Killing: When/If It's Ok?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. [/quote]

It doesn’t say “kill,” it says “murder.” “Thou shalt not murder.”

There is a large gulf between killing and murdering.[/quote]

You beat me to it. This is a very important point I often times have to explain to my Catholic friends as well as my atheist friends who seem surprised that as a believer in God I do agree with the death penalty.[/quote]

Uhh, but the death penalty is murder.
[/quote]

Why isn’t it “an eye for an eye?” Being totally serious

42

[quote]pat wrote:

I agree situations can be complicated, but the basis for it, is not. The biggest complicating factor is when the necessary, or right thing to do is the hardest thing to do…
[/quote]

Fair enough, I can agree on that.

So, as it typically goes, the matter is simple, it is humans that fuck it all up.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t believe in killing animals just for fun. Except roaches…I hate those fucking things.

[/quote]

You left out mosquitos. [/quote]

Come on guys, they are just trying to feed their family. :wink:

EDIT: took out a word that would confuse my point and replaced it iwth one that hopefully doesn’t.

43

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. [/quote]

It doesn’t say “kill,” it says “murder.” “Thou shalt not murder.”

There is a large gulf between killing and murdering.[/quote]

You beat me to it. This is a very important point I often times have to explain to my Catholic friends as well as my atheist friends who seem surprised that as a believer in God I do agree with the death penalty.[/quote]

Uhh, but the death penalty is murder.
[/quote]

Why isn’t it “an eye for an eye?” Being totally serious[/quote]

Well, for me, it’s because I’m not bound to Levitical law.

44

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I agree situations can be complicated, but the basis for it, is not. The biggest complicating factor is when the necessary, or right thing to do is the hardest thing to do…
[/quote]

Fair enough, I can agree on that.

So, as it typically goes, the matter is simple, it is humans that fuck it all up.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t believe in killing animals just for fun. Except roaches…I hate those fucking things.

[/quote]

You left out mosquitos. [/quote]

Come on guys, they are just trying to feed their family. :wink:

[/quote]

Their family feeding ends when they feed on my family. (^=^)b

45

It’s rainy season in Japan right now, and those little assholes are EVERYWHERE.

46

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

How does one know their emotional responce is right?

Edit: typos[/quote]

I say this as a nineteen year old kid with more theoretical life experience than actual life experience, but I think it would be a waste to spend time constantly psycho-analysing your own feelings because you feel the need to justify your emotions to yourself. Emotions are your body’s reactions to stimuli. To say they can be right or wrong is the same as saying your existence is right or wrong, or even that existence itself is right or wrong.

The problem isn’t the appropriateness of your bodies emotions, it’s the ideals your mind imposes onto you, and the question then becomes; are these ideals your own invention, or are they borrowed from society? If they’re yours, then drop them! What good are they doing you if you’re making yourself miserable over things you can’t control just to appease them? And if they aren’t yours, are they really worth guilting yourself over?

Emotions are temporary things. Let them come and go as they please and you’ll find joy can be found in all of them. [/quote]

Yeah, but emotions like guilt and shame exist for a reason, a very good reason.

Those who have mastered the art of completely discarding them are commonly referred to as sociopaths.

[/quote]

Sociopath is a loosely defined term at best. I could just as easily say one who lacks compassion is a sociopath. Your statement is non-cognitive.

47

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :

Taking a life is evil. Always. Without any exception. It’s never a “good thing”.

That being said, in some circumstances, it may be the “right” thing to do.
A “necessary evil”. And/or a “lesser evil”.

but a “lesser evil” is not a “greater good”. It’s still an evil.

The very existence of such cases is one of the main reason i can’t buy most christian theodicies (notably those based on “Free will”), and the whole concept of a “will of God”.

[/quote]

Why is it evil?[/quote]

Define evil, then you’ll know why.[/quote]

That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]

Evil is based on doing harm to sentient beings. The more harm and the more beings are harmed the more evil the act. I don’t not have to appeal to God to make the argument, but I can in either case.
All you have to do is personalize it and understand your experience is only as real and valuable as somebody else. Morality isn’t something you create, it’s something you discover, it already exists. Blowing up a puppy is an evil act, blowing up a person is an evil act, blowing up a rock is not.
The basic tenets of morality are:

  • intent
  • freewill
  • sentience
  • action
  • result[/quote]

Okay, but if harming a sentient being wasn’t called evil, would you still oppose it? I mean, if you aren’t appealing to God or some other objective source of morality, then what one defines as evil is arbitrary. I could come up with a very different, yet equally justified definition and then be free to harm whomever I want.

After all, who are you to say what I should deem moral?

48

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

After all, who are you to say what I should deem moral? [/quote]

He isn’t as an individual, but as a part of contemporary society he is the authority if he is in line with the majority concensus.

PArdon any spelling please.

49

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

After all, who are you to say what I should deem moral? [/quote]

He isn’t as an individual, but as a part of contemporary society he is the authority if he is in line with the majority concensus.

PArdon any spelling please.[/quote]

There was a point in history where the inter-subjective consensus was as such that if you kill a man’s son, you should be punished by having your son killed.

What society considers moral means nothing to me.

50

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :

Taking a life is evil. Always. Without any exception. It’s never a “good thing”.

That being said, in some circumstances, it may be the “right” thing to do.
A “necessary evil”. And/or a “lesser evil”.

but a “lesser evil” is not a “greater good”. It’s still an evil.

The very existence of such cases is one of the main reason i can’t buy most christian theodicies (notably those based on “Free will”), and the whole concept of a “will of God”.

[/quote]

Why is it evil?[/quote]

Define evil, then you’ll know why.[/quote]

That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]

Evil is based on doing harm to sentient beings. The more harm and the more beings are harmed the more evil the act. I don’t not have to appeal to God to make the argument, but I can in either case.
All you have to do is personalize it and understand your experience is only as real and valuable as somebody else. Morality isn’t something you create, it’s something you discover, it already exists. Blowing up a puppy is an evil act, blowing up a person is an evil act, blowing up a rock is not.
The basic tenets of morality are:

  • intent
  • freewill
  • sentience
  • action
  • result[/quote]

How do you define sentient and is this an is or isn’t kind of deal or a spectrum?

51

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]

I don’t want to derail this into a political discussion, but I remember when that preacher interviewed both McCain and Obama.

He asked each to define “sin.” Obama stated (paraphrase) “sin is going against MY moral beliefs.”

I was pretty stunned at the ego involved at every level of that statement.[/quote]I saw that. That was Rick Warren of “The Purpose Driven Life” fame. A man I do not hold in very high theological regard,(quite low actually) but who definitely had/has Obama’s number. That also the time when Obama was asked when life began and he replied that is was “above his pay grade”.

52

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< What society considers moral means nothing to me. [/quote]Well looky there!!! Me either!!!

53

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

After all, who are you to say what I should deem moral? [/quote]

He isn’t as an individual, but as a part of contemporary society he is the authority if he is in line with the majority concensus.

PArdon any spelling please.[/quote]

There was a point in history where the inter-subjective consensus was as such that if you kill a man’s son, you should be punished by having your son killed.

What society considers moral means nothing to me. [/quote]

Challenge it all you want, but don’t cry if society deems you and your moral code “wrong” and tosses you in with Jerry.

I mean, as people we can only operate in the environment we are presented with. If you choose to try and change your environment, you have to hope everyone goes along with it or your change doesn’t conflict with their moral code enough for revolt.

To the thread though: If you think it is okay to kill a man over a potato chip, and the majority don’t, you are going to jail, and evil. Arbitrary or not, you will be seen as evil by everyone, so whether or not you are, in an absolute sense, evil won’t mean anything, because everyone sees you that way.

I guess I’m saying is, what everyone else thinks does matter, at least to a degree.

You give me hope, you and the CS dude are pretty sharp for people who can’t have a legal beer. Shit, you have only been having legal sex for like 18 months… Good for you and whatever school system you are in.

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

After all, who are you to say what I should deem moral? [/quote]

He isn’t as an individual, but as a part of contemporary society he is the authority if he is in line with the majority concensus.

PArdon any spelling please.[/quote]

There was a point in history where the inter-subjective consensus was as such that if you kill a man’s son, you should be punished by having your son killed.

What society considers moral means nothing to me. [/quote]

Challenge it all you want, but don’t cry if society deems you and your moral code “wrong” and tosses you in with Jerry.

I mean, as people we can only operate in the environment we are presented with. If you choose to try and change your environment, you have to hope everyone goes along with it or your change doesn’t conflict with their moral code enough for revolt.

To the thread though: If you think it is okay to kill a man over a potato chip, and the majority don’t, you are going to jail, and evil. Arbitrary or not, you will be seen as evil by everyone, so whether or not you are, in an absolute sense, evil won’t mean anything, because everyone sees you that way.

I guess I’m saying is, what everyone else thinks does matter, at least to a degree.

You give me hope, you and the CS dude are pretty sharp for people who can’t have a legal beer. Shit, you have only been having legal sex for like 18 months… Good for you and whatever school system you are in.[/quote]

I don’t have a moral code.

What society thinks absolutely matters, practically speaking, but debating what “is” isn’t nearly as fun as debating what “ought”.

Also, I’m in Canada. I can drink all I want and bang high-school students all I want! Nyuk nyuk nyuk. =3

55

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I don’t have a moral code. [/quote]

Anyone who reads your posts fully understands this.

Well…you are after all in High School so that this comes as no surprise.

56

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Well…you are after all in High School so that this comes as no surprise.[/quote]

Not any more! I’ve graduated and I’m moving on to University. =)

57

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. [/quote]

It doesn’t say “kill,” it says “murder.” “Thou shalt not murder.”

There is a large gulf between killing and murdering.[/quote]

You beat me to it. This is a very important point I often times have to explain to my Catholic friends as well as my atheist friends who seem surprised that as a believer in God I do agree with the death penalty.[/quote]

Uhh, but the death penalty is murder.
[/quote]

Why isn’t it “an eye for an eye?” Being totally serious[/quote]

Well, for me, it’s because I’m not bound to Levitical law.
[/quote]
I really don’t think capital punishment such as the death penalty is murder theologically especially since God sets it as a precedent beginning at Noah.
I really couldn’t find anything online that covers such a topic on a deep level that is fully available.
This is a brief treatment http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5164
While this is a more throughout treatment with some pages missing The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time - James Porter Moreland, Norman L. Geisler - Google Books

58

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I don’t have a moral code. [/quote]

Anyone who reads your posts fully understands this.
[/quote]

I bet that changes in 10 years though, funny how that shit works, but it tends to work that way.

59
60

[quote]pat wrote:
Killing is only morally neutral when it’s in the defense of yourself or others.

Killing in any other circumstance is wrong and evil.

War is merely a sociological extension of the above definition.

Seriously, this isn’t complicated stuff. [/quote]

I read this thread as one of the two people who have actually had to kill people, and Pat’s is the only post that make sense.

At Walter Reed, they did this whole touchy-feely-B.S. as part of the standard procedure regarding combat vets, about “dealing with grief of killing others” (or whatever it was called).

It’s pretty much like this thread. Moral justifications to make you feel better.

Maybe I am amoral, but it was (and this thread is) complete bullshit.

I killed combatants because they were trying to kill me or mine.

Period.