Killing: When/If It's Ok?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Killing other people is horrible.

I think if you can justify killing in revenge, or you claim it’s some sort of legal justice, then I think the person, “pushing the button” should be the one who was wronged in death penalty like cases. Ask them after they are done if they feel justice, or if they feel really ugly to their core and confused because they don’t feel what was just done was, “right.” Not saying I wouldn’t or don’t want revenge for ones I lost, but at least I’m not going to pretend it’s justice.

Not to say that killing in self defense, or in defense of your loved ones is wrong. At least I believe we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. I think it would be wrong to not defend them. [/quote]

…this does not make sense. I’m not following.

82

Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?

83

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Well first, I’d like to say I am very sorry you were put in that position and I am grateful when called upon, you risked you neck for our asses.
Further I appreciate your confirming my post… As a person who has actually been there and done that, you have the most authority to speak on the matter. So when and if you have any input, or correction please feel free to chip in. I know you don’t really probably want to talk about your combat roles, so that’s not what I am asking. We just your ethical/ philosophical take on the topic.

84

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
Then it’d be called something else, but it would still be the same thing regardless of what it’s called. Harm really is determine at the end of the chain of events from that action. For instance, spanking a child can be perceived, by the child, as harmful at the moment, but if it stops him from running in the road and getting run over, then the over all act was a moral one.

[quote]

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

I don’t. The metaphysics of morality exist independent of myself, or anybody for that matter. You gain some understanding about it by understanding what you will or will not tolerate being done to you or people you love. I can’t imagine that you would tolerate somebody toturing or killing a family member just because it seemed like a good idea at the time? The core of that intolerance is where the moral root lies.

85

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I don’t have a moral code.
[/quote]

Yes you do…This is just an intellectual cop out.

86

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Yes, it gets fuzzy at times. Sentience is rooted in consciousness. And it can get fuzzy at times because it is impossible to know what actually has sentience and what does not. We perceive it only in things that we sense can reciprocate stimuli that we engage it in. Is there a scale? Well, that’s something to consider because certainly, I don’t have an issue killing a bug, but I have a bigger issue killing a dog. The question is when it comes to that, what determines that degree or is it all the way around a false perception?
I would argue against the false perception, there is certainly some accuracy to what we perceive. Life does seem to have 'level’s.
In any event, I strive not to torture any living thing, bug or otherwise. If I am aiming to kill it, I do it as quickly and painlessly as I can.
It’s a good point to think about. For the discussion though I think we should focus on people, mainly. But this is a good side point.

87

Killing is all about cultural relevance. The justification for killing is rooted in whatever your particular culture (micro and macro size) deems appropriate. When I was in the Army in basic training they spent some time de-conditioning you in an effort to make you think that killing, in your particular case, is acceptable,you don’t really know if it works until you are faced with the choice.

In countries with a more martial philosophy (and generally a lower quality of life) killing isn’t viewed nearly as much in a Good vs Bad way, it’s seen as necessary vs unnecessary, which makes killing much easier for people to do. The short answer is that killing is “OK” whenever “you” think it is, that doesn’t change the legal ramifications at all of course, but if you think it is right and necessary you will (probably eventually) sleep well at night, if you kill someone (or multiple someones) and you doubt the need for having done it, you will probably never really let go of it.

88

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

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

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united.

89

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Killing is all about cultural relevance. The justification for killing is rooted in whatever your particular culture (micro and macro size) deems appropriate. When I was in the Army in basic training they spent some time de-conditioning you in an effort to make you think that killing, in your particular case, is acceptable,you don’t really know if it works until you are faced with the choice.

In countries with a more martial philosophy (and generally a lower quality of life) killing isn’t viewed nearly as much in a Good vs Bad way, it’s seen as necessary vs unnecessary, which makes killing much easier for people to do. The short answer is that killing is “OK” whenever “you” think it is, that doesn’t change the legal ramifications at all of course, but if you think it is right and necessary you will (probably eventually) sleep well at night, if you kill someone (or multiple someones) and you doubt the need for having done it, you will probably never really let go of it. [/quote]

Holy crap, do you actually believe the stuff you write?

90

It is ok to kill, maim or torture if the US government says so.

No other government was bestowed with that power, for the Christians among us.

Naturally, if any other government claims to have similar powers, bombs must be dropped.

Because they not only violate human rights, they committ a sacrilege against the natural order.

91

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

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

Have you been hitting th bong this morning? :wink:

haha, only kidding man. Well, sorta…

92

Pat,

Feel free to tell me what you disagree with, there is no universal right or wrong in regards to killing. There is a shit ton of evidence that supports that fact. Life is cheap in many parts of the world even compared to the worst neighborhoods in the US. Think about this, when was the last time 100 headless bodies showed up in the US? In Mexico or 5 years ago in Iraq you see headless bodies showing up in residential neighborhoods almost daily. The people that create those bodies obviously see killing as “OK”. They are desensitized to it, the people in the neighborhoods don’t call the cops, nobody intervenes, it is an accepted practice. In the US in 95% of the neighborhoods a gunshot elicits a call to 911, in the 5% of neighborhoods that doesn’t happen you will find a concentration of 90% of the violent (non-domestic) crime. Killing is based on cultural acceptance, that is it. You were in the military right? In basic training do you remember the “desensitizing” that went on, chants like “Kill, Kill, Kill Cold blue steel” or “What makes the grass grow greener?” “Blood, Blood, Blood makes the grass grow greener drill sergeant”, these are all designed to remove you from your American mindset of “life is precious and wonderful” and replace it with the concept of “Othering” where you see the opposition as something not entirely human (hence man shaped targets with no features at BRM and most ranges on bases). Which part did I get wrong?

93

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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]

You want to see ego?[/quote]

… Is that real? How can anybody “like” Obama when he’s putting out things like this?[/quote]

I thought it was intended as tongue in cheek.[/quote]

No. http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry

This is real. Give your God King his burnt incense! [/quote]

What a jackass.

94

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
Then it’d be called something else, but it would still be the same thing regardless of what it’s called. Harm really is determine at the end of the chain of events from that action. For instance, spanking a child can be perceived, by the child, as harmful at the moment, but if it stops him from running in the road and getting run over, then the over all act was a moral one.

Then we are arguing semantics. What you call ‘morality’, I call ‘personal preference’ and ‘rationality’.

But since “personal preference” and “rationality” are already things, it seems superfluous to tag on yet another term.

95

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I don’t have a moral code.
[/quote]

Yes you do…This is just an intellectual cop out. [/quote]

Then, what is my moral code?

96

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

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

Have you been hitting th bong this morning? :wink:

haha, only kidding man. Well, sorta…[/quote]

I’ll elaborate. I believe that we are all from the same substance and that life has a unique quality about it. As a being in creation and a piece of nature that is aware of itself, actions, and consciousness we have obligations that other critters don’t. Because of this, we are capable of good and evil. As soon as an evil was committed, we were all infected. So at this point, evil is inescapable.

So I believe that killing any life is an evil in a sense, but exterminating cockroaches is a lesser evil than allowing them spread disease to humans. So it’s the right thing to do in that case.

97

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Killing other people is horrible.

I think if you can justify killing in revenge, or you claim it’s some sort of legal justice, then I think the person, “pushing the button” should be the one who was wronged in death penalty like cases. Ask them after they are done if they feel justice, or if they feel really ugly to their core and confused because they don’t feel what was just done was, “right.” Not saying I wouldn’t or don’t want revenge for ones I lost, but at least I’m not going to pretend it’s justice.

Not to say that killing in self defense, or in defense of your loved ones is wrong. At least I believe we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. I think it would be wrong to not defend them. [/quote]

…this does not make sense. I’m not following.[/quote]

Ask yourself what Justice really is. Justice may be defined by society, god, God, gods, the individual, the relation between the individual and society, etc… There are many accounts of justice so it depends on how you think.

I’m more of a virtue theorist when it comes to my morality, so my ideas are more based on feeling, and what it means to be a good person.

When I think of Justice, I think of the feeling you feel when something went wrong versus the feelings you have when compensated by “justice.” Somehow a wrong was amended/ compensated made right for your sake (this is personal justice).

Societal Justice seems to be a collective of ideas of what is actually right and wrong that is dictated by the collective or some power structure like organized religion. Problem is if you have rigorous rules in place to prevent people from doing things, you end up with a lack of justice say when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. If the punishment for adultery, or say non marital sex is death, then how is it just? Is something “Just” when it’s a low simply because it’s a law, even when a law is only in place for prevention? It’s actually a fleeting idea dependent on the constructs of that society, however we as people have our own internal sense of justice from the time we are toddlers/infants, this is why I buy into personal justice.

A hypothetical is if someone kills your dearest love one in cold blood. You lose, there is no way to right this sort of wrong, and the only thing you can achieve is vengeance. This isn’t really a compensation or replacement for justice. If a person feels justice/ compensation after watching someone who wronged them get executed, there is probably something wrong with them because most people feel awful about being responsible or associated for death/ murder/ retributive justice in hindsight. While people feel closure, when they reflect on killing it doesn’t come with a warm fuzzy, it feels terrible.

Not saying there isn’t room for revenge, perhaps some people need to be killed. But we should be honest with ourselves and call it what it is.

98

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I don’t have a moral code.
[/quote]

Yes you do…This is just an intellectual cop out. [/quote]

Then, what is my moral code?[/quote]

Do you have a price?

99

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< A hypothetical is if someone kills your dearest love one in cold blood. You lose, there is no way to right this sort of wrong, and the only thing you can achieve is vengeance. >>>[/quote]I know of a young Christian woman in California, 21 years old, pregnant with her first child whose husband was killed in a car jacking by a gang member. There she is left with a baby and the wonderful life she had hoped to build with this by all accounts very loving man destroyed.

She takes 10 grand of the insurance money and puts it on the murder’s commissary in prison so he’ll have some comfort there for the rest of his life. She visits him and tells him that while what he did was a grave sin against God, she is guilty of crimes against that same God that would send her to the same hell he is going to if it weren’t for Jesus nailing her sins to His cross and taking away her guilt.

He is abusive and scornful, but she keeps going to visit him while her and her church are praying for him. After several years of this he does break down and repent asking the Lord to save him. She tells him that it was worth the loss of her husband and his going to be with God sooner than she planned if it would be used by the Lord to save his murderer.

THAT is a heart in whom dwells a thorough understanding of sin, forgiveness and mercy. THAT is a life resurrected in the living Christ of God. THAT is a mother who has been a living testimony to her child of the solution to the so called “problem of evil”.

100

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

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

Have you been hitting th bong this morning? :wink:

haha, only kidding man. Well, sorta…[/quote]

I’ll elaborate. I believe that we are all from the same substance and that life has a unique quality about it. As a being in creation and a piece of nature that is aware of itself, actions, and consciousness we have obligations that other critters don’t. Because of this, we are capable of good and evil. As soon as an evil was committed, we were all infected. So at this point, evil is inescapable.

So I believe that killing any life is an evil in a sense, but exterminating cockroaches is a lesser evil than allowing them spread disease to humans. So it’s the right thing to do in that case. [/quote]

Sometimes I agree, and others I take a step back and wonder if our brain, our “reason” just fucks up the natural order, and we would be better off acting like my dog does when he sees another dog:

If his ass stinks or he pissed on your bush, whoop his ass.

:wink:

Wait, shit we already act like that.