Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

How and why is killing wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryanvergel

ryanvergel

New Member
It is a generally held principle that murder is morally wrong. However, we should have a reason and meaning as to why it is wrong to kill others.

Is it always wrong to kill? If it is sometimes okay to kill, then when is it okay to kill?

I want to give a few examples of little tests as to what problems and opinions you have about killing, and whether those thoughts are properly guided or correct at all.

I want to ignore any criticisms of negative responsibility and criticisms of consequentialism and determinism. We will assume that all individuals are viewed as equal in value, and that it is fact that the acts will take place.

You find yourself in a situation where killing some individual(s) may save other individual(s). The exact scenario isn't important. I will give random names to these equally considered individuals and see what you all think about different forms of killing?

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?

The scenario doesn't really matter, this is simply decision theory. If you know that killing a man named Tim will mean that a man named Pedro doesn't kill both Tim and Ron himself, would you kill Tim? Would you kill someone not involved, James, to prevent Tim and Ron from dying? Would you kill Tom to save a great number of people? Would you kill a young child to save two adults? Would you kill Pedro, the killer, to save Tim? What about to save Tim and Ron? What about to save the child, or the 200 people?

If you would all like to answer yes and no to 1-4, and say why if you'd like, it would be interesting to see what everyone thinks and how we all have radically different views about something a lot of people feel the same towards.
 
Murder and kill are two different things.

Dictionary.com

MURDER

5.to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

KILL
1.to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.


If you kill someone in Self-defense / or defending other people it isn't wrong

tina
 
You have to kill to murder. Murder is just a more descriptive term for the same action. This isn't about semantics. The distinguishable features between murder and killing are not what we're discussing, and the point and concept remains the same, but you've simply sidestepped the concept altogether to argue a moot point. Yeah, they're different in the same manner that cat and mammal are different. A murder is a specific killing directed towards an individual. Now can we get back to what I intended?
 
sorry i did off track.
your scenarios are odd.

As for saving larger amounts of people it may be best to do so.
I wouldn't mind being killed in order to save a large amount of people, or even one other person.


3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
yes, because it is for the better good.
 
As put in the 200 people scenario, there does not seem to be a definitive black or white area.

Murder is murder but when the action can save multiple lives..... it still is but it's 'for the good'....
 
I have thought about this a lot over the years. I have been in situations similar to those described. I found that I cannot kill. I cannot bring myself to sacrifice a life for any reason. That isn't limited to humans either. I cannot bring myself to personally, intentionally kill any living creature. I even feel remorse if I accidentally step on an insect.The only exception is harmful bacteria and viruses. I haven't ever felt remorse over killing those. Aside from the self preservation instinct I have no good reason why I do not feel bad about killing harmful viruses and bacteria.

As a side note to the topic at hand, I would like to know people's feelings if you needed to kill yourself to meet the requirements of the scenarios. Killing one's self is killing as well. I mean that literally, not subjectively. Personally, I doubt I would be able to kill myself to perserve the life of another, but I feel I would probably be willing to let someone else kill me if it meant the survival of another.
 
1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? Yes, he would die anyways
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? Yes, 2>1
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people? Yes, 200>1
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults? Yes, 2>1

This is one wacked thread though:p
 
I have no problems killing myself to save another person. I hear heaven is a pretty great place ;x

However, killing another person to save another person, or even 100 more people is a stickier topic.

Good philosophical topic ryan.
 
These questions have been with me for a while and I think I can vent them here:

In terms of destiny:
1. Would the murderer be destined to kill?
2. Would the victim be destined to be killed?
3. If so, is it then really the victim's 'time' to die and the murderer's time to kill that specific person?
 
The Fish King said:
I have thought about this a lot over the years. I have been in situations similar to those described. I found that I cannot kill. I cannot bring myself to sacrifice a life for any reason.
Click to expand...

Have you been in some of these situations??

For some reason i find that very unlikely.

Please tell me, since you can't/couldn't kill, what happened?
 
if forced to do those kind of actions, i would probably be able to do the first 3, due to reasons stated by smacktack15, but i don't think i could ever kill a child, or myself for that matter. I would much rather have someone kill me in that scenario, but, with the child, i don't think that i could take the life of someone so young.
 
1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? Yes. Tim dies in either hypothetical scenario, so keeping Ron from dying is utilitarian.

2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? In most situations this would depend on the net value of James, but if James=(Tim + Ron)/2, then yes.

3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people? In most situations this would depend on the net value of Tim, but if Tim's value= 200 random people/200, then yes.

4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults? Depends...Especially if we're going by the Jewish definition of an adult (13), the common legal definition of an adult (18), or the social standard (21).

Either way, my answer would be based off of how much time those adults have had to live. The older the adults, the more likely I am to spare the child. The younger the adults, the less likely I would.
 
Should we discriminate two individuals for being older in case 4? Do we have a special responsibility to children over adults? Is the life of a child more valuable than an adult's?

I think it will help if everyone at least answers 1-4 so that we can have a better idea of the different answers out there.
 
I think atleast for me, that the questions need to have more information.

What does Tim mean to me? Did I just meet him on the street, or is he a life-long friend?

Who are these 200 people? Anyone in particular, or just 200 random people will die?

If these 200 people are not just random, what significance are they to me? Are they important country representatives? Other?

How about Tim? Does he hold something of great value, say, a cure to cancer?

For me, killing would depend drastically on circumstance. On all 4 questions, its easy to answer, until your in the situation, with real circumstances, then you may have second thoughts.

I'm willing to guess if put in a real situation like this, atleast half the people who responded to your question would have second thoughts about their answers.

Ryan, if you could give me more information on the scenario of each question, I think I could give you answers.
 
You don't need any more information. I said everyone is of equal value, so whatever that conjures up in your mind is acceptable.

What does Tim mean to me? Did I just meet him on the street, or is he a life-long friend?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. Equal value all around, so they are such that they all have equal value. Whatever properties one needs to possess to be equal to some other individuals in your mind is exactly the properties any of these individuals have. They are blank slates.

The only things that matter are that all individuals are equal, and that the facts will take place. Nothing else matters.
 
1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? Yes.
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron? No.
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of 200 people? Yes.
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults? No.
5. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of both that child and another child? Yes.
6. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of 200 people? Yes.

It is kind of like the one about the gal who would be with a guy for $1 Million. Although she would never do it for $20, she would do it for money. The only question is what her price is.

For me, the benefit has to outweigh the cost. The only question is how large the benefit is. Ultimately, I know that under the correct set of circumstances, I could kill.

This is purely academic philosophy. In actual practice, I could probably only kill either in self defense, in defense of others, or in fulfillment of a legally authorized mission I understand and support (like as a soldier).
 
Let me answer this in a hilariously existential way...

Here we go:

In this world of no definition, a morally neutral sphere of no importance drifting in a galactic abyss, does this question hold any weight? If lives are to be eradicated or spared based on the mere whim of another person's self-actualized moral compass, did those lives really have any importance? Is this question just an exercise in futility if it is a question based on the relative values of the unimportant? That question is up to you, and it will be true in your reality no matter how you think about it. But then if truth is relative to individual realities, then is "truth" really truth? I'm going to go blog about this on the nearest online social network, with a tear in my eye, and my hair covering said eye as to hide my depression rooted in my newly realized irrelevance. Then I will start an emo band called "rift of confusion." Woe is me. Woe is me...
MOM! Can you take me to Nietzsche fan-club meeting later?

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top