Is killing wrong?
 

Do you think killing people is wrong to do, or are you OK with it?

I don't think any action is inherantly wrong. Though with killing, it would take an awful lot to justify it in my book and should be done as the absolute last resort.

Depends on the reason behind killing really. And who got killed.
Personally I'm against killing. Many many reasons that I won't bore you with....

What are the circumstances?

Because "killing" covers an awful lot of ground.

I don't think anyone but the most extreme pacifists are against all "killing".

Justified killing, like in warfare or self-defense?

Or "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die"?

Yes. Killing is wrong. In any way shape or form. When can you justify it ? When someone else was killed ?

It's murder. Does that mean it won't happen ? No.

As long as there are people that need that kind of response to their actions, people will be killed. It's almost as if it's human nature. Or, maybe, just "nature".

Society has laws that govern acceptable behavior, going against this will likely put you in a situation that many might call "wrong." Ultimately though, you have to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, even when it comes to killing. For me, there are very few circumstances when I can see killing being something acceptable for me to do.

An armed man is raping your sister/mother/daughter and will kill her when he is done.

You have a gun.

Is it wrong to kill him?

That's just it. Damn right I'd want to kill someone for hurting a loved one in such a way. But in seperating the emotion from the actual act of murder, I can't imagine that it would make it any easier to deal with the aftermath. It's still an eye for an eye, a wrong for a wrong.

Well, that's your personal moral decision, but most theologans and other philosophers will make a distinction based on circumstances, such as self defense or the defense of another.

I would have not a single regret in defending my 8 year old step daughter from such an individual (or in defending anyone else in similar circumstances, for that matter).

Killing is pretentious, as is condemning it. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that there is such thing as right or wrong.

As a whole we are immature. The act of killing and placement of values on such an act are an attempt at control. Control is the only way we can deal with the silence of the universe, a desperate attempt to give meaning. A need which has evolved from the development of language. Nothing means anything :)

So here's a question: Why do we possess the ability to kill?

It seems to me that if I have a gun I can at least ask him to stop before I fill him full of bullets.

So you are expecting to be able to reason with them?

Then I hope you don't end up like this gentleman.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...5E1702,00.html



Father killed, three raped

By Jim Baynes in Port Moresby


ARMED criminals in Port Moresby have murdered a father who tried to prevent them from pack-raping his wife and daughters.

The home invasion took place early yesterday morning in one of the PNG capital's squatters' settlements, The National newspaper reported.

The murdered man's wife and two teenage daughters watched in horror as more than 10 bandits shot their father and chopped up his body with an axe.

The three women were then dragged outside and pack-raped.

The dead man's wife said the criminals then placed her husband's body in their bed and set fire to the house.

As a general way of answering this kind of question, I would say we have laws that take care of the issue. I'm a social being and don't feel a need to define everything in personal terms.

I'm satisfied with the laws as they exist in my country regarding killing. Most other countries define it in similarly civilized ways. The variations between their specific definitions seem to provide a reasonable range of acceptable positions.

Given the need or clear value, such as family being raped by crazy son of a bitch, I will shoot someone dead, I'd much rather eliminate an offending knee cap or two, but I'd use my best judgement possible when faced with such a situation.

What is the worth of someone who causes such pain to others and who contributes nothing to society?

i see nothing wrong with "killing." i kill insects all the time. that doesn't bother me. could i kill another human? yep. would i? depends on the circumstances. would it be wrong? that's completely subjective. i personally don't think life, any life, is really worth all that much. it really all comes down to a justifiable reason... self-defense, defense of others. oh, and if "i shot a man in reno, just to watch him die," i'd have to consider that justified. :) LONG LIVE THE MAN IN BLACK!!!

I see nothing wrong with killing a human being that is harming and potentially may kill another human being. It's not a matter of eye for an eye. If their intent is to harm and kill they loose all value to humanity. They have reniged any right to life if they intend to maliciously harm another. I would first attempt to injure and/or incapacitate them but if necessary I would kill them without regret. In any other case (other than war) I don't see the point in killing.

only if they piss me off enough or if they deserved it. well if you piss me off enough then hell, you fucking deserve it

Only if you believe in the Bible or other rags like it. otherwise you had better hope your parents raised you to know basic rights from wrong.

only if it was intentional :D

doing anything permanent isnt nice unless its nice :P

Yes, I consider killing another person inherently wrong. When you consider the effects likely to be dominoed upon others in that persons group of associations and family. There very well may be indiniduals whom society would be better off without, but I myself am not qualified to make such a descision. Is anyone truly qualified?

In human minds, yes. In spiritual minds, no.

As I see it, now this is just my view, my Truth- even though sometimes it's hard to fathom, I do know that there is no right or wrong, as we have been given Free Will to choose without judgement. Humans created the boundaries of right and wrong and those opinions change from day to day. Look at the Gay Marriage movement happening. This is still being fought over, but people are less predjudice of it and gay couples are gradually getting married all over now. This would not have happened 40 years ago. It was wrong, end of story. These ideas of right and wrong change, and no one has the same exact view of right and wrong towards things, so it all seems just really confusing to have those terms.
It is a new step to claim that something does not work for you. It is a lot less judgemental and it's the truth- plain and simple. You choose to or not to do something, because it is who you are. That has nothing to do with right or wrong.

On a broad, universal spectrum, killing is okay, because it's a choice. But it does not work for me.

lebell, while i agree that I'd probably become...well, let's just say pretty scary when/if someone tried to rape someone i loved and i had a gun..i could honestly say i'd probably kill him 7 different ways from sunday after cutting off his genitals and shoving them in his eye sockets and putting his head on a pike out in front as a warning for others...

with that said, i think that saying "stop" once or twice as a warning would be a reasonable expectation. It's not expecting to reason with someone, just a chance to see if all is lost. i do ask first, shoot later.

With that said, the guy in your story, though very touching, didn't really stand a chance against a pack of people out with violent intentions. It isnt the movies where 1 man takes out 20 with a pen. Sorry, that is pretty rare in this world, unless he's navy seal or some such. If he had a gun, he probably could have taken a couple out, which is a good thing, but ultimately, the outcome would *probably* be the same. In that particular case, i don't think the outcome could be much different.

On to the original question: is killing wrong. In a short word, yes, it's wrong. but i also feel it is justifiable. Just ask me if someone rapes my wife, you'll have to get my teeth out of his throat, though..

RoboBlaster

"I don't think any action is inherantly wrong."

Cmon, I can think of a bunch of "wrong" actions without even trying! Not that I'd want to list any of them here and make anyone think im some kinda whack job...or give the whack jobs ideas for that matter!

Oh and I think killing for no reason is wrong...killing can be justified...but who is judge in that court I do not know...

Yes. Self excluded.

Cf. The golden rule.

Nuff said.

One of the first conditions for being a member of a human society is to accept the general "no killing" rule. The rule exists to preserve the existence of the society itself through protecting the existence of its members.

If you cannot abide by this rule, then you should no longer expect the benefits of membership in that society. At the most elemental level that would mean no language, no shelter, no protection, no clothing, no nothing. You would be NOTHING and worth as much.

Ultimately, we do feed, protect and preserve the life of murderers, but that is more a sign of the cohesion and strength of our human society than a comment on the philosopical acceptability of murder.

Killing of a human being is only morally permissible in one situation:

To save the life of another human being.

Note that this entails that the use of the death penalty by the government is permissible only when it saves lives, and that killing to save your own life is not justified.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here:

So, if you are a frail/disabled person and someone is going to beat you to within an inch of your life, hospitalize you for months, and break many many bones requiring hours of reconstructive surgery -- but not kill you -- you do not feel you (or anyone else) have the right to use deadly force to stop the attack?

How could killing be fundamentally wrong? Murder is part of the natural order of things. All omnivores should know this already.
That being said, in our current "civilized" world killing other humans is generally not necessary.
Hypothetically, i would have no problem killing to protect a loved one, and i would lose much respect for said loved one if they would not kill to protect me.
I don't think killing is justified in non-self/loved one defense situations.

Lebell -- yes and no. I do not have the right to use deadly force to prevent my own death, or any other attack on me (ethically, that is, and with intention it can get quite gray. Also, the government is exactly right to make it legally okay to kill in self-defense.) But I would probably say you have the right to use deadly force to prevent even serious harm to someone else, so not just in cases of death. So if someone's about to beat someone else within an inch of their life, or rape someone, or..., you may use deadly force if it is necessary.

I think that self defense or defense of another are perfectly legitimate reasons for killing. If a person is threatening your life or the life of another without being provoked in a life threatening manner, then their intent was to injure and kill. This is a crime, both legally and relative to humanity. It is my personal belief that the punishment should be fitting of the crime, regardless of how "inhumane" it may seem.

If a person kills another person when not defending theirself, they should be killed in the same manner they killed another, regardless of how brutal or painful it may have been. If a person rapes another person, they deserved to be raped. I'm personally sick and tired of seeing people rape, murder, molest, and destroy the lives of victims and their families, only to have their arm swabbed clean before receiving lethal injection with sterilized needles. This is my belief, and I personally don't believe there is any better way to condition people from committing these acts again. I do not see this as "two wrongs don't make a right", I see this as correcting a wrong, plucking the weeds from the garden to keep it from spreading and killing the flowers that should have the opportunity to flourish.

Yes. I fully believe in twacked out things like Karma and Fate. He'll get his. And that is a worse punishment than death, by far.

even if i did fully believe in karma, i'd shoulder the burden of whatever came with killing a man who was doing that if it would save my mother/sister/daughter from being raped and murdured. in fact, i'd do it even if it were happening to someone i had never met.

i certainly don't enjoy killing anything, but this certainly seems to be the right thing to do.

this seems so obvious and certain to me, it is funny how some other people can be just as convinced about an opposing view. people are so very interesting.

No. Self-defense and defense of others.

The silver rule.

Nuff said.

I believe there are certain individuals who are born without, or lose through the course of their life, the ability to reason and think logically. Among this group of people emerge the murderers and rapists that are responsible for the terrible examples given above. I would feel no regret about killing this type of person, no more so than I feel bad about a cow being slaughtered, or a bug being squashed on the sidewalk.

Right, soooo, should we change the title from ARMY to Pack of Murderers?

I think we should eliminate captial punishment, not necessarily because I'm against killing, but it seems like much more of a punishment to rot in a prison cell for a few decades.

Some people NEED to be killed. Plain and simple. And if someone is threatening the ones I love, I will drop them without thinking twice.

While I agree with you there, I have one problem. It costs me more money. And that just makes me want to kill them and be done with it.

How do you define "killing"? My definitions of "to kill" and "to murder" are different from each other. So for me, I say killing is necessary (or even preferred) in some cases whereas murdering people is wrong.

I agree with nash
To kill is different to murder.
For those with the karma argument against killing the person. How about this: instant karmac (spelling?) revenge. Their karma is having you be there at that moment with the intent to kill. That is karma. If there was none, he would get away with the crime, however, the karma got him in the middle of the act.
My philosophy on the situations: kill the fuckers.
If I seem some asshole raping ANYBODY I would feel as if I HAD to help the victim out and beat the living shit out of the criminal until he is dead. Rape is the worst crime you can live through threfore the rapists should get the worst possible punishments. Vigilante justice at its best. I doubt a jury would convict a man of murder if he kills a man in the middle of raping someone......

Intenionally killing is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. People can and will recover from anything you do to them, save one thing, and that's killing them. It's the only truly permanent effect that you can have on someone Maiming, mentally harming, whatever, those can be counteracted in some small way, killing cannot.

If someone was going to rape my family, hopefully I'd find some way to stop him, short of killing him. A steel-toed boot to the scrotum would probably change his mind and it would
be hard to think about sex after I sledgehammered his knee.

If you believe in an afterlife and would like it to be pleasant, than wouldn't you want other people to feel such pleasantness? Killing someone, under any kind of belief system that has anything like karma would make that person suffer, but if they survived, they'd have a chance to make right what they did. If you don't give them a chance to make amends, aren't you condeming them to a bad existence, which if you believed in anything that has an afterlife dependent on your current life's behaviour, wouldn't you have just commited an attrocity that would assure yourself a bad place also?

That being said, with something like what is currently happening with the US army, I will not hold it against any one of them if they need to kill anyone. I want them to be as safe as possible. The ones that I believe should be held responsible, however are the leaders of the armed forces that put the enlisted men and women into such a situation.

While I think that this is a good start, I have to say, that if someone shows he is not capable of getting alon with the rest of the planet, in case just like this, or obaying the rules, or at least being smart enough to not get caught, then keeping this person alive is doing nothing but slowing the rest of the human race down in trying to deal with scumbags like this. In my eyes, death is much kinder then imprisenment, much cheeper, and really, it would be better for the rest of the planet As this guys has just shown that consideration for others is not a concern of his, then consideration for him is not a concern for us. It is in the rest of the human races best intrests to just be ride of him so we can get on with our lives. Kill him and be done with it. That simple.

Do onto others as you would have done onto you.

It is inherent that most life wants to live but for life to continue other life must fade. It's the way it's been and it's the way it will be.

NOTE: I speak as a religious person, from a religious viewpoint.

Absolutely. This is not a wrongful death. I do not think anyone would be punished (as by God, etc.) for killing a person under such circumstances.

I believe that God has given me the means to act and the mind to decide right and wrong- and when the time comes to pull the trigger, if I truly believe it is the only recourse, and the right thing to do, I will not be punished for it.

I agree completely. killing is natural. Cats kill mice all the time for no apparent reason other then curiousity and humans encourage it. If I had just cause, I could kill any one.

So, do you think the "terrorists" or Sept 11 thought they were in the right?

To their point of views, yes. That doesn't mean they were sane, but they thought they were doing the right thing from their point of view. Remeber, your enemy never views himself as evil. Keep this in mind and it will help you understand him and befriend him. Or kill him quickly and painlessly if need be.


Yes, I read a lot of Hienlien.

What about killing people for food like the cannibals in central africa?

Well, as long as you aren't wasting anything I guess.....

Where do you think your parents received those notions of rights and wrongs? The United States, and most countries for that matter, have laws against killing other people. Often these laws trickled down from the religions that formed and shaped the peoples of those nations. As for the US, which was founded as a "Christian State" in essence, it's laws were thus laid out very accordingly like the bible's own messages on rights and wrongs.

Therefore, your parents telling you "not to kill someone" is still based on a message that they learned through training from a life under the reign of a nation founded on the bible.


Now, removing the bible and religion entirely, you can also make the judgement that outlawing killing and vigilante violence from a society leads to a more productive and structured populace that understands there are consequences to its actions and hopefully deters from actions that harm others. Of course, that doesn't necessarily stop anyone from hiring a good lawyer and getting away with what they've done. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

Okay, but what about this?

A loved one is in the hospital, suffering, with no chance to recover. He/she has about 2 more years to love, which will be filled completely with suffering. A big thing keeping him/her alive is certain medication which is taken daily. Is it wrong to either let him/her stop taking the meds, or to help him/her not take the meds?

but in killing them, dont you then give up your own right to humanity?

You are setting out to kill someone, thus losing all value to humanity.

No, you are TAKING your right to humanity and your right to live unharmed by people that would do you and others harm. MURDER is wrong, killing in selfdefense or defense of a loved one is another thing completely. Have some mad man come at you child with intent to kill and do harm and see how much your humanity means if you do nothing.

Not so. Killing predates the bible and all religious texts and thus the bible cannot be interpreted as being the foundation of western law. Besides, even if, thousands of years ago, some angry caveman saw his mate have his face broken on a rock by another angry caveman, and decided that murder was a crime and that it should be written as such, they still would have had to come to that conclusion through basic instinct- an immediate reaction to what he had just seen.

I believe that the basic grasp of right and wrong is instilled in us in the same way as, say, the need to reproduce, and modern law enables us to develop this instinct into an acute understanding. Of course it's not quite as simple as that, as it's inevitable that there will be variation from extreme to extreme (pacifism to sadism, for example), but I doubt that if we all woke up one morning to find law no longer existed, the murder of as many people as possible would be the first thing on our agendas.

Religion is just an easy target in any argument.

I think Aborted touched on what I would say, I know there are tons of animals that will kill each other, selfdefense/defense of territory/mating rights.

It would be a hard discussion due to todays civilization I do not think we truly know what could be right or wrong because we are bred into believing that what the law says should be morals, which isnt the way to go about a discussion about what our base morals were when we truly had animalistic behavior

Now since animals have no true sociality to answer to they are in as pure a form as we were when we were apes -> cavemen and the like.

I cannot say I think killing is truly wrong. I don't think that with our civilized world today that it should be happening either, but thats what happens when our morals are based on law from enviroment.

Factors such as ability to communicate, which animals mostly cannot do as well. Levels of attachment to each others , which most animals only have within immidiate family, come into play if we were to try to bring the theory to human species.

But, also there are many animals that kill their mating partner after the deed is done (praying mantis) and kill their own offspring (dogs at times) and some that will kill their own brother/sister soon after birth (sharks).

So my theory has holes in it :)

I am going to disagree with you on right and wrong being related to instinct. Just about every behavoir that is viewed as "wrong" in the modern world, has at some point been viewed as right by another culture at some point. Rape was considered an exeptible past time, and a weapon of war. Patricide has been a great and acceptible way to climb the soical ladder for may cultures. Right and wrong are not instinct, but simple functions of society. As such, killing is right if done in a way that society agrees with, like defense of self or a loved one. Or if they are a terrorist fucktard. Instinct does not right or wrong make.

On the issue of instinct, even those can be altered. You can be conditioned to not so much as flinch when seeing a death by the proper training. People can hold their breath until they pass out even if the instinct is to breath.

Some people don't need training to not flinch at death. If you know that death is just part of life and not something to make abig deal out of, then you should be good to go for the most part. Some people even enjoy it. And yes, people can hold their breath untill they pass out. It's called will power. But how many people can hold their breath AFTER they have passed out? Once the mind is not running things anymore, instinct always kicks in. So you can train yourself to fight instinct, but I don't think you can break it. Humans have lots of instincts, all relating to survival and breeding, but right and wrong do not fall under that heading. They are simply ideas we've been conditioned with for so long that people mistake them for such.

Killing is just an act. There is nothing inherently "wrong" or "right" with any act that we commit. Who would be the judge of what's right and wrong? - I mean the ultimate judge? If you say "God" - then there was no need to even ask this question, as you already know the answer...so assuming that religion is removed from the equation:

There is no "right" and "wrong" - only action.

Whew this thread again? I think I'll go for simplicity this time.

Yes.

Is killing wrong? No.
Is murder wrong? yes.
The difference? A murder initiates the act and situationby theirself.
Someone who kills has the situation forced upon them.

Should capitol punishment be allowed? Hell, yes. Prison is not a punishment. It is being fed, clothed, and provided for. We need to bring back actual punishments for crimes. Cut off the thief's hand, castrate the rapist and then slowly torture them to death over a few years(It's less than what the victim is dealing with), and kill the murderer.

I can garuntee that after just a few months of this rape, murder, and theft rates will drop like a stone dropped from a very high place down to a very low place.

the deterrent to killing every convincted murderer, rapist, etc, is the number of innocents who will invariably be excuted along with them. The justice system is far from perfect in any country. I believe punishment for crimes deserves its own thread, though.

May I suggest this as therapy for you all? :thumbsup:

--jaded

hard to justify but not inherently wrong. let me say, though, that I don't believe that anything is inherently right or wrong. to say that would be to say that if we had not created a context for an action's "rightness" or "wrongness," there is right and wrong regardless.

Hmmm...for me, I personally reject the notion that all life is meaningless, because I find it a rather horrid worldview to adopt, and in the end sort of useless. Moving on from there, it seems to me that killing in defense or yourself or a loved one, assuming that you are not the aggressor, is not only justifiable emotionally, but logically as well. I used to be an absolute pacifist, and I do agree with the notion of the cycle of violence - but if someone else is definately going to commit an unprovoked violent act, and I would argue is therefore more likely to do so again, or I'm going to commit the violent act to stop them, I feel justified in taking their life if need be. I would perhaps agree with capital punishment in theory, but for practical considerations I disagree with it. It would seem that is both way to easy to kill someone who is innocent, and that it gives a tremendous amount of power to the government with can be abused. In short - I kill in self-defense :) : State sanctioned killing of people for same offense :(

Use as much force on them as they do on you and if the offender dies that was in self defence and therefore justified. Killing for any other reason like revenge or some sick fantasy is... wrong