Webster defines murder as the "killing of another person" and suicide as the "killing of oneself." It seems, therefore, that these are mutually exclusive ideas. They simply are not the same action. In support of this claim, the phrase "Suicide is murder" is commonly referenced while "Murder is suicide" is not. If it is obvious that these words are not interchangeable, why does the phrase "suicide is murder" remain so common in our culture if it is clearly illogical?
4
-
1I wonder if people that think suicide is murder also think that regret after purchasing something is theft or that tripping and injuring oneself is self-assault?– CellCommented Sep 21, 2020 at 14:32
-
Dictionaries are not authorities. They are a GUIDE to usage. Often we encounter BAD DEFINITIONS & your case is one. Murder is typically defined & distinct from other killing by 1)there is a human being that is a victim, 2) there MUST be intent (aka a motive) to end the life of ANOTHER human being: that is this is no accident to kill the human being, 3) the murderer must have actually possessed physical capability to perform the intentional killing and so on. Suicide is not the intentional killing of ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Suicide is the intentional killing of oneself. So they are NOT EQUAL.– LogikalCommented Sep 21, 2020 at 16:16
-
3No, "is" is an ambiguous word and does not always mean identity. Often it means inclusion, as in "fear is emotion". So you should write S⊂M (suicide is a special case of murder), and it can not be reversed.– ConifoldCommented Sep 21, 2020 at 19:13
-
A kumquat is a fruit. But not all fruits are kumquats.– Hot LicksCommented Oct 2, 2020 at 17:10
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
From a logical point of view, if we define murder as the "killing of another person" and suicide as the "killing of oneself", then the two actions are mutually exclusive.
If instead we agree on a revised definition of murder as "killing of some person", then we may consistently assert that suicide is a particular case of murder.
In both cases, the "equality" sign is wrong.
Note: but in natural language, "is" does not always mean "is identical with". See the post What is the difference between the “is” of predication and the “is” of identity?
This distinction between different meanings of "is" is something that philosophy had discovered long time ago. See Plato's Euthyphro, 12c:
Socrates Then it is not correct to say “where fear is, there also is reverence.” On the contrary, where reverence is, there also is fear; but reverence is not everywhere where fear is, since, as I think, fear is more comprehensive than reverence; for reverence is a part of fear, just as the odd is a part of number, so that it is not true that where number is, there also is the odd, but that where the odd is, there also is number.
answered Sep 21, 2020 at 13:51
Since they are mutually exclusive we can't write so using equality sign. Also, since equality sign is illogical here I need not explain whether it is sensible to use the reverse notation.
All of us know that murder is a terrible crime. When we say "suicide is a murder", there is a great chance of creating awareness among people about a terrible crime like murder. This helps to induce people refrain from suicide. That may be the reason for such saying/culture. Though illogical, there is goodness in it.
We can't give similar effect by the reverse statement. More over it is more illogical.
answered Sep 21, 2020 at 16:34
This seeming paradox actually just illuminates the difference between natural language and formal language.
The word "is" can sometimes be translated formally as equality, as in "The current First Lady of the United States IS Melania Trump."
But "Suicide IS murder" would be be better captured formally as something along the lines of "Suicide is a proper subset of the set of all murders," which is not a reversible statement.
answered Oct 2, 2020 at 15:00
