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.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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...
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.
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.
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.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
May 31st, 2006 04:41 PM
