person.
Why Abortion is Not Murder Bu siteden alıntıdır.
Why Abortion is Not Murder
Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D.
Hepsini çevirmem imkansız, çünkü o kadar vaktim yok fakat, genel anlamda bahsedilen şey şu: Cinayet demek için içerisinde öldürme, yaşam, insan yaşam, kasıt kavramları olmalı...
cinayet eyleminden bahsetmek için, bunun suçsuz masum insan hayatına kasıtlı olarak yapılmış olması gerek diyor.
Bu insan hayatı nereye çıkar= kişiye.
Dolayısıyla adam diyor ki, eğer bu kasıtlı olarak öldürülen masum insan hayatı bir FERDE yönelik değilse, bunu cinayetten sayamayız diyor.
Peki KİŞİLİK nedir diyor? Buna şu kriterler giriyor: BİLİNÇLİLİK, ÖZ FARKINDALIK ve HAFIZA.
Bilinçli olmadan kasıt, etrafımda olup bitenden farkında olmam.
Öz farkındalıktan kasıt, kendimle çevrem arasındaki farkı fark edebilmem.
Hafızayı da hepimiz biliyoruz, peki bu durumu sağlayan organ ne BEYİN.
Beyin ölümü gerçekleşen birinin kalbi çarpıyor değil mi? Ailenin de onayı ile doktor makinenin fişini çektiğinde kişi ölüyor ama doktorlar tutuklanmıyor ya da katil sayılmıyor değil mi? Çünkü ölen sadece vücut.
Dolayılıyla biri kasıtlı olarak masum bir hayatı, olgun ve bütün fonksiyonlarını yerine getiren bir beyni öldürdüğünde, bu bir cinayettir evet. BU CİNAYET tanımına girer.
Daha iyi açıklayabilecek olan bir arkadaş varsa, daha ayrıntılı belki çevirebilir, yukarı aşağı ancak bu kadar özetleyebildim.