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?
Re: Killing....
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 deathThe 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?
Re: Killing....
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 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.