Worth of Hermit v. Infant

Once again, like my last post - in response to Tyler - Full post here or the Feb 5th 2012 post

1.) The true injustice of murder does not lie in the pain of those left behind, instead it is simply the fact that someone has unjustly ended someone else's life. One consequence of murder which always results from murder is that another person has died. There is no other consequence that always follows from a murder. Given the pain in those left behind doesn't always follow, I would say it's not the worst part of murder. Additionally, their grief is completely dependent on that person's death, making it a unfortunate part of murder, not immoral in itself, and certainly not the foundation of it's immorality.

2.) I suppose I used child in place of infant. An infant is largely dependent on other people and does not have the mobility to do what it wants, and it won't be able to remember, generally what it did during that time frame (given that infants forget things almost immediately). Even if it could, it still has far less memories based on it having lived less. I do still think it's immoral to kill an infant, though.

3.) I don't necessarily pity the hermit, I simply wanted to show that a hermit can certainly have a life that is, overall, 'worth' more even if they don't have people that care about them. A hermit could very well choose to become such on their own but still partake in those activities above - I think it would be a worse shame if the hermit's life was lost. I do agree that if neither has a person that likes them, the murder of the hermit would be worse.