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

If you kill in self defence, is that sin?

If you kill for revenge is that sin?

If you kill for food, is that sin?

If you kill for your country, is that sin?

If you kill for personal gain, is that sin?

If your father is drunk and he is attempting to kill a stranger for no reason, does the stranger deserve to kill your father in self defence?

How do you justify killing?

If you kill in self defence, is that sin? Not necessarily

If you kill for revenge is that sin? Yes

If you kill for food, is that sin? If you are eating people yes

If you kill for your country, is that sin? No, Bible states you should be subject to the local government

If you kill for personal gain, is that sin? Yes

If your father is drunk and he is attempting to kill a stranger for no reason, does the stranger deserve to kill your father in self defence? If necessary

How do you justify killing? It isn't justified, but protecting oneself is. Protection supersedes.

If something is a 'sin', it is classed as 'unethical' which differs from person to person and can't be decided on an internet forum like this one. I'm sorry but, it's best if you figure it out for yourself thinker.

If you had to sacrifice yourself to save 2 complete strangers, would you do it? Think carefully about it.

Originally posted by The thinker
If you had to sacrifice yourself to save 2 complete strangers, would you do it? Think carefully about it. Dude, I wouldn't sacrafice myself for anyone. I'm too valuable!

Originally posted by lord xyz
If something is a 'sin', it is classed as 'unethical' which differs from person to person and can't be decided on an internet forum like this one. I'm sorry but, it's best if you figure it out for yourself thinker.

I would just like so see different peoples views on the matter.

personally killing is NEVER justifiable in any circumstance. although u cant blame a person for killing in self defence although most people who kill in self defence go too far and could spare the guy but in sumwhat justifiable rage killed him/her. i think theres no blame on him but the significance of the life lost should be expressed even to the original victim, mainly we need to change views of people.

Originally posted by The thinker
I would just like so see different peoples views on the matter. Oh. Then by all means go right ahead, but just a heads up, some of the people here are seriously ****ed up, and will start trolling on about their beliefs, and argue with sensible minded folk. Infact, KMC has far too many close-minded people!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Dude, I wouldn't sacrafice myself for anyone. I'm too valuable!

so you place more value on your life than anyone else?
I can say the same thing back to you.
I will kill you
its a crazy thought, isnt it?

Nah, not a sin.

do you believe every aspect of killing is alright?

Not alright....not b ad either though. Morally now.


Or are you asking what I personally totally subjective and non-absolute believe?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not alright....not b ad either though. Morally now.


Or are you asking what I personally totally subjective and non-absolute believe?

how you feel on the matter in a deep sense.

Originally posted by The thinker
how you feel on the matter in a deep sense.

Depends...what is a deep sense?

cmon now, killing is MOST DEFINATELY WRONG.

Put yourself in the situation and think what you would do.

unless in self defence where it is just barely justifiable.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
cmon now, killing is MOST DEFINATELY WRONG.

Bullshit


Originally posted by The thinker
Put yourself in the situation and think what you would do.

What situation?

the situations in the first post

Originally posted by The thinker
the situations in the first post

Well, I answered those. It's not a sin.

Do you think you have the right to kill any member on this forum for personal gain?
I may be misunderstanding you but do you find no negativity in killing?

Originally posted by The thinker
Do you think you have the right to kill any member on this forum for personal gain?
I may be misunderstanding you but do you find no negativity in killing?

Okay, I will try to make it more clear.

I personally don't want to kill anybody. I don't want to be killed and I don't like people killing other people. There are instances I can understand it and there are cases where I don't give a ****. But generally I think life for us humans would be nicer if we wouldn't kill each other.

BUT...I also realize that killing someone is just an action like any other. That's not better or worth than taking a walk with your dog, rape a 5 year old boy or rescue a mother and her 2 children from a burning building-. All neither good nor bad...just neutral actions.

but if you kill people for personal gain, is that not saying that your life has more value than other peoples lives?
Do you believe that your life has more value than your friend?

Originally posted by The thinker
but if you kill people for personal gain, is that not saying that your life has more value than other peoples lives?
Do you believe that your life has more value than your friend?

Value to who? To me? Certainly. Generally? No, not at all.

So generally, your life has no value, am i right?

Originally posted by The thinker
So generally, your life has no value, am i right?

Hmm, well, yeah.

exactly what do u consider a NEUTRAL action bardock? anything and everything? well that pretty much defeats the idea of neatrality doesnt it?

what the heck are u talkin about bardock?! of course ur life has great value so does every1 else's life. even emperically the medium u use to voice ur oppinion is ur body and mind which has at;least a physical conciousness and self preservation is the most fundamental of things that come with your and any other beings existance. which is why u cant call all actions neutral as every living thing has and rightly should have a bias towards life and human rights as they are fundamental components of the very thing you are even in non mystical terms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
BUT...I also realize that killing someone is just an action like any other. That's not better or worth than taking a walk with your dog, rape a 5 year old boy or rescue a mother and her 2 children from a burning building-. All neither good nor bad...just neutral actions.

Sooo

Your comparing killing to rescuing a mother? I beg to differ here as I would like to think that rescuing a mother is a better action than killing someone.


http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what the heck are u talkin about bardock?! of course ur life has great value so does every1 else's life. even emperically the medium u use to voice ur oppinion is ur body and mind which has at;least a physical conciousness and self preservation is the most fundamental of things that come with your and any other beings existance. which is why u cant call all actions neutral as every living thing has and rightly should have a bias towards life and human rights as they are fundamental components of the very thing you are even in non mystical terms.

Well, see that'S the thing, since I think everyones life has equal absolute value it doesn't matter. it's all relative and if everything is equal...you could as welll say it's non-existant. I grant everythign the exact same value thougth. Animals, Plants, Stones, Molecules....etc.

But that's all in subjective terms, I admitted that.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
exactly what do u consider a NEUTRAL action bardock? anything and everything? well that pretty much defeats the idea of neatrality doesnt it?

No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Arcana
Sooo

Your comparing killing to rescuing a mother? I beg to differ here as I would like to think that rescuing a mother is a better action than killing someone.


http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

I don't doubt you think so. It just isn't.

no it isnt reletive bardock, since self preservation is built up into the framework of EVERY living creature and not at random, it is a common trait that defines LIFE and conciounce. anything and everything u say does come from you mind and conciousness even your views. now consider that without self preservation these views would not have existed in the first place. the very fact that you ARE in this world is proof that life and human rights are desireable over destruction of them. therefore all actions are not subjective even if u THINK so for u need self preservation to even THINK that. complicated i know, but its the logical truth.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it isnt reletive bardock, since self preservation is built up into the framework of EVERY living creature and not at random, it is a common trait that defines LIFE and conciounce. anything and everything u say does come from you mind and conciousness even your views. now consider that without self preservation these views would not have existed in the first place. the very fact that you ARE in this world is proof that life and human rights are desireable over destruction of them. therefore all actions are not subjective even if u THINK so for u need self preservation to even THINK that. complicated i know, but its the logical truth.

No, it's only proof that MY life is desirable to me (and a few others) not that life generally is desirable. It isn't. Because for it to be generally desirable it would have to be desired by something outside all subjectivity..and that doens't exist.

nope. not true. you know ur life is desireable to u. and you also KNOW that other's people desire their own life as much as u desire urs. if u didnt know then u cud make the argument but we all know that ALL life desires preservation which finishes the need for an entity as u said. u are not in any way superior to or different than all the others which is why it would be nonsensical to presume that your life has any more value than any others and as such u doing anything to harm any other life is BAD and not the same as doing something which is desireable to sum1 else. its not all objective. if u believe in personal preservation and you also believe that all humans are equal than its undeniable that all actions are not merely subjective but are infact good or bad.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope. not true. you know ur life is desireable to u. and you also KNOW that other's people desire their own life as much as u desire urs. if u didnt know then u cud make the argument but we all know that ALL life desires preservation which finishes the need for an entity as u said. u are not in any way superior to or different than all the others which is why it would be nonsensical to presume that your life has any more value than any others and as such u doing anything to harm any other life is BAD and not the same as doing something which is desireable to sum1 else. its not all objective. if u believe in personal preservation and you also believe that all humans are equal than its undeniable that all actions are not merely subjective but are infact good or bad.

No.

Just because I desire my life I have no need to desire other people lives. They probably do too. but that's their subjective view (the very definition of it even). Your reasoning is illogical and wrong.

^sigh, i HATE it when u do that, atleast argue logically instead of simply dismissing stuff.

i think what you are trying to say is you CHOOSE not to care for other people's lives. but think about it, how does that make all actions the same, the very reason u can choose is because of self preservation imagine how much PERSONAL{if u dont believe in anythin other than the person's own desires} harm some actions can do. are they desireable seeing as sum1 likes their life as much as u like urs.

The law once held that killing was killing (except in death sentences and in war), and thus could not be ever held right. Of course judges could use there discretion, and it came to be understood that there are things known as mitigating circumstances.

Now, the law in Australia says mitigating circumstances are things like: provocation, mental unfitness, self defense, duress and the like. So it is understood if a person kills due to one of these that this will mitigate the severity of it - that is reduce it to manslaughter, or even an acquittal. I feel the law is fairly right, and the concept of sin irrelevant.

If you kill in self defence, is that sin? - Self defense is rarely premeditated, and is a necessity sometimes. It is unfortunate if it results in the killing of an assailant, but sometimes that cant be avoided. However I would differentiate between someone trying to steal my wallet, and someone actually trying to kill me, or do something that would potentially kill me. Also if you incapacitate them, but they are still alive, obviously I wouldn't agree with crushing their unconscious skull.

If you kill for revenge is that sin? - I would not think it right for a person to kill on the concept of revenge.

If you kill for food, is that sin? - Well I wouldn't want to be killed so somebody else could eat me. And there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food. People in desperate situations though... maybe if it was done by way of short straw it would be a bit better.

If you kill for your country, is that sin? - Not unless it contrives things like the Geneva convention. Purposely killing civilians or prisoners or whatever is not right, even if one is given orders to do such.

If you kill for personal gain, is that sin? - I see no way this could be justified legally or ethically.

If your father is drunk and he is attempting to kill a stranger for no reason, does the stranger deserve to kill your father in self defence? - Same as the first one, that person should have the right to defend themselves, even if it unfortunately ended in fathers death. Just being ones father does not give him special rights over others.

How do you justify killing? - I believe I explained throughout.

Killing i believe is a sin because of my religious beliefs. Putting religious beliefs aside i say no, its not a sin. Killing has been made by society to be considered morally wrong, not in self-defense. However, our instinct is to survive and preserve our own kind so that we may reproduce and keep ourselves in existence and this is why we are against murder of our own kind. It was a natural way of thought for us humasn to continue to survive because animals have that instinct as well. So really society has set the standard for what is wrong and right, but in reality there is no wrong and rigth only choices with actions that result in consequences

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^sigh, i HATE it when u do that, atleast argue logically instead of simply dismissing stuff.

You didn't read beyond the "no", did you?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i think what you are trying to say is you CHOOSE not to care for other people's lives. but think about it, how does that make all actions the same, the very reason u can choose is because of self preservation imagine how much PERSONAL{if u dont believe in anythin other than the person's own desires} harm some actions can do. are they desireable seeing as sum1 likes their life as much as u like urs.

Not at all, what I am trying to say is that you choose to care for other people's life. Nothing wrong with that, you just choose to do so. Not a necessity, not bad nor good.

Lets look at that logically.

You: Killing is wrong.
Ian Brady: Killing is cool.


So, what decides who is right now? Nothing. Because there is nothing that can decide. So both your opinions are equal. Ans since there is nothing to compare them to, that isn't equal they are neither good or bad.

Think of it as numbers. THere are only zeros. If there was a 1 we could say that 0 is smaller than 1...but there is no 1 in morality, get the analogy? No. Whatever it's true.

Your logic is so damn flawed.
I mean okay, lets say I like to live. Good. Lets say other people also like to live. Cool. And now is where your illogical jump comes, now you say because I like to live I have to accept that other people also like to live.....why? That's your subjective opinion. Nothing else. You argue with something you seem to think is a fact (besides being your opinion) to prove another opinion of yours.

That's like me saying Homosexuality is evil (my opinion) because God said so (the very existence of good would only be my opinion...not a fact). Get it? Good. Stop with logic though. There are other subjects that probably suit you more. Drawing maybe....or Theology.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, well, yeah.

Well, if 1 life has no value, then then life as a whole, has no value.
If your life has a value of 0, then 100000 lives still has a value of 0.
0 + 0= 0
Therefore, life as a whole must have no value.
Is that the way you see it?

Originally posted by The thinker
Well, if 1 life has no value, then then life as a whole, has no value.
If your life has a value of 0, then 100000 lives still has a value of 0.
0 + 0= 0
Therefore, life as a whole must have no value.
Is that the way you see it?


I agree up to the "Therefore, life as a whole must have value." ....I don't see that, how did you come to that conclusion?


Okay. Yeah, basically.

So if life has no value, why dont you kill yourself?

Originally posted by The thinker
So if life has no value, why dont you kill yourself?

It has no value to anything objective. It has value to myself. I am pretty sure I made that clear.

Good point

Originally posted by The thinker
Good point

Thank you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You didn't read beyond the "no", did you?



Not at all, what I am trying to say is that you choose to care for other people's life. Nothing wrong with that, you just choose to do so. Not a necessity, not bad nor good.

Lets look at that logically.

You: Killing is wrong.
Ian Brady: Killing is cool.


So, what decides who is right now? Nothing. Because there is nothing that can decide. So both your opinions are equal. Ans since there is nothing to compare them to, that isn't equal they are neither good or bad.

Think of it as numbers. THere are only zeros. If there was a 1 we could say that 0 is smaller than 1...but there is no 1 in morality, get the analogy? No. Whatever it's true.

Your logic is so damn flawed.
I mean okay, lets say I like to live. Good. Lets say other people also like to live. Cool. And now is where your illogical jump comes, now you say because I like to live I have to accept that other people also like to live.....why? That's your subjective opinion. Nothing else. You argue with something you seem to think is a fact (besides being your opinion) to prove another opinion of yours.

That's like me saying Homosexuality is evil (my opinion) because God said so (the very existence of good would only be my opinion...not a fact). Get it? Good. Stop with logic though. There are other subjects that probably suit you more. Drawing maybe....or Theology.



that would make perfect sense if i desired life and ian brady didnt, which wud be logical because ian brady said what he believed in and i said what i believed in. but the problem is even ian desires life makig the logic wrong. to DESIRE life and say its only desireable to u only means that you CHOOSE not to care for others. it doesnt mean that life is NOT desireable over death as the only way that would be true is if ian brady didnt value or desire all life INCLUDING his own.

and another thing. it wasnt my OPPINIONas i have met talked to and listened to the views of countless others throughout my life and THEY desired life almost all of them. u seem to forget what words mean , its every1's oppinion and not mine as i asked.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that would make perfect sense if i desired life and ian brady didnt, which wud be logical because ian brady said what he believed in and i said what i believed in. but the problem is even ian desires life makig the logic wrong. to DESIRE life and say its only desireable to u only means that you CHOOSE not to care for others. it doesnt mean that life is NOT desireable over death as the only way that would be true is if ian brady didnt value or desire all life INCLUDING his own.

No, he desires HIS life....great ****ing difference.

No, I actually do not care. That's the given. We are then made to care or choose to care whatever you like to call it.

What about people that kill themself?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and another thing. it wasnt my OPPINIONas i have met talked to and listened to the views of countless others throughout my life and THEY desired life almost all of them. u seem to forget what words mean , its every1's oppinion and not mine as i asked.

Since when did popular opinion create facts?

popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.

Haha, it's just popular opinion, nothing more. And not even that popular there are many people nowadays who agree there are no absolute morals.
Not "it's" preservation "their lives" preservation. That is really different.

No, suicide just destroys your whole reasoning. That's it. If self preservation is not absolute...and it isn't...then you re wrong (and even if it was in all humans...still it is a subjective human trait....proves nothing)

You cling to this stupid idea that because most people value their own life life generally must be valuable. That is not a logical step to take.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
popular oppinion is different from popular INSTINCTUAL oppinion also as i said before self preservation is FUNDAMENTAL and people dont just grow up to like or not like life but have no choice form birth but to like and work for its preservation. suicides are different most people who kill themselves dont believe that they WONT EXIST anymore but even if theyu wont go to an afterlife, they will be at PEACE which actually requires some state of BEING or exiting. the very few who dont do it for peace are not thinking because they just want their misery to be over as they cant cope with it or because they are so mentally ill that they CANT really think.


read my post again it has adressed exactly the points u have brought up in the last post. adamantly repeating points which have already been adressed does no1 any good. besides evolution is a product of the self preservation instinct inherent fundamentally in the very idea of LIFE and existance/conciounce. thats scientific evidence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
read my post again it has adressed exactly the points u have brought up in the last post. adamantly repeating points which have already been adressed does no1 any good. besides evolution is a product of the self preservation instinct inherent fundamentally in the very idea of LIFE and existance/conciounce. thats scientific evidence.

You know why that happened? Because I exactly replied to your post. That's why it might seem that the issues covered might be slightly similar.

And? Since when did evolution become an absolute moral code? Oh yeah, it isn't.

nope it isnt it is scientific evidence however as u wont listen to the logic of mind.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope it isnt it is scientific evidence however as u wont listen to the logic of mind.

I pointed out to you why your logic is flawed (logically). You just can not accept that you made a mistake in your thinking. Well, you did.

no i didnt. u merely dismissed it saying "thats not my point of view" which is stubborn. playing with words is different from making a logical point the only one u made so far was of people comitting suicide and i already addressed that.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no i didnt. u merely dismissed it saying "thats not my point of view" which is stubborn. playing with words is different from making a logical point the only one u made so far was of people comitting suicide and i already addressed that.

Boy, I pointed out why each single one of your arguments is either wrong or flawed. If you don't accept it that's okay. But it is just actually true.

no u didnt, u just MENIONED that they were wrong, u never proved or tried much for that matter. as i said before if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral. however if u DO indeed disagree with either than u should say it and well just call it a conflict of interest and leave it at that but u cant both accept those two facts and and keep up ur defiant position.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no u didnt, u just MENIONED that they were wrong, u never proved or tried much for that matter. as i said before if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral. however if u DO indeed disagree with either than u should say it and well just call it a conflict of interest and leave it at that but u cant both accept those two facts and and keep up ur defiant position.

I didn't have to try much...it was easy and yeah, you had no valid argument so far.

Look, this sentence "if u believe in personal{if not social} self preservation and u also believe that all human beings are equal than you CANT logically say that all actions are neutral" is wrong. How did you get it? As you see I believe that people want to preserve themselves, I also believe that all human beings are equal (as in not better or worse...the very definition of neutral)...because everything is neutral. Get it. If there is no moral code everyone has to go by, and there isn't then everything action neutral and every person is equal. Do you know what neutral means?

Where is your reasoning that if I accept those two facts I cannot believe actions are neutral? Why? You severely lack logic...again.

umm...

it is a SIN...

nope i explained before and ill explain again my LOGIC which u cant seem to comprehend. if all humans are fundamentally self preservative than by your definition each one only PERSONALLY desires self preservation but not on a whole. and i AGREE with that entirely only u love urself. BUT if u believe that all humans are equal to YOU than as YOU would never kill urself than YOU should not kill any1 else either reguardless of wheather THEIR self preservation is felt by u or not{which is basically what ur saying that there is no mystical moral TRUTH which binds all} since simply THEY ARE EQUAL TO U AND WHAT U FEAL AND HOLD DEAR, THEY DO TOO AND WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM U, THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM THEM. if u figure this out ull understand that no mystical binding force is needed for self preservation to be desirable as it is LOGICAL and even by your logic all actions that threaten self preservatipon are wrong when compared to actions that dont affect or benefit self preservation. NOW even a horse can take out the LOGIC from this extremely detailed and simple paragraph. just TRY.

I don't get it..

meh, it's your point of view anyway...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope i explained before and ill explain again my LOGIC which u cant seem to comprehend. if all humans are fundamentally self preservative than by your definition each one only PERSONALLY desires self preservation but not on a whole. and i AGREE with that entirely only u love urself. BUT if u believe that all humans are equal to YOU than as YOU would never kill urself than YOU should not kill any1 else either reguardless of wheather THEIR self preservation is felt by u or not{which is basically what ur saying that there is no mystical moral TRUTH which binds all} since simply THEY ARE EQUAL TO U AND WHAT U FEAL AND HOLD DEAR, THEY DO TOO AND WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM U, THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM THEM. if u figure this out ull understand that no mystical binding force is needed for self preservation to be desirable as it is LOGICAL and even by your logic all actions that threaten self preservatipon are wrong when compared to actions that dont affect or benefit self preservation. NOW even a horse can take out the LOGIC from this extremely detailed and simple paragraph. just TRY.
Oh here's your mistake. Not all humans are equal to ME. They are equal on an absolute level. Get it now?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh here's your mistake. Not all humans are equal to ME. They are equal on an absolute level. Get it now?

now were getting sumwhere. but theres still a paradox in those lines. first u say that to YOU not all human beings are equal. then u say that they are equal on an absolute level. thats contradictory. even if they are equal on an absolute level, u have to BELIEVE that to say it and if u believe that then u cant say that not all humans are equal to u. perhaps what u are trying to say is that you KNOW all humans to be equal but u give YOURSELF PREFERANCE over others?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
now were getting sumwhere. but theres still a paradox in those lines. first u say that to YOU not all human beings are equal. then u say that they are equal on an absolute level. thats contradictory. even if they are equal on an absolute level, u have to BELIEVE that to say it and if u believe that then u cant say that not all humans are equal to u. perhaps what u are trying to say is that you KNOW all humans to be equal but u give YOURSELF PREFERANCE over others?

No it isn't


They are equal (in value) on an absolute level (no value)
They are not equal (in value) to me (mother a lot of value, whobdamandog very few value)

yes so thats EXACTLY what im saying! u should read my posts with hostility. on a PERSONAL level a person can keep whatever preferences they feal like but as a FACT they should know that killing is WRONG "REGUARDLESS" of their personal preferences. ofcourse i might wanna kill an enemy of mine and would have very little value for his life but i should also know the difference between my personal desires and the factual unbiased facts. and the FACTUAL unbiased fact is that life is desireable over death reguardless of personal feeling and all actions against life are bad/wrong compared to action that are pro life.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes so thats EXACTLY what im saying! u should read my posts with hostility. on a PERSONAL level a person can keep whatever preferences they feal like but as a FACT they should know that killing is WRONG "REGUARDLESS" of their personal preferences. ofcourse i might wanna kill an enemy of mine and would have very little value for his life but i should also know the difference between my personal desires and the factual unbiased facts. and the FACTUAL unbiased fact is that life is desireable over death reguardless of personal feeling and all actions against life are bad/wrong compared to action that are pro life.

I don't think it's me that has the problem with reading comprehension that's why I said "no" and went ahead to portray a different view of yours while you said "thats EXACTLY what im saying" and then said something very different from what I said.


What you fail to grasp is that "life is desirable over death" is not an undeniable fact. Why should it be. What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable. Please, just stop attempting to poison the minds of simple minded people with false logic. You make so many mistakes in your reasoning it just isn't pretty anymore.

"What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable"

yes and since we are all HUMANS, in the HUMAN circle atleast its an undeniable fact and we already established that all humans are equal in absolute terms which is why they should all be TREATED equally and since it is in the INTEREST of every human beng to preserve itself its an UNDENIABLE fact that in HUMANS{forgetting other living things} all actions which harm LIFE are BAD. get it now!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable"

yes and since we are all HUMANS, in the HUMAN circle atleast its an undeniable fact and we already established that all humans are equal in absolute terms which is why they should all be TREATED equally and since it is in the INTEREST of every human beng to preserve itself its an UNDENIABLE fact that in HUMANS{forgetting other living things} all actions which harm LIFE are BAD. get it now!

No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

so basically what you are saying is that to you all humans are NOT equal as acceptance of moral equality means EXACTLY that u as an individual should treat every1 the same. its not bs logic. ur just not saying clearly that you DONT really believe that all humans are equal as i asked u before.

now that we know what ur sayin lets end this as we 2 are the only 1s talking here. {atleast until sum1 else comes in}

Originally posted by Bardock42
What you fail to grasp is that "life is desirable over death" is not an undeniable fact. Why should it be.

Self-preservation (desiring life over death) is the fundamental biological constant, so fundamental I'm betting we will find it even in extraterrestrial life.

Purely from an evolutionary POV: there may've been organisms in the past that didn't desire life over death, and as consequence they were less likely to survive and have offspring than those that did value life over death. Accordingly, all known forms of life now value life over death.

If anything, it could be argued that humans, to some extent, can value death over life: that's the attraction of suicide. But given most reasons for suicide (ending physical or emotional suffering), that person is really choosing an end to pain--which indirectly indicates a desire for life, one with quality. Death is chosen because the alternative is, or is perceived as, worse.

Originally posted by Mindship
Self-preservation (desiring life over death) is the fundamental biological constant, so fundamental I'm betting we will find it even in extraterrestrial life.

Purely from an evolutionary POV: there may've been organisms in the past that didn't desire life over death, and as consequence they were less likely to survive and have offspring than those that did value life over death. Accordingly, all known forms of life now value life over death.

If anything, it could be argued that humans, to some extent, can value death over life: that's the attraction of suicide. But given most reasons for suicide (ending physical or emotional suffering), that person is really choosing an end to pain--which indirectly indicates a desire for life, one with quality. Death is chosen because the alternative is, or is perceived as, worse.

You realize though that the desire to life of any organism does not equal absolute morals though? Originally posted by leonheartmm
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

so basically what you are saying is that to you all humans are NOT equal as acceptance of moral equality means EXACTLY that u as an individual should treat every1 the same. its not bs logic. ur just not saying clearly that you DONT really believe that all humans are equal as i asked u before.

First, your post is idiotic babbling. Now let me try to derive some sort of meaning from it. I am saying that humans are eqal in the aspect that their life has NO absolute value. Okay. Point one. I am also saying that I as an individual can decide what I subjectively as an individual value more and less. Second point.

So basically that:

ABsolute Morals - No
Subjective Morals - Yes

Originally posted by Bardock42
You realize though that the desire to life of any organism does not equal absolute morals though?

It's arguable. One could say that absolute morals are those which best enable a society to thrive. For example, "Don't kill" could be considered absolute because a society which didn't follow that--ie, murder runs rampant--is not going to survive as well as a society which respects life and kills only when its own survival is at stake.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's arguable. One could say that absolute morals are those which best enable a society to thrive. For example, "Don't kill" could be considered absolute because a society which didn't follow that--ie, murder runs rampant--is not going to survive as well as a society which respects life and kills only when its own survival is at stake.

Not really. Well, one could say that but they should realize that a subjective view that the advancement of society is desirable is hardly absolute.

I think "Don't kill" is the most fundamental moral there is....but just not absolute. It's the first moral that would be developed when a group gets together, but it wouldn't be there before, see what I mean?

it depends on how you think of sin. the only reason most dont kill os because they were raised not to. all of our beleifes are based on society. sin is what god says is wrong but think about all the sick and terrible things happening... god is responsible for EVERYTHING. they say the devil is the source of all evil but god created him and did not not destrot him wich he could have done without even blinking. think of all the bad things that have happened to you. god is the source of all that.

no it wud be there even with a single man. the very definition of life is EXISTANCE with which comes its oppoite NON EXISTANCE. to even think along the opposite lines, u have to have existance FIRST. its that important. now mindship is repeating what ive said in the last 4 pages or so but ur still answering the same way. its QUITE simple we and alll things hae a bias towards life because WE this phenomenon knows as US are ALIVE and thats ALL we are, supporting life is fundamental which is why all actions against life are bad. its not MORALITY its logical outcome in developing a system for the betterment of what WE are and what WE desire. ur point of view is lacking completely on evidence or logic.

bardock u should understand that all views ARE subjective but they are subjective to HUMANITY and fundamental human nature which is UNCHANGING fundamentally. ur confusing subjectivity. subjectivity doesnt mean that these rules can CHANGE at any time{as it is taken in most contexts} it merely means that they are subject to a medium and are baseless WITHOUT the medium. and since fundamentally all humans are an UNCHANGING medium, we can take these SUBJECTIVE views as absoluyte as we OURSELVES are the medium and not the supreme being to whome such concepts would mean nothing as he can create things from nothing. we ARE sumthing from the beginning which isnt neutral or unbiased. we were CREATED and with creation comes the fundamental bias towards existance. if we were BEYOND the idea of creation than yes we could be neutral about creation and destruction but we ARENT and thats what u shud understand.

Originally posted by Darth Acheous
it depends on how you think of sin. the only reason most dont kill os because they were raised not to. all of our beleifes are based on society.

thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it wud be there even with a single man. the very definition of life is EXISTANCE with which comes its oppoite NON EXISTANCE. to even think along the opposite lines, u have to have existance FIRST. its that important. now mindship is repeating what ive said in the last 4 pages or so but ur still answering the same way. its QUITE simple we and alll things hae a bias towards life because WE this phenomenon knows as US are ALIVE and thats ALL we are, supporting life is fundamental which is why all actions against life are bad. its not MORALITY its logical outcome in developing a system for the betterment of what WE are and what WE desire. ur point of view is lacking completely on evidence or logic.

Again you are for some reason pretending that life is good on an absolute level. Why should life be generally good? There is no reason for such a though.

Dude, as you said we all have a "bias" towards life. But the jump from each individuals "bias" towards life to therefore everything against life is bad is an unjustified one. You have decent assumptions to start with, but you make wrong conclusions.

And now you are saying the same thing as I am. It is, indeed, NOT morality. It is for us subjectively logical to value life. Not absolute. Subjectively. Get it? Are we done now?

So in conclusion there are no absolute morals to say that killing is bad. Therefore killing isn't absolutely bad, And doesn't need to be justified on a moral scale.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.

Dude, that's exactly what we are arguing here.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.

i beg to differ if u were beyond all concepts including creatin than u could say that and look at all without giving preferance of one over the other but ur NOT, u SPRING from the very idea of creation which is why it is logical to have a bias against destruction.

bardock u should understand that all views ARE subjective but they are subjective to HUMANITY and fundamental human nature which is UNCHANGING fundamentally. ur confusing subjectivity. subjectivity doesnt mean that these rules can CHANGE at any time{as it is taken in most contexts} it merely means that they are subject to a medium and are baseless WITHOUT the medium. and since fundamentally all humans are an UNCHANGING medium, we can take these SUBJECTIVE views as absoluyte as we OURSELVES are the medium and not the supreme being to whome such concepts would mean nothing as he can create things from nothing. we ARE sumthing from the beginning which isnt neutral or unbiased. we were CREATED and with creation comes the fundamental bias towards existance. if we were BEYOND the idea of creation than yes we could be neutral about creation and destruction but we ARENT and thats what u shud understand.

reposted as an answer to what u two just said.

No that's wrong. It has to be unchangeable beyond humans.

And you make a fundamental mistake by interchanging "Value for ones own life" and "value for life in general".

it is unchangeable even in animals. anything LIVING

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Well, one could say that but they should realize that a subjective view that the advancement of society is desirable is hardly absolute.
That's why I said it is an arguable point.

I think "Don't kill" is the most fundamental moral there is....but just not absolute. It's the first moral that would be developed when a group gets together, but it wouldn't be there before, see what I mean?

Yes, I do. And I would agree that morals may well require the presence of an intelligence to have meaning. But then--in that context--and taken from an evolutionary POV, some morals may be considered "absolute."

Perhaps it's best that we operationally define what we mean by absolute in the context of this thread.

life in general is the combination of many individual lives and if all the individual lives want the same thing than life in general wants the same thing too. ur just beatin about the bush with dimissive one liners bardock give a real argument if ur gonna post sumthin.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is unchangeable even in animals. anything LIVING

Yes. And. So. What?

It is still only the urge to survive. What if the very urge to survive makes you kill people? The urge to survive is neutral just like anything else. It does not become an absolute moral standard and especially it is not the same as a value of everything living.

You put life on a pedestal it does not belong on. Nothing makes alive things better than dead things. Nothing.

^ if u really belived that u would not value your own life and kill urself or even if alive never had done a thing like eat or breathing to stay alive, that obviously isnt true. i think ur a little confused and in denial of the fact that you ARENT beyond the idea of existance and life and the bias that comes with it.

i have already given u a very credible answer on the subjective matter if u dont plan on reading it without the ultimate thought of dismissing it no matter what its logic than i see no point in debating. ur dismissing already explained points with mere statements lacking counterargument. if u wish to debate please bring forward a credible new point to back ur case. im not playing with words here like u, just tired of writing long logical answers that u merely dismiss with a sentence and go onto call it proof against me when it lacks logic and is a mere statement giving your view.

i do understand the difference and i explained in detail before. VALUE YOUR OWN LIFE BECAUSE SELF PRESERVATION IS FUNDAMENTAL, VALUE OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL TO YOU.

You know, it is of no use. I will not reply to you. People can judge by our previous conversation who had the better arguments (i.e.. I)

You make illogical jumps and commit logical fallacies. Oh well, you might realize one day or you might not, I don't care.

the common values are made up of the values of the individuals inside it. if the individuals desire different thing than it become ambiguous but if all desire the same thing than personal and common values become the same if a little more dynamic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the common values are made up of the values of the individuals inside it. if the individuals desire different thing than it become ambiguous but if all desire the same thing than personal and common values become the same if a little more dynamic.

Common values and absolute morals are a different thing.

And life is not a common value. Self preservation is. The jump from "I value my own life" to "therefore everyone has to value the life of any other being" is not logical.

actually no, i made the argument u simply dismissed it. i can say that i have the better argument as i was the only one arguing u were just being subborn. alas most people wont actually go through the trouble of seeing the whole argument.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually no, i made the argument u simply dismissed it. i can say that i have the better argument as i was the only one arguing u were just being subborn. alas most people wont actually go through the trouble of seeing the whole argument.

That's not true, I pointed out your mistakes. I showed you the real logic. And you just repeated saying your same opinion (that I already proved wrong) again and again and again.

and as far as absolution goes, i said u can only talk in ABSOLUTE terms if u are beyond all concepts including creation and destruction but it becomes invalid when you ARE

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and as far as absolution goes, i said u can only talk in ABSOLUTE terms if u are beyond all concepts including creation and destruction but it becomes invalid when you ARE

This sentence makes NO sense.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and as far as absolution goes, i said u can only talk in ABSOLUTE terms if u are beyond all concepts including creation and destruction but it becomes invalid when you ARE FUNDAMENTALLY "ALIVE" and bound by that conept as beginning and end

and as far as absolution goes, i said u can only talk in ABSOLUTE terms if u are beyond all concepts including creation and destruction but it becomes invalid when you ARE FUNDAMENTALLY "ALIVE" and bound by that conept as beginning and end


it makes sense now and that thing about u countering and proving me wrong again and again n again is an outright lie, sorry. im not a rude person but thats a fact.

Exactly, so it's not absolute. And what you said is just a very fundamental ideal. Not absolute? Are we alright with that now?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Common values and absolute morals are a different thing.
And life is not a common value. Self preservation is. The jump from "I value my own life" to "therefore everyone has to value the life of any other being" is not logical.

It could be genetic. Again, evolutionarily speaking: if you have a group of people with the genetic predisposition to Not value each other's lives, I would think that society would be less likely to survive/thrive than one comprised of individuals with the genetic predisposition to go, "I value your life as much as I value mine."

And I believe there is a "logical" link between values and morals. For example, if I value my neighbor's life, then the moral "Don't kill thy neighbor" has logical meaning: the logic of behavior derived from an evolutionarily advantageous genome.

Bardock, my impression is you're saying that, independent of human existence, on the Grand Scale of things ("God" being an arguable, therefore in this case, invalid starting point), there is nothing "absolute" upon which to base morality, again, independent of human existence.

Your last paragraph basically sums it up.

it does sum it up, but as i was saying before neither you nor me are GOD, we are human who are CREATED

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it does sum it up, but as i was saying before neither you nor me are GOD, we are human who are CREATED

Err....what? How can you prove that? YOu really seem to be a believer in logic. Created...haha.

i got dc n cudnt edit that. i meant created not by any god but the fact that we are CREATIONS and we EXIST. which makes us different from a so called god who is beyond all concepts we are created by the very concept of creation and thus biased towards it. EXISTANCE is what we are, nothing describes u or me better than the fact that we EXIST that os most fundamental and we are therefore logically biased agaonst destruction as existance defines us. so sum1 who EXIISTS{YOU} taking the point of view of a god who is beyond all concepts including existance is irrational and illogical to say the least.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i got dc n cudnt edit that. i meant created not by any god but the fact that we are CREATIONS and we EXIST. which makes us different from a so called god who is beyond all concepts we are created by the very concept of creation and thus biased towards it. EXISTANCE is what we are, nothing describes u or me better than the fact that we EXIST that os most fundamental and we are therefore logically biased agaonst destruction as existance defines us. so sum1 who EXIISTS{YOU} taking the point of view of a god who is beyond all concepts including existance is irrational and illogical to say the least.

Not at all. It is very rational and a thing to be considered. And we are biased towards OUR existance. Not existance in general. BIG ****ING DIFFERENCE.

ive explained this about 4 times already. we are concerned about our existance but all humans are equal and what we want for ourselves we should let others have as they are equal to us. also if every component of a siciety individually wants the same thing as every1 else than the whole society wants the same thing and there isnt a difference between individual and collective thinking and facts. there that takes care of the difference.