Does "murder" exist in a lawless society?

[Dirty Hipsters]

Back when The Last of Us came out quite a few reviewers, including Yahtzee, described the protagonist of that game, Joel, as a crazed psychopathic murderer and a few said that they felt uncomfortable playing as him because he was always brutally murdering. Now this bugged me for a number of reasons, but I think I've finally figured out the real reason that it annoys me when people refer to Joel as a murderer.

The definition of murder is thus: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

So essentially the definition of murder comes down to "purposefully killing someone illegally."

So my problem with calling Joel a "murderer" is the fact that he lives in a post apocalyptic future with barely any real functioning society which is largely lawless. So considering that there isn't any real legal system, or courts, or anything like that can Joel really be called a murderer? Does the definition of murder still apply in a civilization where laws are completely ignored?

 

[tippy2k2]

Twice in this month? I'm on a roll!

Spoiler

I suppose if you really really really really really really really want to get nitpicky about it, you would be correct that murder can't exist since you can't murder someone without breaking the law (unless you count GOD's law! Dun Dun Duuuuuu!!!).

However, I'm not sure I'm going to appreciate that argument after you've shot me in the face during the post-apocalypse...

 

[RJ 17]

So my problem with calling Joel a "murderer" is the fact that he lives in a post apocalyptic future with barely any real functioning society which is largely lawless. So considering that there isn't any real legal system, or courts, or anything like that can Joel really be called a murderer? Does the definition of murder still apply in a civilization where laws are completely ignored?

Spoiler: Wow, I did not think I'd get to use this create-a-meme for anything outside of the topic I specifically made it for!

Murderer, in common usage, is a synonym for "killer". And a "killer" is defined as:

kill·er [kil-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that kills.
2.
killer whale.
3.
a device used by a post office for printing cancellations on postage stamps.
4.
a mark of cancellation made on a postage stamp.
5.
Slang. something or someone having a formidable impact, devastating effect, etc.: The math test was a real killer.

So yeah, "technically" you really can't call someone who kills in a lawless society a "murderer" seeing as how the definition of "murderer" does specifically say "someone who kills someone else unlawfully" or something along those lines. It does stipulate that it's against the law. The question then becomes "So would you prefer Yahtzee describe Joel as "a crazed psychopathic killer"? Would you rather have others saying they didn't like him because he was always "brutally killing"?"

As the topic I made the above-spoilered meme for suggests, not everyone intends for everything they say to be taken by the exact specific meaning as defined by the dictionary. There's such thing as "figurative speech". Beyond that, though, I doubt many people realize that the definition for "murderer" even has the stipulation of the killing being done in an unlawful nature. Which brings us back to the beginning of my statement: in common use, murderer = killer. And killer = something/someone that kills with no such stipulation about said killing being against the law.

 

[hazabaza1]

Twice in this month? I'm on a roll!

Spoiler

I suppose if you really really really really really really really want to get nitpicky about it, you would be correct that murder can't exist since you can't murder someone without breaking the law (unless you count GOD's law! Dun Dun Duuuuuu!!!).

However, I'm not sure I'm going to appreciate that argument after you've shot me in the face during the post-apocalypse...

Yeah this.
A law might not exist so you actually can't 'murder' someone but if I were to see Joel in action in a realistic scenario then yeah, I think my reaction might be "holy shit he just murdered someone!"
Or something similar.

 

[DementedSheep]

Ok, technically no it isn't but murder in this context just means deliberately and unjustly killing someone. It may not be quite the correct usage but is how people are using it. Whether it is or isn't against actual written law is irreverent to whether the person sees it as justified.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

People keep using this as a justification for why execution and wars of aggression aren't murder. They tend to ignore any points to the effect that Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin are all termed "mass murderers," yet the mass scale killings they committed (well, ordered) were completely legal. How could they not be? They were dictators, their word was law. Yet what they ordered was still very much murder.

Basically, it's a circular definition in the law. Why is this deliberate killing of another human being not murder? Because the law says it's not murder. Any argument predicated on that part of the definition when talking on a large scale[footnote]e.g., "can murder happen in a lawless society" vs. "such and such person in this specific lawless society under these specific circumstances kills somebody. Can we prosecute him for murder under the laws of this society?"[/footnote] is just a way to shift blame. It's going "see? It's not murder! It's not murder because it's not murder!" Typically being used in a way that reads "see? It's not wrong! It's legal!" This is doubly problematic when the discussion is about whether or not a law should be changed.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Twice in this month? I'm on a roll!

Spoiler

I suppose if you really really really really really really really want to get nitpicky about it, you would be correct that murder can't exist since you can't murder someone without breaking the law (unless you count GOD's law! Dun Dun Duuuuuu!!!).

However, I'm not sure I'm going to appreciate that argument after you've shot me in the face during the post-apocalypse...

So my problem with calling Joel a "murderer" is the fact that he lives in a post apocalyptic future with barely any real functioning society which is largely lawless. So considering that there isn't any real legal system, or courts, or anything like that can Joel really be called a murderer? Does the definition of murder still apply in a civilization where laws are completely ignored?

Spoiler: Wow, I did not think I'd get to use this create-a-meme for anything outside of the topic I specifically made it for!

Murderer, in common usage, is a synonym for "killer". And a "killer" is defined as:

kill·er [kil-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that kills.
2.
killer whale.
3.
a device used by a post office for printing cancellations on postage stamps.
4.
a mark of cancellation made on a postage stamp.
5.
Slang. something or someone having a formidable impact, devastating effect, etc.: The math test was a real killer.

So yeah, "technically" you really can't call someone who kills in a lawless society a "murderer" seeing as how the definition of "murderer" does specifically say "someone who kills someone else unlawfully" or something along those lines. It does stipulate that it's against the law. The question then becomes "So would you prefer Yahtzee describe Joel as "a crazed psychopathic killer"? Would you rather have others saying they didn't like him because he was always "brutally killing"?"

As the topic I made the above-spoilered meme for suggests, not everyone intends for everything they say to be taken by the exact specific meaning as defined by the dictionary. There's such thing as "figurative speech". Beyond that, though, I doubt many people realize that the definition for "murderer" even has the stipulation of the killing being done in an unlawful nature. Which brings us back to the beginning of my statement: in common use, murderer = killer. And killer = something/someone that kills with no such stipulation about said killing being against the law.

Twice in this month? I'm on a roll!

Spoiler

I suppose if you really really really really really really really want to get nitpicky about it, you would be correct that murder can't exist since you can't murder someone without breaking the law (unless you count GOD's law! Dun Dun Duuuuuu!!!).

However, I'm not sure I'm going to appreciate that argument after you've shot me in the face during the post-apocalypse...

Yeah this.
A law might not exist so you actually can't 'murder' someone but if I were to see Joel in action in a realistic scenario then yeah, I think my reaction might be "holy shit he just murdered someone!"
Or something similar.

Here's my problem with it, the usage of the word "murderer" has certain negative connotations to it that a more accurate term, like "killer" does not. A killer can be justified in his actions, whereas a murderer cannot, and that's why it bothers me so much when people use the word "murder" or "murderer" incorrectly.

 

[McMullen]

I think of murder as killing with intent but without moral justification. Obviously the government can't use that definition, because people have a habit of finding all sorts of moral justifications for killing other people even if the victims never meant them any harm, so it would make sense that they replace moral justification with legal justification.

So yes, you can be a murderer in a lawless society. All that's required is to know that what you're doing is wrong, but to not care.

 

[TheSYLOH]

So yes, you can be a murderer in a lawless society. All that's required is to know that what you're doing is wrong, but to not care.

Well the thing is there would be never be a truly lawless society, as long as there is one or more entities capable of making judgement there is a law.

But really in the case of Last of Us and most so called "anarchy" situations, there is still law, its just standardized on a tribal/warlord scale and not written down.

 

[Shuu]

All sorts of semantics can be argued. I guess at its most lenient definition, it's a way of saying "kill" making sure to give it a negative connotation, specifically pointing to the person who did the killing and saying "that was bad! Go to your room!"

 

[persephone]

It depends what definition of murder you use. If you only use a legal definition, then sure, you can't have a murderer without law. But my personal definition is the Catholic definition, that a murder is a killing that isn't morally justified. Of course, what qualifies as moral justification is a quite complicated affair, to say the least.

Fun fact: though the Ten Commandments are sometimes translated to include "Thou shalt not kill," a better and more accurate translation is "You shall not commit murder." That is, God wasn't prohibiting killing in general, but rather only morally unjustified killing.

I would say that such a definition of murder applies in a civilization where laws are ignored or don't exist, whether or not you're religious about it, though. Most people have a pretty good internal sense of moral justification, and they'll draw the distinction even if they won't use any specific legal or religious terminology. Of course, with or without such definitions, there'll always be grey areas and edge cases.

 

[Vault101]

while I never finished the game I considered it a faild attempt to bring grey into a world which was more black and white than imedietly presented



[spoiler/]particually when red neck nice guy turned psycho canabl refers to Joel being the guy whos going around killing people as "the crazy murderer"

who was Joel killing mostly at that part of the game?

BANDITS!! PEOPLE GOING AROUND IN A TRUCK AND MURDERING PEOPLE AND EATING THEM..different to joels brothers people, different to fireflys and different to those in the compund, different to the black guy and his brother, everyone in that world probably did some bad things but the line was clear thease people got by SPECIFICALLY by preying on others rather than

he had every damn right to waste every one of those fuckers.... its not even a question of morality, its a question of self defense, [/spoiler]

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

while I never finished the game I considered it a faild attempt to bring grey into a world which was more black and white than imedietly presented



[spoiler/]particually when red neck nice guy turned psycho canabl refers to Joel being the guy whos going around killing people as "the crazy murderer"

who was Joel killing mostly at that part of the game?

BANDITS!! PEOPLE GOING AROUND IN A TRUCK AND MURDERING PEOPLE AND EATING THEM..different to joels brothers people, different to fireflys and different to those in the compund, different to the black guy and his brother, everyone in that world probably did some bad things but the line was clear thease people got by SPECIFICALLY by preying on others rather than

he had every damn right to waste every one of those fuckers.... its not even a question of morality, its a question of self defense, [/spoiler]

Pretty much my feelings on the subject as well. That's why whenever I hear someone say that Joel is an immoral killer in the game I wonder if they've actually played the game, or if they're just parroting Yahtzee, as is popular on this site.

 

[Vault101]

while I never finished the game I considered it a faild attempt to bring grey into a world which was more black and white than imedietly presented



[spoiler/]particually when red neck nice guy turned psycho canabl refers to Joel being the guy whos going around killing people as "the crazy murderer"

who was Joel killing mostly at that part of the game?

BANDITS!! PEOPLE GOING AROUND IN A TRUCK AND MURDERING PEOPLE AND EATING THEM..different to joels brothers people, different to fireflys and different to those in the compund, different to the black guy and his brother, everyone in that world probably did some bad things but the line was clear thease people got by SPECIFICALLY by preying on others rather than

he had every damn right to waste every one of those fuckers.... its not even a question of morality, its a question of self defense, [/spoiler]

Pretty much my feelings on the subject as well. That's why whenever I hear someone say that Joel is an immoral killer in the game I wonder if they've actually played the game, or if they're just parroting Yahtzee, as is popular on this site.

I don't understand it eather! if anything he was as moral as you really could be in that situation! just trying to get a long and cause as little trouble as possible

As for Yahtzee I think the scene with him and Tess playing hardass's really rubbed him the wrong way...and I can totally understand that and would agree but ultimatly looking over the amount of game I played...he's not one of those protagonists

 

[RJ 17]

Here's my problem with it, the usage of the word "murderer" has certain negative connotations to it that a more accurate term, like "killer" does not. A killer can be justified in his actions, whereas a murderer cannot, and that's why it bothers me so much when people use the word "murder" or "murderer" incorrectly.

Then I guess the answer is yes, you'd much rather be a "crazed psychopathic killer" than a "crazed psychopathic murderer."

As I said: most people consider "killer" and "murderer" to essentially be the same thing, "killer" has just the same kind of negative connotation to it as "murderer".

 

[dyre]

I've only played a few hours of The Last of Us and haven't read Yahtzee's article, so I could be misunderstanding your post, but here goes:

You are correct that murder is a legal term to describe certain types of homicide (homicide being a general term for the taking of another person's life, including legally or by accident), but I'm assuming Yahtzee was talking about "murder" as synonymous to "morally unjustifiable homicide" rather than its actual definition of "legally unjustifiable homicide." If the purpose of your post is to nitpick the specific word that Yahtzee uses, then I suppose you have a point. If however your intention is to insinuate that, in a lawless society, killing without proper, relevant justification ceases to be immoral rather than merely unlawful, then, well, I think you'll need stronger evidence.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

If you are talking within the realms of the moral ambiguity of the character, I think that is more of a war of semantics to say that Joel isn't a 'murderer', because there is no legal system to justifiably judge and brand him as such.

I think the point that reviewers like Yahtzee wanted to convey is that Joel just kills a ridiculous number of people throughout the game. There is never any remorse or sadness to the task ahead of him, he just kills lots of people. Maybe you should call him a 'killer' or just state the fact that you know he has killed lots of people, without assigning that a title. But the fact of the matter is, 'you' as the player 'know' that he is a killer - to a monumental level. Having an emotive response to this fact, surely can't be disregarded on the basis that there is no law system to prevent such actions.

If the only judgement of action is based on the prospect of reprieval, where do our moral judgements on these actions come from? Surely we don't all universally agree with the law, in our region, at this precise moment, and we don't have to justify murder through supposed 'necessity'?

Is he also not a thief for stealing from people, because there is no law system?

Just because there is no rule of law, this does not save him from moral scrutiny.