What is a counter argument for no murdering or abuse?

Answer 1

While there are always grey areas under the law in which the crime of murder might, on consideration in a court of law, be found to be a lesser crime, the terms 'murder' or 'abuse' both denote wrongdoing in a legal sense.

The term 'murder', in a moral sense and taken as being committed with ill-intent towards the victim, always denotes wrongdoing.

The term 'abuse' also describes wrondoing, but is subject to a great deal of messing about by those who need, or want to claim, excuses for abusing others. In real-life terms, 'abuse' means deliberately doing something to someone else in order to hurt them, in one way or another, so let's assume that's what we're talking about here.

To argue that nobody should be allowed commit murder or any other form of abuse against another, takes us inevitably to the conclusion that nobody should commit murder or other abuse against others, and that nobody should escape punishment if they commit these offences.

A counterargument, then, cannot exist if we are using the terms 'murder' or 'abuse' in their usual and universal sense. We can't argue logically that we are in favour of the murder or abuse of others, or at least not in those words.

Arguments have been presented for, to give one example, compulsory killing of defective babies, or defective humans of any age, but these arguments don't use the term 'murder' to describe the proposed actions. One term used to describe this practice is 'eugenics'; another is 'cleansing (of the human species, or of individual cultural groups)', or even 'culling'.

Similarly, there are arguments for, as another example, the punishment of children by hitting them or otherwise abusing them in order to improve their learning or general behaviour. These arguments, again, don't use the term 'abuse' to describe the proposed methods of behaviour enhancement; terms used are 'discipline' and 'teaching' and so on. Interestingly, those who are convinced hitting children is a good way to help them learn don't use the term 'hit', but say, instead, 'smack'.

In that reasoning, if an adult hits a child with educational intent, it's a 'smack'. If the child hits back in retaliation, the child should be 'smacked' again to teach it 'hitting' is wrong.

Playing with, or manipulation of, words is perhaps the only way a counterargument could be mounted to an argument against murder or abuse, by calling 'murder' or 'abuse' something else and then explaining why whatever word we use instead of 'murder' or 'abuse' is a good thing.

Otherwise, a reasonable counterargument for either action, given the accepted usage of the terms, might be to suggest murder or abuse is perfectly okay from the perpetrator's point of view, provided the person committing the murder or abuse is sociopathic (psychopathic).

Answer 2

One counter-argument is that it goes against ethical principles and human rights to harm others. Additionally, engaging in murder or abuse can have negative consequences for both the victims and the perpetrators, such as legal repercussions and psychological damage. Lastly, promoting a culture of non-violence and respect for others is essential for a peaceful society.