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.
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.
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.
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.
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.