Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Wrathful Dwarf said i could re open this. So let me restate the thread.



1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death?

The State? The relative's victim? The Executioner? Anyone ?





You may debate using any and all examples at your disposal, but please TRY and answer the three questions above as often as you can.


LETS GET STARTED !

Okay, my opinion, again is that killing is not immoral. I don't believe in morals, so it is basically just another action. Like any other one in this world. Not good, not bad.

If you ask me for what reason I might kill, I'd say in self defense, or to protect people I value...

Okay Bardock, i understand your logic now.

But what about torture?

Is intentionally inflicting torture immoral or is it JUST an action ?

And how is it different than murder ? (according to your logic where morals are made up)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okay Bardock, i understand your logic now.

But what about torture?

Is intentionally inflicting torture immoral or is it JUST an action ?

you obviously dont understand his logic. he just said that he doesnt believe that anything is moral or immoral, so why ask him that?

In my opinion, murder is never excusable, but there are cases in which it occurs that I wouldn't lose sleep over or give any extra thought to, if I'm honest. That is just my opinion, though, the inexcusable part. I also know specifically what murder is.

Manslaughter is obviously accidental, so I wouldn't necessarily say it's immoral or moral. If you fight and your opponent is killed but you didn't intend to kill them, then it's accidental.

Abortion (the killing of a foetus or cells) in my opinion is fine. Couldn't care less what a woman does with her body or anything growing inside of it. There are women who use abortion in ways I don't condone, but I am not going to be against a very useful and helpful practise just because idiots will misuse it.

Euthanasia as a concept is fine, I just believe there needs to be some kind of concrete agreement as to who gets to do it and at what stage.

As for the humans/animals part, I'm more fond of other animals as a species than I am of humans. The humans I do love, I love more than any other species, but I've never ever seen or encountered an animal that has infuriated me, pissed me off, upset me or whatever. So overall, I prefer other animals. That said, I don't believe any animal deserves to be innocently killed (if they are infact innocent), that includes humans. It just so happens that there are certain deaths that would make me smile. This would never be the case with an animal, because it doesn't set out to maliciously commit murder, ruin a family or ruin a life. I have more hatred for a species that is capable of doing that with the result in mind, than an animal defending itself.

As for the death penalty, plain and simple I don't believe anyone has any right to take anybody's life, ever. The fact that murderers and such DO take people's lives however, doesn't entitled someone (the state) to reply with equal acts. As PVS said, that's hypocritical and makes us no better.

A serial killer who stabbed 15 women will likely end up getting the chair, an act more barbaric than anything he's done.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
you obviously dont understand his logic. he just said that he doesnt believe that anything is moral or immoral, so why ask him that?

Yes I do.

I want to see the EXTANT of how far he thinks morals to not exist, because they are a lot of people who think there is NO such thing as good or bad.

A lot of these people are Sociapaths.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In my opinion, murder is never excusable, but there are cases in which it occurs that I wouldn't lose sleep over or give any extra thought to, if I'm honest. That is just my opinion, though, the inexcusable part. I also know specifically what murder is.

Manslaughter is obviously accidental, so I wouldn't necessarily say it's immoral or moral. If you fight and your opponent is killed but you didn't intend to kill them, then it's accidental.

Abortion (the killing of a foetus or cells) in my opinion is fine. Couldn't care less what a woman does with her body or anything growing inside of it. There are women who use abortion in ways I don't condone, but I am not going to be against a very useful and helpful practise just because idiots will misuse it.

Euthanasia as a concept is fine, I just believe there needs to be some kind of concrete agreement as to who gets to do it and at what stage.

As for the humans/animals part, I'm more fond of other animals as a species than I am of humans. The humans I do love, I love more than any other species, but I've never ever seen or encountered an animal that has infuriated me, pissed me off, upset me or whatever. So overall, I prefer other animals. That said, I don't believe any animal deserves to be innocently killed (if they are infact innocent), that includes humans. It just so happens that there are certain deaths that would make me smile. This would never be the case with an animal, because it doesn't set out to maliciously commit murder, ruin a family or ruin a life. I have more hatred for a species that is capable of doing that with the result in mind, than an animal defending itself.

As for the death penalty, plain and simple I don't believe anyone has any right to take anybody's life, ever. The fact that murderers and such DO take people's lives however, doesn't entitled someone (the state) to reply with equal acts. As PVS said, that's hypocritical and makes us no better.

A serial killer who stabbed 15 women will likely end up getting the chair, an act more barbaric than anything he's done.

-AC



In terms of Death Penalty I agree.


I don't think any of us have the right to kill a murderer whose already in custody, BUT....

Sometimes savage acts warrant a punishment no less than Death, and even though I don't think anyone has the right to deliver this punishment, the punishment will be reasonable to MOST people's eyes.


This is why when it comes to public protests of the Death Penalty, i stay OUT OF IT....

My opinion, i don't feel is one that will be universally accepted, so i don't try to stick this one into Law.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I want to see the EXTANT of how far he thinks morals to not exist,

To the extent that they don't exist...?

As in...they can totally be non-existent...a little bit? What?

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
In terms of Death Penalty I agree.


I don't think any of us have the right to kill a murderer whose already in custody, BUT....

Sometimes savage acts warrant a punishment no less than Death, and even though I don't think anyone has the right to deliver this punishment, the punishment will be reasonable to MOST people's eyes.


This is why when it comes to public protests of the Death Penalty, i stay OUT OF IT....

My opinion, i don't feel is one that will be universally accepted, so i don't try to stick this one into Law.

Basically, you lack the conviction to back your beliefs.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wrathful Dwarf said i could re open this. So let me restate the thread.



1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death?

The State? The relative's victim? The Executioner? Anyone ?





You may debate using any and all examples at your disposal, but please TRY and answer the three questions above as often as you can.


LETS GET STARTED !

1) Killing is 'moral' when for example person is in enormous pain and will die anyway - killing that person will make it easier on them, if so they desire, of course.

Killing is 'immoral' in pretty much all cases - particulary revenge. Revenge, honor killings, killing based on prejudice/hate, killing for the sake of money, killing for the sake of greed...etc, etc, etc.

Noone has the right to decide which people will live and which will die.

2) As for animals, it seems widely accepted that it is ok to kill animals - particulary for sport (??)
I guess as far as food is concerned - im kind of indecicive about this. We survived because we hunted...

3) Where do these ''universal standsards'' come from? Who makes these 'universal standards'?

Noone has the right to kill anyone by any right. (unless, as stated by my first example, other person asks because of the unberable pain)

By practicing murder on a murderer, you indirectly condone his actions - you are killing for some kind of belief of right.

People who commit genocide, or are brutal dictators, do not kill people at random. They kill them because of some 'moral code of right' which they believe is true.
People who present a threat, or are deemed by their 'universal standards' not good enough to live.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes I do.

I want to see the EXTANT of how far he thinks morals to not exist, because they are a lot of people who think there is NO such thing as good or bad.

A lot of these people are Sociapaths.

a lot? by what figures do you make that presumption? or did you just make it up?

the guy operates on pure objectivity and you imply that he may be a sociopath?
i would argue that sociopaths tend to feel justification in their actions, and that what they do is 'right' as opposed to simply 'not wrong'. but then i'm just assuming as well and thats not very useful here, is it?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
People who commit genocide, or are brutal dictators, do not kill people at random. They kill them because of some 'moral code of right' which they believe is true.

solid point.

Exactly.

Osama Bin Laden isn't sitting in a bunker having a moral dilemma, nor is he some dumb maniac who fancies a killing spree. He believes he's doing something as right as can be and he's precise in who he targets.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
a lot? by what figures do you make that presumption? or did you just make it up?

the guy operates on pure objectivity and you imply that he may be a sociopath?
i would argue that sociopaths tend to feel justification in their actions, and that what they do is 'right' as opposed to simply 'not wrong'. but then i'm just assuming as well and thats not very useful here, is it?



Nope. PVS, i didnt say YOU were a sociapath, please don't take it that way.

Many murderers and serial killers are NOT sociapath.

Many of them KNOW what they are doing is wrong, but DO IT ANYWAY because it's fun, convienent, etc. But they are still fully aware of what kind of harm and pain they caused, they just choose to ignore it.


But some people, sociapathic people, do NOT beleive in a right or wrong. They beleive that RIGHT and WRONG are just concepts that we human beings created.

Sociapaths beleive in this type of philosophy "You gotta do what you gotta do"

As if the ENDS justify the MEANS.

Many sociapaths who kill couldn't care less about who they killed. There's often no enjoyment OR disgust of thier own actions. They did what they had to do....end of story. They kill with a neutral perspective.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Many of them KNOW what they are doing is wrong, but DO IT ANYWAY because it's fun, convienent, etc. But they are still fully aware of what kind of harm and pain they caused, they just choose to ignore it.

This kind of ties in with this:

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But some people, sociapathic people, do NOT beleive in a right or wrong. They beleive that RIGHT and WRONG are just concepts that we human beings created.

They don't have any distinction between right and wrong. They don't know it's wrong, they know that SOCIETY believes it's wrong. They just don't agree.

Eg: I wore my Brazil football shirt outside the day they knocked England out of the World Cup. It's just a sport, right? Just supporting the team I like, in a harmless game. I didn't see anything wrong with it, but because English society is comprised of patriotic mugs, I was sworn at, verbally abused and one man even tried to run me over.

They saw it as wrong, I didn't. Although this is a remarkably different scenario, my point is clear. If I was killed, there are people out there who genuinely would believe it was right.

-AC

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
1) Killing is 'moral' when for example person is in enormous pain and will die anyway - killing that person will make it easier on them, if so they desire, of course.

Killing is 'immoral' in pretty much all cases - particulary revenge. Revenge, honor killings, killing based on prejudice/hate, killing for the sake of money, killing for the sake of greed...etc, etc, etc.

Noone has the right to decide which people will live and which will die.

2) As for animals, it seems widely accepted that it is ok to kill animals - particulary for sport (??)
I guess as far as food is concerned - im kind of indecicive about this. We survived because we hunted...

3) Where do these ''universal standsards'' come from? Who makes these 'universal standards'?

Noone has the right to kill anyone by any right. (unless, as stated by my first example, other person asks because of the unberable pain)

By practicing murder on a murderer, you indirectly condone his actions - you are killing for some kind of belief of right.

People who commit genocide, or are brutal dictators, do not kill people at random. They kill them because of some 'moral code of right' which they believe is true.
People who present a threat, or are deemed by their 'universal standards' not good enough to live.



I agree with much of what you said.


The killing of animals for food is a debate that involves the fact of our Survival.


Killing an animal for SPORT is $#@$ked up in my opinion. It's just as bad as assassination to me.


Universal Standards? Did i say that ?


I meant that my opinion is obviously not shared by everyone, so i would never FORCE my views and make everyone abide by them.

Universal standards is not what it literally sounds like. The standards I am talking about are those that are created by the MAJORITY of people, unfortunately that is how our nation creates its moral standards.

(well those who have more power have more say, obviously)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This kind of ties in with this:



They don't have any distinction between right and wrong. They don't know it's wrong, they know that SOCIETY believes it's wrong. They just don't agree.

Eg: I wore my Brazil football shirt outside the day they knocked England out of the World Cup. It's just a sport, right? Just supporting the team I like, in a harmless game. I didn't see anything wrong with it, but because English society is comprised of patriotic mugs, I was sworn at, verbally abused and one man even tried to run me over.

They saw it as wrong, I didn't. Although this is a remarkably different scenario, my point is clear.

-AC




Right. But even though Sociapaths know that SOCIETY beleives its wrong, wrong and right does NOT EXIST to them. They beleive right and wrong to be foolish and worthless concepts, and possibly is ultamately the Individual's to decide.


Not all Sociapaths ENJOY murdering. Most of them JUST DO IT when they feel the need to.


Like for example, I forget which movie it was , Samuel L Jackson plays a character who only kills people WHEN he feels like it. He doesn't have this COMPULSION or obsession with killing people.

He only does it when he feels its necessary. He DOES kill innocent people, but it is for his goals. Nothing more, nothing less.

And he has absolute control over when he decides to kill. He can go for YEARS without killing someone, and its no big deal.




Sociapaths don't give a crap.



I know im using movies lol, but another example:"

Did you guys see "The Talented Mr. Ripley" ?

Did Tom Ripley SAVOR killing Dickie Greenleaf? No he loved him, but that was a kill out of anger, so bad example sorry.


He also killed Dickie Greenleaf's freind. Then he was going to kill his ex wife when he found out that she knew what he did. Then at the END of the movie he kills his current boyfreind to save his own life.

Although he REGRETS killing him, because he loves him, he does it so that he could keep him quiet and not be sent back to prison.




Sociapaths kill to pursue a goal, not usually just for the SAKE or enjoyment of it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope. PVS, i didnt say YOU were a sociapath, please don't take it that way.

Many murderers and serial killers are NOT sociapath.

Many of them KNOW what they are doing is wrong, but DO IT ANYWAY because it's fun, convienent, etc. But they are still fully aware of what kind of harm and pain they caused, they just choose to ignore it.


But some people, sociapathic people, do NOT beleive in a right or wrong. They beleive that RIGHT and WRONG are just concepts that we human beings created.

Sociapaths beleive in this type of philosophy "You gotta do what you gotta do"

As if the ENDS justify the MEANS.

Many sociapaths who kill couldn't care less about who they killed. There's often no enjoyment OR disgust of thier own actions. They did what they had to do....end of story. They kill with a neutral perspective.

i fail to see the point of saying that some killers view morals as nonexistant. where does this take us? and how does it mean that viewing morals as an abstract and purely subjective, is not a good way to look at it?

as lil pointed out, the greatest of human atrocities have been carried out under the law of the land and based on the moral code of the land. "native americans are just godless savages" "jews are weak, inferior, and inherantly evil" these were at one point moral code. so the sword cuts both ways when bringing up isolated examples on the value of morals.

Originally posted by PVS
i fail to see the point of saying that some killers view morals as nonexistant. where does this take us? and how does it mean that viewing morals as an abstract and purely subjective, is not a good way to look at it?

as lil pointed out, the greatest of human atrocities have been carried out under the law of the land and based on the moral code of the land. "native americans are just godless savages" "jews are weak, inferior, and inherantly evil" these were at one point moral code. so the sword cuts both ways when bringing up isolated examples on the value of morals.




Because I beleive that some things ARE undoubtably good and bad. Yes, most things are subjective, especially in the area of morals.


You or someone stated that he doesn't beleive that morals exist. Or that good or bad , or right and wrong, actually exist.

That it is only something society creates and it progresses and changes based on what they learn from experience.


which is NOT a bad way to look at it at all.


But think of it this way: Although centuries back morality was defined much differently than it is today, do you imagine that the people who suffered under "righteous and just law" didn't think they were being treated unfairly, or that there was SOMETHING wrong with thier governments and its laws ?






I strongly beleive that when it comes to the treatment of other people, there is a deep embedded standard that all of us share. I may be wrong, so this is not a fact...but it is my opinion.


Since sociapaths lack the beleif in the concept of right and wrong entirely, i beleive they LACK this embedded "morality" or whatever that I think most people share.

as lil pointed out, the greatest of human atrocities have been carried out under the law of the land and based on the moral code of the land. "native americans are just godless savages" "jews are weak, inferior, and inherantly evil" these were at one point moral code. so the sword cuts both ways when bringing up isolated examples on the value of morals.



Sorry i didnt address this point you made, which was a valid one.


People like Hitler and such, i thnk LACK morals and use the IDEA of morals to sway other people who do beleive in morals.


I'm not saying Hitler was not a feeling human being, but we all know he was a twisted one, there is no arguing about it.


He lacked a respect for life. He lacked a respect for diversity. Not to mention he has Inferiority Complex, so he lacked respect for himself as well.


Is he Sociapath? I'm unsure. There seemed to be much emotion in his extermination, you can't say that the fact that he killed people so INTIMATELY and personally as to torture them until they died out so precisely....

You can't say he didn't care.

He obviously HAD a strong hatred for those he sent to thier deaths. This was not about thinking he was right. Maybe the NAZIS thought he was right, but this HAD to be personal for him.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wrathful Dwarf said i could re open this. So let me restate the thread.



1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death?

The State? The relative's victim? The Executioner? Anyone ?





You may debate using any and all examples at your disposal, but please TRY and answer the three questions above as often as you can.


LETS GET STARTED ! 1. when is killing ever moral?
2. yes there's a difference, animals are our food, humans aren't, well unless your a deranged cannibal.
3.No one has the right to judge if you should die or not, but we do anyway, If I should pick one of your answers it should be the state, of course relatives will say no.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Because I beleive that some things ARE undoubtably good and bad. Yes, most things are subjective, especially in the area of morals.


You or someone stated that he doesn't beleive that morals exist. Or that good or bad , or right and wrong, actually exist.

That it is only something society creates and it progresses and changes based on what they learn from experience.


which is NOT a bad way to look at it at all.


But think of it this way: Although centuries back morality was defined much differently than it is today, do you imagine that the people who suffered under "righteous and just law" didn't think they were being treated unfairly, or that there was SOMETHING wrong with thier governments and its laws ?






I strongly beleive that when it comes to the treatment of other people, there is a deep embedded standard that all of us share. I may be wrong, so this is not a fact...but it is my opinion.


Since sociapaths lack the beleif in the concept of right and wrong entirely, i beleive they LACK this embedded "morality" or whatever that I think most people share.

but the illusion that a society has "progressed" to some new plane of enlightened though is exactly the case for irrational shifts in what is considered moral and immoral.

all it takes to warp morality is passion. once passion is part of the equation, morality can easily turn from a merely abstract concept to a dangerously irrational concept. humans are by nature irrational and thus you cant blindly trust what feels right.

all it takes to warp morality is passion. once passion is part of the equation, morality can easily turn from a merely abstract concept to a dangerously irrational concept. humans are by nature irrational and thus you cant blindly trust what feels right.


Which is why i keep my opinions out of actual politics and only on debate forums.

I RECOGNIZE the bias and lack of objectivity in much of my reasoning, AND i understand that not everyone will be okay if MY WAY were done universally.

Which is why i would never force a woman to give birth if she wanted an abortion, even though i think her decision to do so would be a selfish and inconsiderate one.

However.....u know its going to be the MAJORITY's opinion that becomes LAW.

That is why the ability to vote for what you think should be Law and who you think should be incharge, etc. is so great.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes I do.

I want to see the EXTANT of how far he thinks morals to not exist, because they are a lot of people who think there is NO such thing as good or bad.

A lot of these people are Sociapaths.

Nah, I think PBS is right,k you obviously do not understand what I said...if I say there are no morals, I basically mean there are no morals.

So, torturing 2 year old babies for pleasure, raping a 11 year old girl's ass or executing the family of a person in front of their eyes....just actions..not good or bad....does that mean I like them? No. But they are not absolutely bad or good in my opinion.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
People like Hitler and such, i thnk LACK morals and use the IDEA of morals to sway other people who do beleive in morals.


no. they lacked your morals, but instead had their own moral code.
they most likely thought that what they were doing was just and moral.
people who follow them tend to feel the same.

that is the danger of viewing 'morality' to be a objective term.

Originally posted by PVS
no. they lacked your morals, but instead had their own moral code.
they most likely thought that what they were doing was just and moral.
people who follow them tend to feel the same.

that is the danger of viewing 'morality' to be a objective term.


That's a very good point, but ultamately neither of us know.

Neither of us are Hitler, so this debate can go on for weeks.


So i thnk you said that you don't beleive in a real right or wrong..or was that the other guy?

Would you say that you have developed your OWN sense of morals ?

lol you talk too much. it's not your life to take, so let the owner have it. punish them by taking away thier freedom and sending them to jail.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Would you say that you have developed your OWN sense of morals ?

in certain respects. according to my own sense of morality, the death penalty is completely immoral, and a womans right to choose (within a reasonable timeframe) is not immoral. others are convinced that i am a criminal loving pussy liberal for thinking the first, and an avid supporter of barbaric murdering for the second.

isnt morality confusing?

My two cents.

If killing is wrong then by all means killing in self defense is wrong. If killing is wrong then by all means the soldiers who fought in WWII were wrong because they kill Nazi's. If killing is wrong then every police officer who shoots and kills a criminal is wrong.

All killing is wrong....we should live in a world where there is no killing.

....

It's time to step into reality. We're not living in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect world. Stop thinking is possible. We're violent and dangerous species.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's a very good point, but ultamately neither of us know.

Neither of us are Hitler, so this debate can go on for weeks.


So i thnk you said that you don't beleive in a real right or wrong..or was that the other guy?

Would you say that you have developed your OWN sense of morals ?

It seems that way, but not exactly. Considering that right, wrong, good, and evil are not objective he really has no reason to believe they exist. Would ethical egoism be an answer? I'll let him explain now...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My two cents.

If killing is wrong then by all means killing in self defense is wrong. If killing is wrong then by all means the soldiers who fought in WWII were wrong because they kill Nazi's. If killing is wrong then every police officer who shoots and kills a criminal is wrong.

All killing is wrong....we should live in a world where there is no killing.

....

It's time to step into reality. We're not living in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect world. Stop thinking is possible. We're violent and dangerous species.



I didn't say ALL killing is wrong. Killing in terms of immediate Self Defense or for our Survival has to be considered justifiable, because in those cases WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE ?


Killing for CONVEINENCE in my opinion is wrong.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My two cents.

If killing is wrong then by all means killing in self defense is wrong. If killing is wrong then by all means the soldiers who fought in WWII were wrong because they kill Nazi's. If killing is wrong then every police officer who shoots and kills a criminal is wrong.

All killing is wrong....we should live in a world where there is no killing.

....

It's time to step into reality. We're not living in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect world. Stop thinking is possible. We're violent and dangerous species.

ok, fair enough. although i didnt see anyone declare that self defense is wrong, lets just go with this. we'll just go ahead and say that defending one's own life or the lives of others is justifiable...by extention the ideal reason for having to go to war... which i agree with.

now that we've passed the realm of imminent threat, and into every case where killing is not necessary to achieve safety, can you produce an instance where it is justifiable?

what about if you had to kill someone if it saved 3000 lives would you do it? and what if it was a relative would you do it? what if it was your brother or sister would you do it?

Killing another person can be justifiable.

Originally posted by El_NINO
what about if you had to kill someone if it saved 3000 lives would you do it? and what if it was a relative would you do it? what if it was your brother or sister would you do it?

Killing another person can be justifiable.

no it would not be automatically justifiable. how would you save 3000 lives by killing someone? give an example.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didn't say ALL killing is wrong. Killing in terms of immediate Self Defense or for our Survival has to be considered justifiable, because in those cases WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE ?


Killing for CONVEINENCE in my opinion is wrong.

Why does your life is justifiable and the other person isn't? You said killing in self defense is justifiable. Who justify that? You? the other person has no saying? Whoever firmly believes that killing is wrong. Cannot say killing in self defense is justifiable. It's a total contradiction. Even if you imply to say is for self persevation it doesn't work. Sorry....you'll continue to contradict yourself when you fully admit that all killing is wrong. Remenber the Hamburger example I mention? If you don't believe in killing...you can't eat a hamburger...is hypocracy.

Originally posted by PVS
no it would not be automatically justifiable. how would you save 3000 lives by killing someone? give an example.

I didnt say "automatically", there are certain situations where killing another person can benfit the majority.

To answer you question about an example... ummm the movie speed

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
the other person has no saying? Whoever firmly believes that killing is wrong. Cannot say killing in self defense is justifiable. It's a total contradiction. depends on your motive. i think if your intent is to kill then that is wrong. if your intent is to incapacitate and end the threat, but you end up killing them in the process...oh well.

i guess the topic should be 'intentional killing' to specify, shouldnt it?

Originally posted by El_NINO
I didnt say "automatically", there are certain situations where killing another person can benfit the majority.

To answer you question about an example... ummm the movie speed

its been so long since i have seen that..and dont remember much at all.
so im afraid i need to be enlightened as to which scene

Originally posted by PVS
its been so long since i have seen that..and dont remember much at all.
so im afraid i need to be enlightened as to which scene

the opening scene where bomber is about to escape and he has Keanos partner and says (I think) "Bomb in one hand and your partner in the other... what do you do!?!?"

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My two cents.

If killing is wrong then by all means killing in self defense is wrong. If killing is wrong then by all means the soldiers who fought in WWII were wrong because they kill Nazi's. If killing is wrong then every police officer who shoots and kills a criminal is wrong.

All killing is wrong....we should live in a world where there is no killing.

....

It's time to step into reality. We're not living in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect world. Stop thinking is possible. We're violent and dangerous species.

Um...Viva La Revolution?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Remenber the Hamburger example I mention? If you don't believe in killing...you can't eat a hamburger...is hypocracy.

Yeah, what a society we've become when we start comparing human beings to cows.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

It's time to step into reality. We're not living in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect world. Stop thinking is possible. We're violent and dangerous species. That's what the aliens keep saying!!

If we don't get our shit together, we will never have interplanetary relations at all..

And that would be tragic, not getting to meet those little green men we've seen in movies for so many years...

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness



PVS....just for reference to our past argument, these are characterisics of a sociapath.

I'm not callign anybody here one, but would you say that a "lack of beleive that morals exist" doesn't sound extremely similar to the above descriptions ?

Originally posted by Punker69
And that would be tragic, not getting to meet those little green men we've seen in movies for so many years... I want to meet a green man!! crybaby

Dont we all.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why does your life is justifiable and the other person isn't? You said killing in self defense is justifiable. Who justify that? You? the other person has no saying? Whoever firmly believes that killing is wrong. Cannot say killing in self defense is justifiable. It's a total contradiction. Even if you imply to say is for self persevation it doesn't work. Sorry....you'll continue to contradict yourself when you fully admit that all killing is wrong. Remenber the Hamburger example I mention? If you don't believe in killing...you can't eat a hamburger...is hypocracy.


Nice Try Wrath, but it aint working.


I never said that Killing is always wrong, so don't try to claim that this is my stance, i've been CLEAR on my stance on this.

It's a two sided truth.


If someone is going to kill you...you have every right to defend yourself every living thing has the right to protect him or herself and to ensure his or her own survival.


Killing is ONLY justifiable in my opinion, when your own life is threatened.

This is why I said numerous times in the Abortion thread that if a woman's fetus is threatening her life, she has the right to terminate it.



I am saying that killing for SPORT, killing for CONVIENENCE, killing for FUN, or killing to satisfy an unnecessary but desirable urge is WRONG.....

That is my stance on it, so don't try labeling me as the hypocrit, i have made it very clear where i stand on this.



Your hamburger example is a poor one. First of all, i dont eat hamburgers. Maybe like FOUR times in my entire life. I didnt choose to KILL THE COW...someone else did, and i would rather make USE of the food than WASTE it.......

Secondly killing for FOOD is an example to ensure our survival, so your example is meaningless.



Nice try though

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didnt choose to KILL THE COW...someone else did, and i would rather make USE of the food than WASTE it.......


Haha, I think thats going to be excuse now whenever someone trys to throw something stupid like that at my face...

Originally posted by Punker69
Haha, I think thats going to be excuse now whenever someone trys to throw something stupid like that at my face...


LOL...be my guest.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nice Try Wrath, but it aint working.


I never said that Killing is always wrong, so don't try to claim that this is my stance, i've been CLEAR on my stance on this.

It's a two sided truth.

If someone is going to kill you...you have every right to defend yourself every living thing has the right to protect him or herself and to ensure his or her own survival.

Killing is ONLY justifiable in my opinion, when your own life is threatened.

This is why I said numerous times in the Abortion thread that if a woman's fetus is threatening her life, she has the right to terminate it.
I am saying that killing for SPORT, killing for CONVIENENCE, killing for FUN, or killing to satisfy an unnecessary but desirable urge is WRONG.....

That is my stance on it, so don't try labeling me as the hypocrit, i have made it very clear where i stand on this.

Your hamburger example is a poor one. First of all, i dont eat hamburgers. Maybe like FOUR times in my entire life. I didnt choose to KILL THE COW...someone else did, and i would rather make USE of the food than WASTE it.......

Secondly killing for FOOD is an example to ensure our survival, so your example is meaningless.

Nice try though

Killing for Food is an example to ensure our survival.

...

AC gave a good point about vegatarian consumption. Read again....as far as you saying is not working...it's still an opinion. You're welcome to disagree.

Originally posted by Punker69
Um...Viva La Revolution?

Do you have a contribution to the thread or want attention? Here, I'm giving you attention. I'm also giving you a warning. Anything which is not relating discussions on your posts in this thread will be not be acceptable. Either have something to say that is relevant or get lost.

Originally posted by El_NINO
the opening scene where bomber is about to escape and he has Keanos partner and says (I think) "Bomb in one hand and your partner in the other... what do you do!?!?"

in that scenario, you are killing nobody. the bomber is the killer. if you just run away it doesn mean YOU killed everyone, does it? any court of law and even anyone with common sense would not call you a killer regardless of how that played out.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wrathful Dwarf said i could re open this. So let me restate the thread.



1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death?

The State? The relative's victim? The Executioner? Anyone ?





You may debate using any and all examples at your disposal, but please TRY and answer the three questions above as often as you can.


LETS GET STARTED !

1. Moral when it's done out of self defense.

2. Jesus Christ, yes. Killing a human is always worse than killing an animal. Unless the animal is really really cute and the person is ugly.

3. As said before, in America, the state has the right to decide if they live or die.

Killing for Food is an example to ensure our survival.

Yeah, what else could you call it ?

...

AC gave a good point about vegatarian consumption. Read again....as far as you saying is not working...it's still an opinion. You're welcome to disagree.


Yes that is a wondorful option. To be honest, the only meat i consume now is fish. I am an amature body builder, so yes, i need high protein diet. Soy and plant proteins aren;t affective TRUST ME


Whey protein, egg protein, and FISH protein are the BEST.

Peanut butter helps 2, but point is i stay away from RED MEAT as much as possible.




However, in terms of diseases:

Epilepsy...my brother had to have high fat diets for some reason. The doctor told him he had to eat bacon, sausage, meats that you usually would stay away from, but in his case the extra cholestrol helped protect the nerves in his brain from being effected by television and other over-powerful stimulants.

Muscular Dystrophy- my freind had this, and he HAD to eat ANIMAL proteins to help rebuild muscle. At this time, they didn't know too much about Whey Protein and its affect. But Whey Protein alone doesn'y work well for rebuildign and supporting muscle tissue. Lean Fish and Lean red meats were essential for his muscular health, and plant proteins are shit..trust me...they are not complete protiens like those found in meat.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes that is a wondorful option. To be honest, the only meat i consume now is fish. I am an amature body builder, so yes, i need high protein diet. Soy and plant proteins aren;t affective TRUST ME


Whey protein, egg protein, and FISH protein are the BEST.

Peanut butter helps 2, but point is i stay away from RED MEAT as much as possible.

Remember that vegetarian I told you about? I've seen him out muscle and out power a person who weights 21 stone (not sure what that is in LBS), not to mention lift this person over his head on one occasion.

No meat, no fish. Explain this. If these are so essential, explain.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Remember that vegetarian I told you about? I've seen him out muscle and out power a person who weights 21 stone (not sure what that is in LBS), not to mention lift this person over his head on one occasion.

No meat, no fish. Explain this. If these are so essential, explain.

-AC

No, I beleive you. But he had to eat a hell of a lot more plant proteins in one sitting than i would have to eat lean meats.

He probably ALSO consumed whey protein as well, which is derived from the milking process.

A plant protein is incomplete. You would have to consume like 5 plant proteins to equal one fish protein.



But whatever.....this wasn't a good example anyway, because consuming these meats simply for my bodybuilding efforts IS more of a "convienence" goal than a survival goal.

However, i am NOT the one who killed these fish or cows to eat them. I am simply going to EAT what's there, since it was already killed anyway.


I would rather make USE of the food than let it waste, and end up the killing was for absolutely nothing.



You still have not countered by necessity for disease points.

It really depends on the circumstances, killing for hatred or financial gain is wrong. There's nothing wrong with killing in self-defense.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Remember that vegetarian I told you about? I've seen him out muscle and out power a person who weights 21 stone (not sure what that is in LBS), not to mention lift this person over his head on one occasion.

No meat, no fish. Explain this. If these are so essential, explain.

-AC

Because they taste good.

Yeah, I said essential.

-AC

I can eat any meat without guilt. I don't subscribe to the "All killing is wrong" state of mind.

If tasting good is not essential to deciding what to eat then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Either have something to say that is relevant or get lost.

I think killing is bad.

This didn't quite make sense to me,

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Anything which is not relating discussions on your posts in this thread will be not be acceptable.

Anything that is not relating discussions on my post?

Originally posted by Punker69
I think killing is bad.

This didn't quite make sense to me,



Anything that is not relating discussions on my post?

Let me clarify for you. Post material related to the topic. That should be clear enough.

Originally posted by BackFire
If tasting good is not essential to deciding what to eat then I don't know what is.

That wasn't what was being discussed. What was being discussed was what is essential to eat to survive and what isn't.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Let me clarify for you. Post material related to the topic. That should be clear enough.

I "related" to your post which was related to the topic so I did relate to the topic.

Not gonna split hairs with you punker69. I given you a warning. And that's final.

Not gonna or cant?

Please continue with the topic everyone.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

I think we need to define moral. It all depends on who's perspective we are using. Morals are imaginary constructs that allow man to justify acting and not acting. Many differing moral viewpoints would have differing answers.

Is killing moral? Well, from an evolutionary stance I'd say yes. I would say yes because:

1) It gets rid of a weak member of the human race, else he would not have died.
2) If we catch the perpetrator, he was weak and thus deserving of being selected out.

Is killing immoral? Well, from an evolutionary stance I'd say no. I would say no because:

1) We cause our population to shrink, if our population shrinks we may be weakening our fitness in some way.
2) We seem to have reached a point that physical acts are not the driving force of selection. A better judge of evolutionary fit is procreation and status within our species. Thus killing is not a proper form of selection to be used by our species.

Is killing moral? Religious examples say if the deity/leader/philosophy would accept/direct the killing via some justification it is. Otherwise killing is immoral.

Is killing moral? Utilitarians would say it would depend on the benefits of the death.

etc. etc. etc.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

No, the furry, slimy and scaly guys have feelings too
Yes, we should kill them, they need us to prey, open up the environment for some other species to try to prove its fitness.
No, evolution is too slow, we can kill everything off before it catches up.
Yes, kill'em all, deplete the food supply and cause humans to die off due to starvation...
No, the squirrels will rise up and take control of the world, hahahahhuh

Morally? Ummm, what is it that says it would be immoral? Is it only the fact that we feel and so they must? Or is it because we think, so they must? Or some other argument?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death

The State? The relative's victim? The Executioner? Anyone ?

Society, spread the accountability among as many as possible, make us all feel better about the death. It isn't me, it's you and you and you and you and you.

Here's a question, if one person, or even a handful actually commit the physical act of killing a killer, are we in effect training that/those people to kill? Given a similar context, but not the legal authority, would it be as difficult to get him/her/them to kill? Military, if you grab that guy from the war, throw him in a dimly lit room with a gun, an innocent across the room, play gun fire loudly at him, show flashes on the wall near the innocent, will he shoot the innocent? If he does, both situations, regardless of why, did we create that death? If this is remotely possible, 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000, is it morally right to punish by death?

Also, study punishment. Punishment is a bad idea. Punishment results in:
1) Escape - typical response try to escape the punishment
2) Aggression - alternative to escape, attack those who punish (e.g. police are heckled and often disliked, worse examples include high levels of violence)
3) Apathy - Suppression of behavior, not only the punished behavior.
4) Abuse - Punishment, by definition, works. If punishment works we will continue to use it, and it will escalate.
5) Imitation - The punished will often punish others in the same way, and not only the punished, but those who learned that the punishment worked from observation.

Punishments must be delivered instantly and severely to be effective.

The death sentence is an attempt to teach others by example. We kill the killer, so killing is not a good idea. Often a death sentence takes too long, due to this the public does not hear much about it, is it still effective enough as an example among the public so as to justify its use?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1)When is killing moral? When is it immoral?

2)Is there a difference between the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of animals ?

3) Although many people, by universal standards, DO deserve to die for thier crimes and acts of violence against other people.....who has the right to deliver thier death?

1) When it's for a good reason. When it is not necessary.

2) Yes, many people consider animals a lesser value than humans.

3) Inspectah Deck.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
1) When it's for a good reason. When it is not necessary.

Good reason and necessity are subjective.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Good reason and necessity are subjective.

-AC


AC is right.

Originally posted by Punker69
Not gonna or cant?

You got owned.
oh, and killing is wrong when you kill a human or animal for absolutely no reason at all. "I felt like it" is not a reason, contrary to what some hunters want you to believe.

Hunters really suck ^

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hunters really suck ^

...the life right out of things

Sorry, couldn't help that one

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Abortion (the killing of a foetus or cells) in my opinion is fine. Couldn't care less what a woman does with her body or anything growing inside of it.

Right...so an elective abortion 5 minutes before birth is acceptable to you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Euthanasia as a concept is fine, I just believe there needs to be some kind of concrete agreement as to who gets to do it and at what stage.

We finally agree on something!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A serial killer who stabbed 15 women will likely end up getting the chair, an act more barbaric than anything he's done.

Disagree. Stabbing 15 women is far worse than getting the chair. If a man were to rape and murder 10 women, he deserves death, IMO. The chair would be perfect for him-someone who rapes and kills for fun does not deserve to breath another day, but that's my opinion, I don't know how you could think the chair is worse than stabbing 15 people.

Killing, right or wrong, can only be interpreted so, by the various perspectives parties who either commit or suffer it and are affected by it.

If cows could talk, they could say that its wrong. We dont know if cows would agree with it ; but we neither know if they disagree. For all we know, they could enjoy being slaughtered for human satisfaction. But we dont know cause cows dont talk. Neither do chickens, goats, pigs, etc.

So as long as their are no objections, it seems that its OK to kill animals cause they provide us with a means to survive. (No vegetarian debates please!)

Since humans can object and debate, we seem to find ourselves tied up in knots on when its acceptable and when its not acceptable. A wide spectrum of people see it as wrong, yet their are always exceptions to the when it is OK to kill another human.

Originally posted by PrincessMary
Right...so an elective abortion 5 minutes before birth is acceptable to you.

Irrelevant, it's acceptable to the female and it's her body.

Originally posted by PrincessMary
Disagree. Stabbing 15 women is far worse than getting the chair. If a man were to rape and murder 10 women, he deserves death, IMO. The chair would be perfect for him-someone who rapes and kills for fun does not deserve to breath another day, but that's my opinion, I don't know how you could think the chair is worse than stabbing 15 people.

Yes, because stabbing is much less barbaric than the conceived idea of "Let's strap a man to this huge metal chair and electrocute him to death."

If that article was in the paper "Man stabbed by serial killer" or "Man electrocuted by serial killer", you would instinctively think the second one is worse because it takes more thought.

-AC

Originally posted by PrincessMary
Disagree. Stabbing 15 women is far worse than getting the chair. If a man were to rape and murder 10 women, he deserves death, IMO. The chair would be perfect for him-someone who rapes and kills for fun does not deserve to breath another day, but that's my opinion, I don't know how you could think the chair is worse than stabbing 15 people.




If it were up to me, he'd get the damn chair as well.


But that would be my decision based on emotional and personal bias, that would NOT render my decision right.


Just because you OR myself think he's the scum of the Earth, and even if he DOES NOT deserve another day of breath, does not mean that you OR I have the right to satisfy our own anger by executing him.


If he is already captive, his death is UNNECESSARY for anyone else's safety, it is ONLY necessary for us to feel "oh good, the ****er is dead"


If we sentence him to his death, EVEN when he fully deserves it, we are lowering ourselves as Human Beings.


Even if the death we administer to him is MERCIFUL compared to the deaths he administered into woman and babies, we are still stooping to a level near his by "making him pay" by OUR decision of death for him.

I think the victims family should have the right to torture him themselves. That would be a GREAT new law!

I don't beleive that administering TORTURE can ever be justified.

DEATH ? Yes, killing someone can be justified under certain circumstances.

TORTURE? No.....

There was a time in history when if you wronged someone else, their family would own you for so many years or even life, depending on what you did. You became their slave.

That would be a great law!

Originally posted by debbiejo
There was a time in history when if you wronged someone else, their family would own you for so many years or even life, depending on what you did. You became their slave.

That would be a great law!

How about I do something bad to Vanesa Paradis and become John Depps slave forever.

Yes, I concur with the law droolio

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You got owned.


I got banned.
Because a whiney mod couldn't take a little hasseling.
Oh well.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Irrelevant, it's acceptable to the female and it's her body.

And I hope she has trouble sleeping at night.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If that article was in the paper "Man stabbed by serial killer" or "Man electrocuted by serial killer", you would instinctively think the second one is worse because it takes more thought.

Yes, but we are talking about the death penalty, not some killer who electrocuted someone.

Originally posted by Punker69
I got banned.
Because a whiney mod couldn't take a little hasseling.
Oh well.

Punker, my freind welcome back !

Originally posted by PrincessMary
And I hope she has trouble sleeping at night.

Oh the irony. "I hope she has trouble sleeping at night, heartless." "But she had the right to." "I don't care, I'm wishing bad things on her."

Originally posted by PrincessMary
Yes, but we are talking about the death penalty, not some killer who electrocuted someone.

I'm going to pretend that you're joking, because if you didn't get my point, there's no hope for you.

Read it again, then come back.

-AC