Without writing a whole entire essay, I would have to say that it would be morally bad for the purpose of knowing that the killer is the sole cause of taking away the chance or the will of living from another.
Think of it as the perspective of a young child. For any time whatsoever, a child is granted a gift. The child holds that gift and continues to play with it. All of a sudden, another child comes up and snatches away the gift. That other child then breaks that gift, but it doesn’t matter if the other child did it intentionally or accidentally, for now it’s gone forever. Now of course, the same gift could possibly be remade, but it will never be the exact same gift as the one before. This is how the process of murder is; the child was receiving the gift of life and another person took it away and broke that gift.
It is bad you never know, that person might’ve become a doctor and save your life in the future. If everyone else is more well-off, that means you are more well-off. That is called selfish altruism or smthn
Everyone has something they can bring to the table, so removing a person from giving that thing will ultimately make your life worse in one way or another.
That is why murder is bad.
Our morals are directed by our own will for self-preservation, so if it does not preserve ourself, then it is morally wrong.
Well if someone thinks murder is fine what’s turning them away from saying genocides were okay? They killed people? That’s what you think is bad about those? After just saying murder was fine?
Their justification for murder might not cover genocides. That’s one thing.
If I say “murder is okay”, I can mean many things. When I personally say so I mean that the act in and of itself can and is justified in many cases and is not wrong unless unfairly meted out. The same goes for stealing and lying.
Herein lies your assumption.
You assume they mean so regardless of reason or of quantity.
You also assume that the quantity would be insignificant to said hypothetical person.
I eat meat, and am therefore fine with animals being killed. To then assume I am fine with them being driven to extinction is a massive leap.
I know it’s an improbable example, but it is an example.
That’s what I’m getting at here. Why should killing one person with no reason be fine and killing a lot more be bad?
I’m shooting a dart at a specific reason here, if murder that is completely unjustified, with no reason, fine in someone’s head, then why should a genocide be bad to them?
You weren’t initially - at least you didn’t seem to be, as the two posts below will show:
Either you genuinely forgot what you were talking about an hour ago or you’re intentionally shifting goal posts. I’ll assume the first no matter how improbable I think it to be just to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Moreover:
The same issue here. You seem to be adding phrases like “with no reason” as you go; phrases that weren’t in your original posts and seemed in no way implied.