Killing

Draconysius · 07-27-2007, 11:54 PM

Enough with the stupid game threads. We're a bunch of intelligent individuals; let's have some philosophical conversations.

Something that's been bugging me for a while is, who has the right to kill?

A man kills a man, he goes to prison, or is put to death; which in itself is no different from the crime he committed.
A man enrolled in the military kills a man, he's considered a hero, and is worshipped like a god for it.
Forests are cleared for humans' expansion, meaning the deaths of millions of wildlife, but that's called industry. There are also millions of animals living every day just to get fat so they can be killed by humans, and later eaten by them. But why is it that, if we have no sympathy for those we eat, why do we cringe when we see a domestic animal such as a dog or cat being so much as kicked by a human?
Yet, all the time in nature, animals kill each other and they take no action against each other; it is nature.

What I'm getting at is, is it right to kill? Should we really just be like our furry friends in this, and have the mentality of "survival of the fittest"?
I already have my opinions on this, but I want you to share yours.

Tha Duckman · 07-27-2007, 11:55 PM

I'm allowed to kill. I got a little card from my local comic shop that has "Licensed to kill" written on it.

MollyMac · 07-27-2007, 11:56 PM

If we as a species thought it was not right to kill, then we wouldn't have to have laws against it.

Draconysius · 07-27-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MollyMac

If we as a species thought it was not right to kill, then we wouldn't have to have laws against it.

Huh? I thought it was because we thought it was not right to kill that we have laws against it.

Tha Duckman · 07-28-2007, 12:03 AM

... Isn't that just a re-wording of what she said?

MollyMac · 07-28-2007, 12:13 AM

If it is generally accepted as not right to kill, then why is the law necessary? We all have the ability to kill and some exercise this ability- and so we have laws as to the perceived right to follow through with a capability we are born with that is as easy as eating, sleeping, and fucking.

Who has the ability? We all do. Who has the right? Some would argue that anyone with the capability and freedom to do do- may. A law is not a limitation of freedom, a law is what society agrees upon, and consequences may apply. If you are willing to do the time, then you have a right to the crime. The law makes it break even on a government level, and karma never nreaks even as nothing ends.

raggedyanne · 07-28-2007, 12:54 AM

It depends on the situation. In some cases, reason or law should have nothing to do with it. When your life is in danger, you should call it justifiable homicide. Police, SS, and government related killings are accepted.
I personally do not believe that anyone has a "right" to kill a fellow human being unless their life, virtue, or the lives of others are on the line. So, killing can only be justified if the death of one can prevent the death of many.

Draconysius · 07-28-2007, 12:55 AM

Oh, I understand now what you were saying. We wouldn't need laws if everyone had the same opinions of right and wrong. I personally believe morals are subjective and two people can believe conflicting things without either of them being true or false. But I want to hear other sides to this.

Godslayer Jillian · 07-28-2007, 12:55 AM

Killing is something anyone can do.
The fact that a murderer is executed and a soldier is honored only proves that there are no moral absolutes.
Those in power define our reality, and in that reality, some people can rightfully kill and some can't.
Is it ethical to kill someone?
That is a personal question everyone has to deal with. The mind of the murderer is not stopped at all from killing someone and it doesn't make him any more evil to have done so... so long as his perspective doesn't come into conflict with someone else.
When the conflict arouses, and the killer is less powerful than those that perceive him as a criminal, then he does become one.

Clockwork · 07-28-2007, 12:58 AM

"A man kills a man, he goes to prison, or is put to death; which in itself is no different from the crime he committed."

In this case, it is not so much one person killing the murderer than an extension of the law killing the murderer; and as the Law is, supposedly, greater than any one man, perhaps it is not hypocrisy then. However, if one seeks revenge on a murderer and
kills him/her oneself... that's different.

"Forests are cleared for humans' expansion, meaning the deaths of millions of wildlife, but that's called industry."

Comfortable survival of our species? Guess we decided somewhere that the progression of the human race is more important than that of various birds and other animals. And that, in a way, IS like survival of the fittest...

"There are also millions of animals living every day just to get fat so they can be killed by humans, and later eaten by them. But why is it that, if we have no sympathy for those we eat, why do we cringe when we see a domestic animal such as a dog or cat being so much as kicked by a human? "

That is kind of funny. That... I don't know. Perhaps it's that the animals killed in factories are eaten, and so their death or pain had something of a purpose... beating up on an animal however is just malicious.

At the very root of it, I don't think it matters what lives and what dies, but it's just the importance that people place on lives that defines it. Perhaps we only like people for the positive experiences we have with them, and once they're dead, that all comes to a stop. That's negative feelings right there, and so death is perceived as a bad thing.

The more I think of it, all things just boil down to positive and negative feelings, and that's often what "right and wrong" is based off of... but, if feelings are only how we interpret completely neutral events in an impartial universe, then how can right or wrong really matter? I'm doubting the very value of a life right now.

Cappinator · 07-28-2007, 01:08 AM

We've always had a knack of finding new names for things that make our conscience speak out.
When we kill an animal because it's sick, we "put it down".
When we kill a murderer through lethal injection, it's called an "execution".
When the death of someone is considered "a good thing" for society as a whole, they "dispatch" with that person.
In the army, the word "terminate" is often used.

Look up all the synonyms of kill and you'll find an incredible amount. This is proof of our attempt to rationalize something that we know in our hearts to be fundamentally wrong.

I eat meat, and I know animals have to die because of that. I'm not innocent of ignoring my conscience at times. While I agree that animals, if killed in a painless fashion, can be used as food, I still have that little voice inside me that keeps pushing me back toward vegetarianism

DeathChii · 07-28-2007, 01:21 AM

Killing is a survival instinct all living creatures possess. Wether it be to eat, or to protect ones territory. Everyone has the right to kill... technically. Even the human mind is designed to kill, and many serial killers were apperantly "born" to be serial killers.
The difference between a man killing another man, and a man killing another man in the military, is that the man in the military was trained, properly equipped, and perfectly aware of the destiny he may face. The modern man was trying to enjoy a nice walk in the park, when he got shot for no apparent reason?
Also men in the military are fighting to protect something, and people who kill for defense are usually not charged if proven.
Animal wise- if you gotta eat you gotta eat, it's nessescary, for both animals and humans. It's UNESSASCARY to go around killing animals for no reason. Wether killing is alright or not, it differs by situation, in my opinion. Personaly I would never kill anyone, and I don't understand how anyone else could beat someone or hurt someone, when I can barely sleep the night after I hang up on someone by accident xD But I understand our natural instincts play a huge part in this situation. Animals kill for food or territory, they don't just go around killing for no reason, it's the same with humans I guess... If you killing things to eat, or if you're killing to protect your country/family/home, it is normal. But fucking a child and leaving her dead is not something that should be accepted.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense ^^ It's 4:30am and I'm just rambling xD

Godslayer Jillian · 07-28-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cappinator

animals, if killed in a painless fashion, can be used as food

That should also be applied to people.
Why dispatch the body of a criminal when it could be used just like a cow, marinated and cooked to perfection?
Seriously, how cool would it be to eat a serial killer?
And I'm not pulling a Swift in here. I'm really considering the benefits of my modest proposal.
The guy is going to die anyway. There's some deviant people (myself included) that wouldn't mind paying a price for a feast like that. Heck, the money they pay could be given to community activities.

bleedingheart344 · 07-28-2007, 02:36 AM

Sadly, killing depends on the person. With the bulk morals of our society today, those who have much more power than us may kill. As for putting a murderer to death, there is a difference. In one case, it is a man senselessly killing, the other case is a man that kills in order to punish the other man. Soldiers are respected when they kill because they are killing people who are considered a threat to our society. And the reason why people take so much offense to animal cruelty is that we have several advantages over the common house dog/cat, as well as other animals. It all comes down to the social hierarchy of our society. People gain rights as they move up the hierarchical ladder. These rights vary from certain freedoms to the right to kill. I know I'm kind of bringing this view full circle now, but it is still all about this ladder.

MollyMac · 07-28-2007, 07:00 AM

Intent in killing is one thing, and I understand where you are coming from, but a life is a life to some people. How do you rate one higer than the other due to mistakes made, nationality, number of paws....

On vegetarianism, for instance, teh Dalai Lama had an interesting take as it come to taking a life for the intent of sustaining yours via nutrition. He noted that many eat chicken as they think it is more humane than killing a cow or deer, and that while many eat it because it is healthier, others see chickens as lesser than bovine on some hierarchial scale. His point? In eating fowl instead of bovine for this reason, you are killing thousands of lives instead of one or two to serve the same purpose. How can you take more lives simply because yo uperceive them as lesser simply because of their size or feathers?

Underwater Ophelia · 07-28-2007, 08:16 AM

I think it's wrong to kill almost 100% of the time. That includes most war scenariors, because you chose to go to war. If you didn't want to go to jail for draft-doging, still your fault for going to war. Killing is wrong, unless it's for self-defense, and I don't mean a pre-emptive strike.

bleedingheart344 · 07-28-2007, 08:46 AM

Molly, I meant that because of the Hierarchy, the judicial system is much higher up than normal citizens are, they are expected to kill because of their position, it's still to kill people who we feel threaten us.

PinstripesAndPithHelmets · 07-28-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MollyMac

On vegetarianism, for instance, teh Dalai Lama had an interesting take as it come to taking a life for the intent of sustaining yours via nutrition. He noted that many eat chicken as they think it is more humane than killing a cow or deer, and that while many eat it because it is healthier, others see chickens as lesser than bovine on some hierarchial scale. His point? In eating fowl instead of bovine for this reason, you are killing thousands of lives instead of one or two to serve the same purpose. How can you take more lives simply because yo uperceive them as lesser simply because of their size or feathers?

Obviously these people have never been exposed to cattle. They're not exactly intelligent beasts. And they smell. Bad. Real bad.

MollyMac · 07-28-2007, 09:21 AM

I was raised on a farm. Chickens ain't bright, either

But the idea is that a life is a life, it is not less of a life because it is small.

But as far as retribution killing or self-sefense killing... you are still doing more harm than is needed. A kill is not necessary is you can injure sufficiently.

And two wrongs won't make it right. You can't bring back dead but you have a chance at rehabilitating life. It depends on what value you proscribe to that life as to whether it is worth the effort or worth the bullet.

Cyntrox · 07-28-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MollyMac

And two wrongs won't make it right.

But two Wrights can make an airplane.

MollyMac · 07-28-2007, 09:28 AM

Ane eight rungs make a ladder.

(five minutes in the pun-alty box. Unsportsmanlike punning, roughing the reader)

KontanKarite · 07-28-2007, 09:51 AM

*scuzzies up after being roughed up by MollyMac*

I almost feel like this is redundant in conversation. If we were to say that killing was wrong, then our best hope is that everyone would embrace the same idea.

Sadly, we all don't share the same moral code. In fact, I have a friend who is convinced that if someone does him wrong, that it's okay for him to wage all kinds of vengeful warfare on said person. I personally find it to be crude and simple. But it's how he functions and if it weren't (sadly) for laws, I wouldn't put it past him to kill people who had done him wrong.

Molly was right. For the one who does not intend to... kill or murder, then why should the law apply to them?

And Jillian, I think you just said you wanted to eat a person. 0_o

honeythorn · 07-28-2007, 10:11 AM

Well, human flesh allegedly tastes like pork so...

Jonathan Strange · 07-28-2007, 10:14 AM

We're eventually going to become so desensitized that we'll have no qualms killing fellow people in the open. Think in terms of Warhammer 40k or hivemind mentality.

It will happen, one day.

Drake Dun · 07-28-2007, 11:26 AM

If the world becomes like Warhammer 40k, all of the extra willingness to kill will just sort of balance things out, because super-high tech firearms will have about the same range as super soakers. Also, average people will be able to get hosed down with an assault rifle and escape unharmmed about half the time, and they will survive direct hits from anti-tank weapons one time in six.

Drake
of Splinter Fleet Rapacity