From: thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:28:26 GMT

>|> But aren't murder (ignoring abortion for a moment), theft, etc., also moral
>|> issues?  E.g., it is generally agreed that it is immoral to murder someone
>|> else, so it is legislated as illegal, and to hell with those who believe that
>|> there is nothing immoral about murdering someone else?  (:^)

>Murder, theft etc. are *not* moral issues. A murder  is somewhat indisciminant,
>and as such it cannot be predidcted who will be the next victim. Morever, if we
>allow murder it is possible (although a little unlikely) that one murderer could
>kill off the entire population, leaving just themself. Granted, this is a little
>far fetched, but it demonstrates the idea that punishable crimes effect the
>general population (we wouldn't just outlaw crimes against the rich or an ethnic
>group).

I'm assuming that by "indiscriminant" here is meant that there is no neat
category of victims (e.g. fetuses).  But what does that have to do with the
(im)morality of the act?  Unpredictability of who the next murder victim in
the U.S. will be or what category/class s/he will be from does NOT mean that
murder is not an immoral act.

Maybe "issue" was the wrong word, as most everybody agrees that murder should
be outlawed, but it does seem a moral point.  It is immoral to murder another
human being (as well as being potentially detrimental to society, as mentioned
here), thus it is illegal.


>        Abortion does not effect the general population; in fact it is planned
>and performed by a particular cross section of the population (unlike the
>invasion of a body by an unwanted "fetus" - a little strange idea that makes
>sense if the fetus is a "sentient" being) - namely pregnant women. This is to say
>that abortion is performed in specific, predictable cases; theft, murder, arson,
>etc... are not. It is this arbitrary threat that laws seek to remove.

A "neat category of victims" problem, and victims whose rights are (at least
legally) unclear, thus all the special attention.  Not because the abortion is
any more of a moral question than murder, but because the answer (is it immoral
or not?) is unclear.


>|> Or, a related, if stupid-sounding question: is the legislation against murder
>|> simply/easily enforceable in this country if the victim is NOT a U.S. citizen?
>|> (I actually don't know, so please don't flame this.)

>actually, it is enforceable, but often other governments' embassies step in to
>protect them (the US does the same for its citizens abroad). Most of the time,
>prosecution has the same success rates, mostly because serious crimes are a
>"unversal" idea, while misdemeanors mean little anway.

What?  Other governments' embassies step in to protect those who have murdered
their (non-U.S.) citizens?  I think somebody misread my question.  Let me spell
it out...

A is a citizen of the U.S.  B is a citizen of Othercountry (or none, if that's
possible).  A and B are both presently in the United States.  A murders B.

Question: can A be prosecuted in U.S. courts for the murder of B, a non-U.S.
citizen?  And if so, would there be any difference due to B's non-citizenship?


-- 
===================================================================
===========================Thomas Kiefer===========================
===================thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu===================
===================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections