Killing: When/If It's Ok?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]

I’m a little curious about this one too. As I see it now, it would be more wrong to not defend oneself because the defense is a ‘nobler’ reason than the person trying to kill you assuming they have more selfish reason to do so than the one defending themself.

Granted of course, in that situation one isn’t going to think anything about these sort of things, only instinctually protect themself. I think this might tie into the motives and intent mentioned not much earlier.

I hope I’m not stretching your focus out too far between Tigertime and the other questions I brought up.

182

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
What does the size of a political unit have to do with ability to enforce the morality of killing people?
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with our ability to enforce it. At least not directly.
Enormous units could probably do that quite efficiently. and quite technocratically.
It has something to do with our legitimity to do it.
In other words : a modern state may not be the most legitimate “enforcer” of morality.
And indirectly it probably make a few things a bit harder.

[quote]
Why are intent and motive primitive? What would be a better way of looking at it?
How would human sciences ‘emerge from their current prehistory’? Or what do you think that would look like?[/quote]

huge and hard questions.
I will try to answer them latter.

[quote]
I’ve never thought about sociopathy like that. Would I be correct in assuming that you know that goes largely against the grain of what modern psychology believes a sociopath to be? At least the literature that I’ve glossed over.[/quote]

Actually i think that most of what modern psychologoy believes about sociopathy is actually correct. But i suspect we currently overlook one of their paradoxes : even if they are unable (and/or unwilling) to conform themselves to social norms, they are often heavily influenced by cultural symbolisms. And sometimes, even their worst transgressions exhibit such an influence.
So there may be something to explore here.

183

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Well, golly, I can’t figure out why more people don’t want to sign up to the “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” moral code you’re pitching here.[/quote]

I take that you never had to kill to defend your life. If you did, you would know that you’re indeed “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” in such circumstances. Regardless of your moral code or lack thereof.

See Jewbacca’s post in this topic. Ask anyone who actually experienced such situations.

So it’s immoral to be killed because it results in death? Is that what I am to understand?[/quote]

No.
In itself, “to be killed” is not an action nor a choice.
Morality and immorality applies only to action and choices.

the “fixed” version :
To let oneself be killed (when it’s avoidable) is immoral because it results in a death.

184

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Well, golly, I can’t figure out why more people don’t want to sign up to the “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” moral code you’re pitching here.[/quote]

I take that you never had to kill to defend your life. If you did, you would know that you’re indeed “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” in such circumstances. Regardless of your moral code or lack thereof.

See Jewbacca’s post in this topic. Ask anyone who actually experienced such situations.

So it’s immoral to be killed because it results in death? Is that what I am to understand?[/quote]

No.
In itself, “to be killed” is not an action nor a choice.
Morality and immorality applies only to action and choices.

the “fixed” version :
To let oneself be killed (when it’s avoidable) is immoral because it results in a death.[/quote]

That’s what I meant.

So what should the repercussions be for this immoral act of letting yourself be killed needlessly?

185

That’s right. But “noblesse” is not a moral concept. it’s an ethical one.
Ethically, killing your agressor is obviously better.

Many people systematically confuse ethics and morality, but it’s not exactly the same thing.
Morality define how i should conduct myself, under universal standards and according to universal maxims.
Ethics define how i should conduct myself, according to the social codes of the group to which i belong.

In a moral (formal) perspective, both deaths are equal, it’s the irreversible destruction of an infinite intrinsic value, in both cases.
In an ethical (societal) perspective, both actions doesn’t have the same intent, nor the same meaning. One is obviously worst.

And when things are morally equal, ethics “wins”.

That being said, this “nobler evil” is still an evil^^

[quote]
Granted of course, in that situation one isn’t going to think anything about these sort of things, only instinctually protect themself. I think this might tie into the motives and intent mentioned not much earlier.[/quote]

Yes, these “moral dilemmas” are indeed purely theoretical. Extreme cases used polemically and sophistically in a desesperate attempt to find “exceptions to the rule”, and a pretext to reject the rule itself.

186

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

No repercussions i would experience myself.
Et alors ?

187

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

No repercussions i would experience myself.
Et alors ? [/quote]

Then you have an example of your morality not having a practical purpose.

And suicide? Is that also immoral?

188

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.[/quote]

I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory. [/quote]

You don’t think we’ve decided in this argument or in reality?

189

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.[/quote]

I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory. [/quote]

You don’t think we’ve decided in this argument or in reality?[/quote]

Reality.

190

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Hypothetical here, is it an evil end if someone commits the evil act of stealing your luggage which contains your passport, wallet and boarding passes if it prevents you from crashing and dying the plane flight you missed as a direct result of the theft? If you remain alive, was that an evil thing that happened or was it an, “other than evil” end that resulted from an evil intent?
[/quote]

…you do know that me not getting on the plane is not the end of stealing my luggage?

191

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

To move the thread along its intended subject, what type of enforcement do you think is best for those that murder and crimes involving the death of fellow people?

Do you agree with categorizations like second degree murder and manslaughter and first degree murder?

Do we all agree that there are some people who will never look back at their transgressions and feel remorse or do you think that everyone can be conditioned to feel these feelings?

The problem I see with sociopaths is that they are masters of deceiving therapist into thinking that they’re better and manipulating those who don’t understand the concept of sociopathy.

And these aren’t just questions to Kamui, they’re for all. I’ll address them the best I can when I get a chance.

[/quote]
The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time - J Moreland, Norman L. Geisler - Google Books Read whatever is available for showing I am sure you will enjoy it.

192

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

To move the thread along its intended subject, what type of enforcement do you think is best for those that murder and crimes involving the death of fellow people?

Do you agree with categorizations like second degree murder and manslaughter and first degree murder?

Do we all agree that there are some people who will never look back at their transgressions and feel remorse or do you think that everyone can be conditioned to feel these feelings?

The problem I see with sociopaths is that they are masters of deceiving therapist into thinking that they’re better and manipulating those who don’t understand the concept of sociopathy.

And these aren’t just questions to Kamui, they’re for all. I’ll address them the best I can when I get a chance.

[/quote]
The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time - J Moreland, Norman L. Geisler - Google Books Read whatever is available for showing I am sure you will enjoy it.[/quote]
Anyways the link I posted discussed a few views, what do you think is the purpose capital punishment or putting people in jail etc…?

193

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]

Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]

Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?[/quote]

You miss my point. The rapist has his own idea of morality. It just so happens that, to him, rape is okay (at least when he does it).

What makes your morality more legitimate? You say your morality is based on what causes ‘harm’, but who are you to say that harm is the foundation of objective morality? I don’t see what’s objective about it. [/quote]

I don’t own a morality, I am subject to it just like everybody else. And to say that one person’s opinion is as good as another when it comes to morality is patently false. Does rape cause harm to another being? Yes. Is it a willful act? Yes.
If you have a victim who was grievously harmed, then that act was evil. To try and mock up some justification to support a failing paradigm and some sort of intellectual exercise is utter horseshit.
In that world, it doesn’t matter what you do or whom you do it to, it’s all permissible. It’s a great stance if your trying to justify assholes like Stalin. Stalin sure didn’t mind killing all those people, didn’t bother him one bit. Must have been moral then.
[/quote]

I missed the part where you logically proved harm is the objective standard for morality. [/quote]

Yes you did.[/quote]

The harm principal has a few holes, but all legal principals are flawed.

Harm principal for one is intended for prevention. So the goal is to put laws into place to prevent harm. This doesn’t mean that the punishments are going to be humane or “just.” It only means that there are consequences for ones actions.

The other problem is actually related to rape, and you will probably hear this discussed if you ever get into something like Advanced Philosophy of Law, but a lot depends on how you define harm.

So I’m going to try to lighten this up at someone’s expense since he has been described as a multi headed monster, and this is a serious subject…

So, lets say our Multi Headed Monster heads out to the local bar and this guy named Ritt Momney shows up with some Jesus Juice (non alcoholic) with a nice spike of date rape drug in it.

Multi Headed Monster wakes up the next morning feeling right as rain, doesn’t remember a thing about the night before, but probably the best sleep he got since the last time he was laid (5 years ago). Actually what happened was the Multi Headed Monster was date raped by Ritt Momney.

So the problem is, the multi headed monster was harmed, but has no recollection or reason to believe he was harmed. Now harm can be defined in several ways, one way is defined by the offender, in that they are harming a person, doing damage to another person in some way which obviously happened in this case, and the principal stands. But the problem is, if there is no recollection of harm, or actual physical harm to the victim, the principal misses the victim. Unless you can get the perp to admit what he did was wrong, the principal falls on it’s face because it cannot protect the harmed person if they don’t know they were harmed.

194

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

To move the thread along its intended subject, what type of enforcement do you think is best for those that murder and crimes involving the death of fellow people?

Do you agree with categorizations like second degree murder and manslaughter and first degree murder?

Do we all agree that there are some people who will never look back at their transgressions and feel remorse or do you think that everyone can be conditioned to feel these feelings?

The problem I see with sociopaths is that they are masters of deceiving therapist into thinking that they’re better and manipulating those who don’t understand the concept of sociopathy.

And these aren’t just questions to Kamui, they’re for all. I’ll address them the best I can when I get a chance.

[/quote]
The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time - J Moreland, Norman L. Geisler - Google Books Read whatever is available for showing I am sure you will enjoy it.[/quote]
Anyways the link I posted discussed a few views, what do you think is the purpose capital punishment or putting people in jail etc…?[/quote]

I have looked at it. It is really interesting. I think the purpose is as a deterrent and to keep people accountable. Basically to keep the honest people honest.

195

[quote]kamui wrote:

Compassion is the feeling and/or the idea that the sufferings of others are bad and/or wrong.
It’s already a moral judgement. the concept of “good” and “bad” are already there, even if they are only implicit at this point.
[/quote]

Not to throw a wrench into this wonderful conversation with TigerTime.

But, I think I have compassion, but I don’t think suffering is inherently bad.

196

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Compassion is the feeling and/or the idea that the sufferings of others are bad and/or wrong.
It’s already a moral judgement. the concept of “good” and “bad” are already there, even if they are only implicit at this point.
[/quote]

Not to throw a wrench into this wonderful conversation with TigerTime.

But, I think I have compassion, but I don’t think suffering is inherently bad.[/quote]

Isn’t suffering something people have to suffer because of the sin (moral wrongdoing) of Adam and Eve?

197

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.[/quote]

I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory. [/quote]

You don’t think we’ve decided in this argument or in reality?[/quote]

Reality.[/quote]

Living in Western Civilization we have a very established idea of what morality is and is not.

198

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Compassion is the feeling and/or the idea that the sufferings of others are bad and/or wrong.
It’s already a moral judgement. the concept of “good” and “bad” are already there, even if they are only implicit at this point.
[/quote]

Not to throw a wrench into this wonderful conversation with TigerTime.

But, I think I have compassion, but I don’t think suffering is inherently bad.[/quote]

Nor do I.

199

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Compassion is the feeling and/or the idea that the sufferings of others are bad and/or wrong.
It’s already a moral judgement. the concept of “good” and “bad” are already there, even if they are only implicit at this point.
[/quote]

Not to throw a wrench into this wonderful conversation with TigerTime.

But, I think I have compassion, but I don’t think suffering is inherently bad.[/quote]

Nor do I.[/quote]

But, unlike BC, you said that we don’t need a moral code because compassion is our natural state.
If suffering isn’t inherently bad, how do we know when it is, and when it’s not ?

200

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Isn’t suffering something people have to suffer because of the sin (moral wrongdoing) of Adam and Eve? [/quote]

Suffering is caused by evil, yes. We are suffering because we are moving to a greater good, though. A distinction there.