Killing....

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 !

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.

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!?!?" 😊