How and why is killing wrong?

[A Thing Of Immense Beauty]

Killing is our duty as human beings to stem the unsustainable population growth.

 

[Boofu]

Killing is our duty as human beings to stem the unsustainable population growth.

LOLOLOLOL. There are so many things wrong with what you just said.

 

[DarthPika]

Killing is our duty as human beings to stem the unsustainable population growth.

Wow.... I hope you are not serious...

 

[Brady1]

He's just trolling.

 

[V_For_Vendetta]

Nah dude, symbolic logic is like an advanced logic course. Something for students pursuing high levels of philosophy and law take this class.

You just took common logic and sense and said "NAAAAAHHHHH" to it.
A=B
B=C

Using your logic, A=/=C because *throws book quote in here*
=/

It's translating English fully into symbolic logic. If your course WAS anything like symbolic logic you would have known the definition of logical equivalence, since logical equivalence is a foundation for symbolic logic. However, it is not a foundation for reasoning and critical thinking, which is a course many people take to develop such skills. However, you really don't want to get into arguing over the definitions and correct usage of words that you obviously don't know the meanings of, do you?

If he doesn't understand them, why not try to educate him so you may continue this debate, otherwise you are simply a coward pulling out Philosophy and Silliness to win an arguement because you choose to ignore the points that he is making.

I did give a detailed post. That thing I quoted? From a book I have. I typed that up myself for you guys because I couldn't find anything else to communicate it better. It's just a concept that you either get or don't get. Such is the problem with philosophy.

Posting a concept is nice. I could post a concept called "Nazism" where 6 million innocent people were killed because they were believed to be inferior. Following the path of your argument, I could post a passage from Mien Kumf and every Jewish person on the gym would have to request permission from a Mod or Admin to post because they are inferior. Posting someone elses work in a debate that does not answer the question you have been handed is flip flopping the argument Mr. John Kerry.

And you are STILL avoiding my question, if killing is always Black and White, Right and Wrong,

tell me my wrongness if I rob a bank, commit triple homicide, then give it all to a third world country and turn myself in.

Using your "logic" for right and wrong, determine my wrongness level and the calculation you used for it.

Just a quick comment. So what your saying is that every single civilazation (for the most part) throughtout human history has been naive when it comes to killing?

Yes, its pretty much a given that 99% of the human population are sheep with no intelegence or ability to think beyond what they are told. You get enough people together and tell them something and put it the right way and it becomes fact. Christianity is the perfect example of this, a long time ago someone told people that "A cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father was born, raised, and died for your sins which were originally put there because a rib woman ate an apple because she listened to a talking snake" and it just took off from there. So again, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

From what I've read, most cultures had rules against murdering another and the like. Killing in war/self defence (since both are pretty connected) is different, as it has to do for surivival. Your example is killing in this way, which is permittable for human survival. Does it suck that someone had to die? Absolutely. But its a fact of life. Surivival of the fittest and what not.

Survival of the fittest? If my father was 6'5" and could bench press 200 Kilos, while your father was a 5'3" shrimp, your father deserved to die, yet my father is dead. Survival of the fittest doesn't work with general humanity, we violate these laws with technology and reasoning (old people living to be 140 when they should have died decades ago is a perfect example of this).

Killing is our duty as human beings to stem the unsustainable population growth.

I love you, lets blow up Parliment together.

 

[ashinto]

Killing is our duty as human beings to stem the unsustainable population growth.

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU!?

 

[ryanvergel]

You just took common logic and sense and said "NAAAAAHHHHH" to it.
A=B
B=C

Using your logic, A=/=C because *throws book quote in here*
=/

There is no such thing as "common logic and sense". Something is either logical or it isn't- and your stance simply isn't. You can read many other philosophers discuss it. I just picked a quote from a book I had on hand that directly addressed why you were wrong.

If he doesn't understand them, why not try to educate him so you may continue this debate, otherwise you are simply a coward pulling out Philosophy and Silliness to win an arguement because you choose to ignore the points that he is making.

Because I'm trying to educate him about a different topic. I can't do both in one thread. Lakak was clearly trolling my thread, posting for the sake of arguing, and couldn't accept that he was fundamentally wrong. He tried to make himself appear educated and knowledgeable on topics he clearly wasn't. This topic is about how and why killing is wrong. I don't know why, but people like you and Lakak want to derail my simple topic into countless other, obscure, irrational little side-arguments. I don't care if you think there is no definitive moral truth. That's not what this thread is about. I already gave you the respect and time to fully address your qualm, showed you my perspective and the same perspective from a published philosopher in the field, and told you that I know that it is widely accepted by people in the fields of philosophy, and everyone else BUT you and lakak think your argument is faulty and that the one I presented is true. If you want to argue about that more, then fine, but don't derail my thread to do so.

Posting a concept is nice. I could post a concept called "Nazism" where 6 million innocent people were killed because they were believed to be inferior. Following the path of your argument, I could post a passage from Mien Kumf and every Jewish person on the gym would have to request permission from a Mod or Admin to post because they are inferior. Posting someone elses work in a debate that does not answer the question you have been handed is flip flopping the argument Mr. John Kerry.

That doesn't really make sense.

And you are STILL avoiding my question, if killing is always Black and White, Right and Wrong,

I didn't know you were asking me a question.

Using your "logic" for right and wrong, determine my wrongness level and the calculation you used for it.

I don't know what you mean? My logic showed that there WAS a right and wrong, not WHAT is right and wrong. You're asking for two different things.

 

[Brady1]

Survival of the fittest? If my father was 6'5" and could bench press 200 Kilos, while your father was a 5'3" shrimp, your father deserved to die, yet my father is dead. Survival of the fittest doesn't work with general humanity, we violate these laws with technology and reasoning (old people living to be 140 when they should have died decades ago is a perfect example of this).



I love you, lets blow up Parliment together.

Last time I checked, using your mind to outwit someone to survive is survival of the fittest. It does work with general humanity. We just bend these rules with our superior technology and social order. Old people living to 140 is a rarity (as far as I know anyways) and is just evolution at its best. :/

 

[ninetales1234]

I like this thread! This is a thinking thread:smile:

You'd sacrifice whatever feelings you had to be able to kill for 200 but not for 2? What the difference, the number? Is it some arbitrary number, because so far it seems that you don't know the number, but there is no rationality behind the number, so it's just a random assignment.

Just because people have different views does NOT mean that there is NO right view! At one point in time people disagreed over which solar system model to adopt: the heliocentric model or the geocentric model. The two sides had different views, but the existence of multiple views does not mean that there are necessarily multiple right answers and therefore no definitive one right answer. That is to say that just because they disagreed didn't mean one side wasn't right. We can disagree about whether or not God exists, but ONE of us must be right. He either exists or He does not exist, but just because we both disagree doesn't mean there is no right answer.

There can be a right and a wrong.

I gotta sig this...

I think what you mean to say is that if the majority of people in your society agree with your actions then you will be morally praised, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are in the right. You can't just dismiss morality as a byproduct of whatever current society holds. There is obviously a persistence and aspect of morality that has crossed throughout Humanity and throughout the ages and cultures of the world. It is very much possible to have a one, true code of morals. You haven't shown why it is impossible for a definitive set of moral laws to exist.

You make so much sense!
------
Would I kill a person who is carrying out a murder? Sure. However, it doesn’t seem that ryanvergel’s questions presuppose that any these people are committing murder, so….

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
No
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 both 200 people?
No
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?
No

I don’t want to have to be responsible for the death of people. At least by doing nothing, I don’t have to be responsible for anything. I just walk away, and there will be no blood on my hands.

I imagine that if one of these scenarios happened and I did kill someone, I would have to think about what would happen afterward. If someone else was presented with one of these scenarios, and I was Tim/Ron/James, what would the person do? Would he say, “Well, look, there’s that guy who killed people to prevent the killing of other people. So it must be okay if I kill him to prevent the killing other people”.

This reminds me of the question: A train is on a track where it is about to hit and kill seven people. There is a switch that can change the train’s course to a track that five people are standing on. Would you hit the switch?

I will give random names to these equally considered individuals

The names in these questions all sound Anglo and male. Coincidence?

 

[ryanvergel]

I like this thread! This is a thinking thread:smile:



I gotta sig this...

You make so much sense!
------
Would I kill a person who is carrying out a murder? Sure. However, it doesn’t seem that ryanvergel’s questions presuppose that any these people are committing murder, so….

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
No
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 both 200 people?
No
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?
No

I don’t want to have to be responsible for the death of people. At least by doing nothing, I don’t have to be responsible for anything. I just walk away, and there will be no blood on my hands.

I imagine that if one of these scenarios happened and I did kill someone, I would have to think about what would happen afterward. If someone else was presented with one of these scenarios, and I was Tim/Ron/James, what would the person do? Would he say, “Well, look, there’s that guy who killed people to prevent the killing of other people. So it must be okay if I kill him to prevent the killing other people”.

This reminds me of the question: A train is on a track where it is about to hit and kill seven people. There is a switch that can change the train’s course to a track that five people are standing on. Would you hit the switch?


The names in these questions all sound Anglo and male. Coincidence?

No joke, I was looking through this old thread by Phazon Elite back in may and it mentioned "damn" not being censored, and I saw you post. I noticed I hadn't seen you posting much lately and thought it would be great to see you post on my thread.

Sure enough- here you post

And yes, this is very similar to that. The train/derailment is used to show the idea of negative responsibility, that one's inaction can have a causal relationship with the effect of say, the death of another (eg not tripping the track and diverting the car). This takes the idea of negative responsibility to a whole new level and shows many more facets of it- at least 4 different facets in my first post alone.

Kant writes about something called the Categorical Imperative, which is very similar to the Golden Rule. That is, act by which you would have your act be a universal law of conduct. Basically, treat others have you would have yourself be treated.


If this code is true, however, it must be true in all cases. It cannot be that killing is okay in one sense in not in another, for the law states that any time it is allowed it would have to be allowed universally. This presents a huge conflict, as you can see, since there are a number of people who have said yes to some of the questions and would probably agree with the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative.

 

[Lucario EX]

3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
No

I don’t want to have to be responsible for the death of people. At least by doing nothing, I don’t have to be responsible for anything. I just walk away, and there will be no blood on my hands.

Assuming that no one else was in the same situation, yes, you would be responsible for the death of people. Only, in the above situation, you would be responsible for the deaths of 200 people instead of 1.
Which is the greater evil, killing someone yourself, or allowing someone else to kill several people?

 

[PokeDad]

Kant writes about something called the Categorical Imperative, which is very similar to the Golden Rule. That is, act by which you would have your act be a universal law of conduct. Basically, treat others have you would have yourself be treated.


If this code is true, however, it must be true in all cases. It cannot be that killing is okay in one sense in not in another, for the law states that any time it is allowed it would have to be allowed universally. This presents a huge conflict, as you can see, since there are a number of people who have said yes to some of the questions and would probably agree with the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Kant's Categorical Imperitive, treating others as you would have yourself be treated, and the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you, don't work.

Richard Bach, in Illusions, cited the masochist who would like others to tie him up and flog him. Shall we grant the moral cover of Kant or the Golden Rule to this person, as he treats others as he would want to be treated?

How about a more simple, Do What You Will, and be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

 

[Fenrir]

Okay, I'm an unknown here, but I'd like to take a crack at this. Please do not get disturbed by the examples I use, and I apologize if I offend anyone here.


To answer these four examples, we'd need to rely on our own personal set of morals/ethics. Every person's is different, whether or not society can agree on some parts of it. Thus, given a group of 20 people, even if you get the same answers, they may not be for the same reason. Why is this? Why do we see killing as wrong to begin with?

Throughout mankind's history, death has been a constant. Look around you, it's everywhere. It may not seem like it, but we're desensitived to it, so we don't take too much notice. Society always totes the fact that killing is inherently wrong in some wayh; that it goes against our nature as a "civilised" and "intelligent" species, but let's use America as an example. Given that each life is equal in value, and killing one person is the same as killing another, and society totes killing as "wrong", how do we explain war? Does having a reason to kill justify the killing in the end? War, self-defense, saving someone else's life; they're all really the same. A death at your hands will look the same at the end of the day regardless of who it was, and regardless of how you personally see it. It is never "right" to kill, but, on the same coin, it is never "wrong" to kill either.

Let's say John gets mugged. The mugger shoots John in the stomach. A cop passing by notices, takes out his pistol, and shoots the mugger dead. To him, John, and general society, this is justified, thus making it okay. Now, what if the cop had missed, and killed John instead? Even though he had the same reason as the first scenario he would be held in contempt, and most likely be fired/and/or/jailed.So if having a "good" reason to kill someone makes it alright in some circumstances, why doesn't this work in this instance? The answer is that there is no "good" or "bad" reason to kill someone. Humans have been killing each other since we first came into existence, much like nearly every other form of life on tihs planet that we know of. In the early days, before we became "civilized", did we care as much about killing? The short answer is no, we didn't. The only reason killing is even seen as wrong at all, is because we, humankind, have attrributed this quality to it; much like we do with everything else.

Take any example. Any at all. The nastiest, most horrible thing you can think of. Nope. Not "bad". Perhaps you view it as "immoral", but the truth is, it isn't. The concept of "immoral", of things being inherently "bad" is a notion we ourselves created to try and regulate our lives. To give us a sense of security, to make ourselves feel rewarded for not partaking in such things. We, as a race, have deluded ourselves into this state we are in. We are cowed, led to believe what makes us feel safe, and we don't like to leave that safe, tiny, little box. If you go around on the streets and poll people, odds are, most of them will disagree with the statement "Murdering a five-yeard old child is aceptable given human nature." Not wanting to accept who we really are, what we came from, we hide from the truths we don't want to hear. To be cliched, the truth hurts.

Taking the stance that "All life is equal." would apply to any and all life, whatever form, whatever circumstances, whatever it has done. The man who just shot your son right in front of you is held in the same light as the son you just lost. The steak you're eating? Just like you. The truth is, all life is equal in every way; the only reason we see this differently is because we have led ourselves to see "humanity" as being better then any other form of life on the planet, once more, justifying our actions.

Yet, I am not here to debate the virtues of not killing and eating other animals; in fact, I'm trying to support it.

We are a biological lifeform. We are animals. (Unless someone wants to argue that we are plants.) Animals do what they have to to survive. To survive and pass on their genes is the only thing "built in" to a newborn of any species. They instinctively know how to survive, and if surviving means taking the life of other creatures, it is accepted readily. Self-preservation is our base mindset. Even in our modern day societies, the old adage is true; Survival of the fittest.

The jerk who backstabs at th office, stealing your work to get the promotion? Just as "justified" as a war. He's done nothing "wrong", but you would feel hurt, angry. Why? You worked hard, and he destroyed it. You were attempting to survive, but so was he. You took one route, he took a different one, not a "bad" one, just a different one. "Dog eat dog world". Makes sense, doesn't it? The only way we can get ahead, to live, is by destroying other things and using them for our purposes, whether it be eating, building, whatever.

Killing is something we are good at, because we've been doing it since our time began. We're desensitived to it in the same way a shark doesn't flinch everytime he has to kill something to survive. A lot of people are of the belief that humans are "above" the other animal species, but that's wrong. Sure, we may be more "intelligent", and have adapted to survive, but we aren't above them. We are them. How do you think we got to the point we're even at right now? By destroying any and everything that stood in our way. "If you won't help me, you will die."

So, killing cannot be actually be "justified", because there is nothing to justify. It's merely a fact of life, one of the things we are capable of doing, and, given our choice, can do. Nowadays it may seem like we've risen beyond all that, but we haven't. Just look around. See the wars. See the gang fights. The muggings, the *****, the kidnappings. Though it may be sad to say, those people are the most "normal" ones of us all. To define something as "wrong", you're applying a label to it, nothing more, nothing less. It's your opinion. Yes, society in general gets behind you and says "Killing that old man was wrong, we need justice.", but there is no justice. Only survival. Everything we define our existence by is human-created constructs of our minds. Opinions that, over the years, have become accepted as the truth, when they aren't. You can say it isnt human nature to kill, but you'd be ignoring years of history.

Yes, we live in a somewhat "safer" world. A regulated world. We keep trying to reach a utopia, a paradise, but it will never happen. Every person is different, and the same. We're all just another life, trying to get ahead, to survive. And if we ever become a unified world, a utopia of sorts, it will only be through killing those who stand against society's beliefs, silencing the voices who speak out against what you declare to be right."Soylent Green is people!"

Thus, with every life equal, the answer to each situation will change for almost everyone. Given these situations, here are my answers.

1. Yes. If extinguishing one life which is already going to die, saves another to survive instead of killing him too, it's the only answer I coud give.
2. Yes. This is just like number one; you're maximizing the chances of survival out of all parties involved.
3. Yes. At this point, this should need no explanation.
4. This is the only one that requires deliberation. Who has the better chance to survive, two adults, or a child? The adults are almost certainly more capable to adapt and survive, but the child hasn't even really had a shot yet, so we don't know how they would fare. To maximize survival, the obvious choice is to kill the child.

Before I get flamed as some kind of freak or psychopath, no, I do not want to kill anyone. One of the things I am afraid of more then any other is that I may one day be pushed over the edge and kill someone. I have my own personal set of ethics, just as we all do. Am I going to go protest killing as wrong? No. Will I go around killing people? No. While it may not be inherently wrong, I still don't want to have to do it. Personally, I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I had to kill someone, and I hate myself already for when I've been ready to.

I guess I'm a failure as a survival then, aren't I?

 

[drrty byl]

A wise professor once told me that pokemon aren't killed -- they're knocked out.

How is killing humans different from killing animals? Does self-interest preclude morality?

 

[ryanvergel]

A wise professor once told me that pokemon aren't killed -- they're knocked out.

How is killing humans different from killing animals? Does self-interest preclude morality?

The same way that destroying a Picasso differs from destroying my little brother's drawings. :tongue:

 

[V_For_Vendetta]

I just realized I have no answered the original questions that the first post asked me to, so I think I will get those out of the way and respong to Ryan tommorrow (3:30 am, tiredness)

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
In a heartbeat
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
Again, yes
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
A hundred times over
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?
No, I do not harm children. But I would not protest to another person killing this child to save those people's lives.

 

[yoyofsho16]

As for the debate about 4, I am not one of those people who will go on and on about how "Children are our future," but from a literal standpoint and the standpoint of a human geographer whose work deals with this kind of stuff and life value, a family's only purpose is to replace the members of the family that die. If you kill a child, then, considering that Ron and Tim are two ADULTS who did not have a long go on life, you are killing three in the long run, because that next generation "replacement" for Ron and Tim is gone, so in the next generation of adults, are three are absent.

Therefore, killing the child would be unjust, not because their life has more value, but because human purpose is being tampered with when you kill them.

 

[(TYranitarFReak)]

I think most people can say they dare to kill someone. But in reality, It's not that easy. We're not trained to kill! Police will find u no matter what (CSI anyone).

What if the person ure gonna kill is ur best friend? Ur family? Can u pull the trigger?

I remember, in Death Note, L said in numerous occasions, " whatever the reason, killing is wrong".

 

[V_For_Vendetta]

I think most people can say they dare to kill someone. But in reality, It's not that easy. We're not trained to kill! Police will find u no matter what (CSI anyone).

Tell that to OJ Simpson. And go take a look at some statistics, like the one that says 23% of all murders go unsolved. CSI is a TV show.

What if the person ure gonna kill is ur best friend? Ur family? Can u pull the trigger?

Probably not, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, because being your best friend would certainly alter the worth of someone from your point of view.

I remember, in Death Note, L said in numerous occasions, " whatever the reason, killing is wrong".

Wrong. If someone comes in and kills my family, I will tear out his throat and eat his entrails. Anyone who tells me that is wrong will become an appetizer. Killing being wrong is something YOU look at, I am quite sure the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks thought they were doing the right thing, as were many of the Nazi's in WWII. Watching anime for philosophy won't get you far.

 

[Brady1]

^23%? I thought/heard it was around 2/3rds. X_x

Edit: Looks like its around 35-40%. Still freaking high. :/