Is it simply a human convention?

It is wrong to want to end LIFE! It is right to want to protect it!

It is as you stated, human nature. Taking someone else's life away is wrong.:mad:

Startover22,

Why should the life of a person be considered more valuable than the life of an ape?

rankrank55,

You still need to explain why it is wrong to take life. The fact that most people believe it is wrong does not mean it must be wrong. The majority are not always right!

Startover22,

Why should the life of a person be considered more valuable than the life of an ape?
:p

No one is better than the other. Killing except in selfdefense is morally wrong. You can't take someone's life simply for the killing. Because life is precious and no has the right to decide when someone has to die just because they want them too.

I don't think it is more valuable, a moswuito maybe. I guess it is all opinion and I would have to say my opinion has to do with rules of the heart. There is something inside us that tells us it is wrong. What is your opions I am wondering why this is even a question that you would ask?? I can't seem to answer this how you want me to. I really think it is inside us to know it is wrong!

startover22

I agree with you. Of course, but to base our conscience on feeling without bringing in reason seems unsatisfactory. The crunch comes when we have to decide, for example, if an unborn child has the same right to life as an adult.

Oh jeeze, I guess I should just get off this post ASAP cause I don't think I can get into a debate about babies (if they are or aren't) Being that I have no REASON to base my feeling on, you are right it is a crunch, I don't like it! It makes me feel uneasy. There I go feeling again. Sheesh!

Tony,
We can expand that to legalized death sentences, assassinations, dropping bombs on civilians, etc..

In the Bible it states "Thou shall not kill" . I honestly think that one that kills will go to hell eventually.

Is it simply a human convention?
1. human rights... If that person doesn't want to be killed... by showing it in actions or words then it is wrong... if the one that is going to be killed say it is OK to kill them then I guess the one doing the killing has done nothing wrong... 2. " is it simply human convention" I don't understand this question. However I find this to be a rather strange question

I have to agree with the question. Not saying that I think killing people is right but realistically, what gives us that feeling in our hearts to think it is wrong.

Imagine, if you would, a world where killing someone was considered a way of worshiping your god. I know that is hard for many to imagine.. but say in another dimension a so-called Bible taught that the act of taking life was a good thing and was to be done on a semi-regular basis.

Those who protest this now would likely be the ones that advocate it there.

It is a very interesting way to consider right vs wrong. We all feel we know but that is only because we have been taught, or bred rather, to believe what is right or wrong. Those "feelings" in your heart are really only there because they have been ingrained in all of us.

This is so crazy to even think about. I am going to slow down and really put this into my own perspective. Like Karma said what about death sentences? Do these people really deserve to die? I have to say that in the past I though some of them did, I just don't know now? Or maybe they do but do we have the right to kill them? As for war and suicide bombers, I don't know, I just don't...

Species of animals kill each other all the time in nature and we see it as a perfectly normal instinctual thing. Look at what they will kill over...

A mate: This is how the dominant male prevails in many animal societies and is simply a way of life. In our world when a man kills for a woman, that man is jailed or even sentenced to death.

Territory: This is a normal way for animals to control what land is their land or to take over another packs land for their own gain. We do this as well but most of us will protest these wars.

If it was really such a sin, would the sinless creatures of the wild be created to act this way on a daily basis?

No, I don't see animals the same as I do with civilization. I mean we can make our rules known and they can't really make rules, you know what I mean? If they could then I am not sure it would be the same for them anymore, they would make rules on finding their own mate without killing (like we do)
The other side to it is we kill for land as well. It has always been.
We also used to carry guns and use them at will way back when. What about that? (maybe a cowboy movie takes it too far, but that is what popped into my head)

I had a teacher once who brought this subject up but with an even stranger twist on it. It goes hand in hand with some of the other posts above stating what makes us think we are the higher life. In the wild, animals kill each other to survive. They also kill other species to survive, we call it the food chain. So what if we didn't evolve and learn how to "hunt" so to speak in a more human manner. We have canned foods, chicken, beef, pork etc is all packaged for us and even killed as humanely as possible before it gets to the grocery store. What if we had to fend for ourselves and hunt food like our ancestors did or like some of the indian tribes still do. Then would we even be talking about whether taking another life is right or wrong? It would be a matter of surviving. Makes me feel like we take so much for granted.

Yes, and I would grow a huge a-- garden!

I don't necessarily think it is wrong to kill a person. Of course murder is wrong, taking someone's life like that, but I definitely think the killing of another is defendable sometimes. I don't think assisted suicide is wrong, if someone is in so much pain and are going to die sooner rather than later anyway, why should they be forced to live against their wishes? I am all for the death sentence in the right circumstances. If someone takes away someone else's human rights in that way, they deserve to lose their own. I have no sympathy for most cold blooded murderers. Same goes for child rapists and paedophiles in general. But that's just my opinion!

I would be helping you startover, I don't think I could take another persons life even if it meant surviving. I guess I wouldn't make it then...

Yes I think I would need a lot of help, I go to the store for everything even the seeds for my garden out back. Thanks! I think a garden is what it would take for me to survive. I can squish a mosquito but I cannot be-head a chicken, let alone wound an animal. I would eat the chicken or big game that someone else killed but I wouldn't kill it. Isn't that weird...

I don't think I could have enough adrenaline to kill, but you never know what we might be able to do if we were out in that position. Scary, huh?

No, I don't see animals the same as I do with civilization. I mean we can make our rules known and they can't really make rules, you know what I mean? If they could then I am not sure it would be the same for them anymore, they would make rules on finding their own mate without killing (like we do)

Hmmmm... many animals follow a set of rules and can even deter from those set rules. They still have the ability to do as they please... to a point. True, they are more driven by instinct and cannot reason.. but what I meant was exactly that... since they can't reason, why are they left on the side that so many of us see as evil or sin? Why wouldn't these otherwise sinless creatures get along without killing each other? Why would God allow this one and only sin be okay for all other creatures?


The other side to it is we kill for land as well. It has always been.
We also used to carry guns and use them at will way back when. What about that? (maybe a cowboy movie takes it too far, but that is what popped into my head)

I'm sorry... that's what I was trying to say is that yes, we DO kill for land and territory. And yet, do we, in our hearts, allow that as OK? Mostly no. most would protest such a thing. Imagine the US invading Canada because the US is becoming too big and simply taking over. But yet, this happens everyday in the wild (granted on a MUCH smaller scale).



So then if at certain times killing one IS okay... who decides what is worth killing for and what is not? Someone said rapists... but what if that rapists was just a product of being raped his/her whole life by his/her parents... then shouldn't the parents be the ones who are sentenced to death? Welll, I guess that gets into a whole different debate.

Hmmmm.... many animals follow a set of rules and can even deter from those set rules. They still have the ability to do as they please.... to a point. True, they are more driven by instinct and cannot reason.. but what I meant was exactly that... since they can't reason, why are they left on the side that so many of us see as evil or sin? Why wouldnt these otherwise sinless creatures get along without killing each other? Why would God allow this one and only sin be okay for all other creatures?

{START}Since they cannot reason, I cannot compare us to them, that is all i was trying to say. They have to kill to survive, it is the way God made them, that's my take at least.

im sorry... thats what i was trying to say is that yes, we DO kill for land and territory. And yet, do we, in our hearts, allow that as ok? mostly no. most would protest such a thing. Imagine the US invading Canada because the US is becoming too big and simply taking over. but yet, this happens everyday in the wild (granted on a MUCH smaller scale).

{START}Yes, we allow it to be ok. Not sure why, our hard heads? Our egos? Our land? Your land but we want it and we will do anything to get it? I am not really sure, I think maybe if we didn't fight for land, it might go into the wrong hands and that may be more devistating than a "war"?????

So then if at certain times killing one IS okay... who decides what is worth killing for and what is not? Someone said rapists... but what if that rapists was just a product of being raped his/her whole life by his/her parents... then shouldnt the parents be the ones who are sentenced to death? Welll, i guess that gets into a whole different debate.
{START}I do not know how to quote user but I think I did it if you look up?I believe that certain times it is OK, I believe that guy who took my daught raped her and then laughed in her face and then did it again deserves to die, actually, I think if there was someone willing to do that same thing to him, I would rather that be done to him than death! But death is all we as a civiliztion will allow. So be it. He goes! Not that any of that happened and I pray to God it won't to my daughter, but yes, he needs to go. At least in my own opinion he does! I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger so to speak, but I am glad someone has the guts enough to do it! Someone else on the other hand, might be able to pull it but not me, so this is where I am torn. You see?

Hmmmm.... many animals follow a set of rules and can even deter from those set rules. They still have the ability to do as they please.... to a point. True, they are more driven by instinct and cannot reason.. but what I meant was exactly that... since they can't reason, why are they left on the side that so many of us see as evil or sin? Why wouldnt these otherwise sinless creatures get along without killing each other? Why would God allow this one and only sin be okay for all other creatures?



im sorry... thats what i was trying to say is that yes, we DO kill for land and territory. And yet, do we, in our hearts, allow that as ok? mostly no. most would protest such a thing. Imagine the US invading Canada because the US is becoming too big and simply taking over. but yet, this happens everyday in the wild (granted on a MUCH smaller scale).



So then if at certain times killing one IS okay... who decides what is worth killing for and what is not? Someone said rapists... but what if that rapists was just a product of being raped his/her whole life by his/her parents... then shouldnt the parents be the ones who are sentenced to death? Welll, i guess that gets into a whole different debate. How do you know when that lion is lying and watching gazelle lickin his chops... etc. that he is not plotting and planning.. I kind of think he is.
The rapists he can not be of sound mind, so how can we as humane people put him to death for doing what he was taught. Maybe murders are just releasing their victims soul so that they can re enter earth school on another plane or the criminal being put to death gets to come back to the school of earth and try again, to be a kinder more gentle soul. I wonder...

I don't think the lion thinks anything wrong of it though. We would as humans. I think that the rapist is a selfish a-- sometimes not of sound mind but I will not give him the benefit of the doubt.

It is from the Judeo-Christian values - the 6th commandment.
God created humans to be rulers of the world and in HIS image - Genesis - so that is why it applys to humans and not neceesarily animals.


Now if you don't believe that then :

There is no need to kill another for fear of retaliation from the victims family, kin, tribe etc.
unless... you are sure of victory or the goal [ food, land, property etc... ] being worth the risk.



Grace and Peace

How do you know when that lion is lying and watching gazelle lickin his chops...etc. that he is not plotting and planning..I kinda think he is.
The rapists he can not be of sound mind, so how can we as humane people put him to death for doing what he was taught. Maybe murders are just releasing their victims soul so that they can re enter earth school on another plane or the criminal being put to death gets to come back to the school of earth and try again, to be a kinder more gentle soul. I wonder...

yes! Exactly... or the young girl startover spoke of may have volunteered to sacrifice her life before it began to teach us all a greater good... whether it be now or it sets off a chain of events that will someday be of great value... or to simply bring that one who raped her to come to know the Truth.

So who are we to judge what is right or what is wrong? What seems so wrong right now may be the single most important event (or even just a contributing factor) that brings exactly what this world needs...

It all brings me back to that "gut" feeling thing, and most people have the gut feeling that killing is wrong. Even if we think someone deserves to die, doesn't mean we will kill them. Yes, you have me thinking!

It is from the Judeo-Christian values - the 6th commandment.
God created humans to be rulers of the world and in HIS image - Genesis - so that is why it applys to humans and not neceesarily animals.

Grace and Peace

But what of those that lived before the Commandments were written?

It is from the Judeo-Christian values - the 6th commandment.
God created humans to be rulers of the world and in HIS image - Genesis - so that is why it applys to humans and not neceesarily animals.


Now if you don't believe that then :

There is no need to kill another for fear of retaliation from the victims family, kin, tribe etc.
unless... you are sure of victory or the goal [ food, land, property etc... ] being worth the risk.



Grace and Peace
what if nothing had a value... if everything was the same the only value to it was you need it annd you get it, not extra, only what you need.. nothing you had was valued if someone needs it they get it not extra, not one job paid more or one job valued more. No religion was better than the other it was just religion, no woman or man was more attractive than the other blond , black, red, big breast, small breast, tall, short, thin fat... everything was valued just for being... if a child cried it was feed, etc... do you think that human killing would even be an issue

All humans have egos, so I think we would think of something to hurt over, don't you?

It is human convention, and part of being civilized.

Humans have the ability to plan and rationalize, animals don't. Say you put 10 dogs in a kennel and don't feed them for three days. Then you feed one dog a plate of poison dog food and let the other dogs watch it die. If you take another dog out of the kennel and offer it a plate of dog food, it's going to eat it. So will the rest of them. They don't have the ability to plan and rationalize and conceive of the future in the same capacity as humans (capacity - that's the important part. I'm well aware that animals hoard food for the winter, etc).

Civilization is what makes it wrong to kill a person. In a civilized society, we don't take away or violate human rights, and the biggest human right of all is life. That's why people call Islam uncivilized, because (some) believe in honor killings. If we want to go back to living in the stone ages and flinging poop at each other, we can legitimize killing others, but I like toilet paper and would rather put up with my mother-in-law (joking!) than have to live in a cave.

Killing a person is wrong. But, can it be justified? Sure. When you put someone to death who has nothing left to contribute to this world, it's easy(er) to justify their death. That's why we don't execute people who shoplift; they stand a chance at rehabilitation. Now some might argue (correctly) that some people who are sentenced to death could be rehabilitated, but our society doesn't like to allow for the chance we might be wrong. You let a shoplifter back out on the street and he steals a toaster; let a murder go and he kills your sister. Which is worse? When you go to war with another country to fight for something you believe in, the war is justified, therefore deaths are also justified. You can't have a war without casualties (well, the Cold War, but whatever), and sometimes you can't fight for what you believe in without war.

Ok enough said, I am going to stay where I started and go with Jillian on this one! I think I have thought it through enough to come to the conclusion that I am not a debater. I never have been and I see things in a more "normal" aspect, or maybe I should say more "common" aspect. Whatever the word, you know what I mean. I have enjoyed coming back to the computer every once in a while and noticing new posts on this, and I am sure it will continue with you people who like a good debate. A lot of these issues were hypothetical so I am not sure if it really mattered anyway1

To some people its not. A good example is a soldier fighting in a "just war" is it wrong for him to kill a enemy? Or a convicted murderer being put to death?



3682

I am not saying that I can't do it, it is just that the deeper it goes, the sillier it becomes to me. Some subjects are different and to tell you the truth I am completely awful at debates, I can't seem to get my thoughts into the right words to let you know how I really see something. I must need to take a writing class or touch up on my vocabulary. I just don't have it in me yet to go this far. I am only being honest, I know it sounds funny to some of you. I really enjoyed this thread and will follow it to see where it goes. I do believe that it is wrong to commit murder, and I don't know who's to say what killings are right and what killings are wrong. Please don't murder on my thoughts, they are pretty weak at this point. But you just wait, they will get stronger with the more threads I read like this. Watch out, I am learning! Look out for Startover!

Startover,
Philosophy is like that. I remember Steve Martin's famous quote (he majored in it): "If you're studying geology, which is all facts, as soon as you get out of school you forget it all, but philosophy you remember just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life."

:)

Lol startover... I was just giving a lot of for instances... but think what if we really did think that way, that everyone and everything was the same or on the totaally different end... I'm just saying a lot of people have ordered murder's (mass) they thought the were right in doing so... Hitler... hussein (insane)... I think you helped keep the ideas flowing as well as the other... thank's to the one that started the thread

Yes, thanks to tonyrey! It has been enlightening.

what if nothing had a value...if everything was the same the only value to it was you need it annd you get it, not extra, only what you need..nothing you had was valued if someone needs it they get it not extra, not one job paid more or one job valued more. no religion was better than the other it was just religion, no woman or man was more attractive than the other blond , black, red, big breast, small breast, tall, short, thin fat...everything was valued just for being...if a child cried it was feed, etc...do you think that human killing would even be an issue


But that is not reality.
The basest instinct is to survive, so things that are necessary to survive have the highest value. If you are starving, food has higher value than a 60"plasma tv. If it ts 32 degrees outside, a winter coat has more value than 10 $100 bills. If a particular piece of land grew food and was next to potable water it is of more value than land in the desert ten times the area etc...and if you don't have a value system other than to survive ; ala "evolution," and the survival of the fitest; then the ends justify the means, even if that means is killing.

And once food, water, shelter are met there are other needs. Reproduction. So the healthiest mate most likely to produce healthy offspring have the higher value

on down the line to expensive shoes or reputation. Sad though it is.




Grace and Peace

It is human convention, and part of being civilized.

Humans have the ability to plan and rationalize, animals don't.
--- also to premeditated murder.

Civilization is what makes it wrong to kill a person. In a civilized society, we don't take away or violate human rights, and the biggest human right of all is life.

---- but, The Romans had gladiators fight to the death for entertainment and it is legal to kill the unborn today?

Killing a person is wrong. But, can it be justified? Sure. When you put someone to death who has nothing left to contribute to this world, it's easy(er) to justify their death.
----- agree - that's what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.. have done.

You can't have a war without casualties (well, the Cold War, but whatever), and sometimes you can't fight for what you believe in without war.
------ There were real casualties in Viet Nam and Korea.


We truly have a bad nature and it is only by the conscience that God gives that we are not killing each other willy nilly.




Grace and Peace

Vdsgsgs

inthebox, Roman society was civilized for its time in History, but when it is reflected upon using today's standards, not so much! Perhaps in 500 years people will wonder what we were thinking with the death penalty. Hell, we are the only industrialized nation in the world who still uses the death penalty, so that is happening now.

As far an unborn children (please no one flame me for this); until the law recognizes a fetus is a human and has rights, there are no human rights to violate. One's morals or religion may make them feel differently, but in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not entitled to the same human rights a five year old, or eighty year old is. That being said, however, a woman can only legally have an abortion during the first trimester (I believe this is true in all states, unless something drastic changes in the woman's health), making the fetus gain some human rights after that mark, because in US law if a man kills a pregnant woman and her baby dies, he can be charged with double murder, and I don't THINK this applies during the early stages of pregnancy, but I could be wrong.

I don't quite get what your comment about their being real casualties in Vietnam and Korea means; are you saying those wars were not justified? I specifically cited the Cold War because it wasn't really a war, but an arms race and there were no casualties.

And I'm sorry, but I have to disagree that it is god who keeps us from killing people. I really believe it is civilization and morality. Not everyone believes in god, for one, and is the fear of god what keeps you from killing your neighbor? Pretend I could prove to you without a doubt there is no god (I said pretend! Work with me here!), would you kill the guy who cut you off in traffic because you have nothing to fear? Also, other religions which believe in god (Islam) condone murder under certain circumstances. How do you explain that?

We truly have a bad nature and it is only by the conscience that God gives that we are not killing each other willy nilly.

I actually see it a different way. I believe that we are unherently good, that a book doesn't give us morality, our upbringing does. There are millions of people in this world who are good people and are not killingn people willy nilly yet have never heard of your god or his book. How is that explained?

I think we do start good, with our HUMAN NATURE. I am one to believe in God, so when I think of all of this I am confusing myself, and you guys confuse me too! I slept on it and I am still confused. (thanks a lot, I knew this day would come)

Anyway, my cat has killed numerous cats and he doesn't eat them, I just thought of this as we were talking about animals, he brings gifts to my door step, he is kind to me! Is the Cat nature not to eat what he kills, is it wrong or right?

Hello:

"Why is it normally wrong to kill a person"? I don't think it IS normally wrong, so I can't answer.

The key word is normal. It asks a different question. I don't know what normal is. All I know is that, given the circumstances, I don't think it IS always wrong to kill a person.

excon

PS> If "normal" means that it happens all the time, if you look around the world, killing people is quite "normal".

I meant that my cat has killed birds not other cats. Sheesh that was dumb!

I meant that my cat has killed birds not other cats. Sheesh that was dumb!


Oh start, that wasn't dumb at all. Gave me a chuckle. That's one mean cat you have ;)
(just kiddn).

Yes, I am with most of you, people I think are born beautiful and good. I mean what is the first thing a little baby will do if you smile at it... normally smile back. Okay, some cry but they may have gas. My point is, their first reaction is to smile, sweet and innocently, not stick their tongues out and roll their eyes, thinking lady go away, I don't want you gooing and ga gaing over me, No, they give a sweet smile in return.

Sadly, sometimes, I think what negatively happens to them from the time they are born to when they become an adult can shape them and damage them enough to be able to hurt someone else. Now, there are those who have horrendous childhoods and grow to be some of the most loving people.

So hard to say what makes someone kill another - but no, to me, nothing normal about it or more accurately sane.

For all of you saying people are born good, I have a question;

How do you explain people like the Columbine kids? Those were two kids raised in upper-middle class families who had every opportunity in the world. They were not abused, degraded, or molested. If it is really just one's surroundings that make someone violent, how do you explain those kids? Could it be there is something inside some people (probably all, really) that acts like a trigger and causes them to kill? I know those two boys were teased at school, but so are lots of kids. You also can't blame the music or video games because millions are sold and we don't have millions of shotgun-weilding murderers running around.

I think everyone is born with a trigger, as I said that causes them to be pushed to the point of murder. Maybe the trigger for the Columbine kids was more sensitive. Some people are vigilantes and kill someone else (someone mentioned killing your daughter's rapist, for example) because they think that makes it OK. Others will kill in self-defense (if said daughter kills the rapist during the attack). I think we all have that streak, but some have a much more sensitive one than others.

That's a tough call about the Columbine kids. I don't know about their family life but surely they felt neglected and marginalized for a reason. I'm pretty sure the devil didn't make them do it.

I don't think the devil made them do it either! :)

From what I recall about the kids, they had normal upbringings in stable families. No abuse, neglect, etc. If I remember correctly, the police found written rantings after the shootings which went on and on about the "jocks" in the school, and how these kids were teased. So yes, they were marginalized in a way (by other people, not their parents) but my point was sort of that, if everyone is born good, why do some snap but others don't? Doesn't everyone have a breaking point?

Hello again:

Here's some more dirt I'm throwing into the game, if my first comment didn't get you. I'll concede that we, as a society think killing one on one is wrong. We don't, however, think killing millions at a time is wrong.

excon

I know (heard of) people from the bronx with really bad childhoods, but became something wonderful and learned from their childhood
The Columbine case, well how about if we just say that they were not taken care of at all. It was said that one kid had a bunch of bad and dangerous stuff in his room and his parents didn't even know about it. Just cause they are middle class doesn't mean they are good people to parent their children. Sheesh, I was teased at school and some things I will never forget, but I teach my children to stick up for kids that are being teased, because they will never know what that kids situation is. Even if they are the biggest jerks, show them that someone actually does care.
A trigger? Maybe, I think I could push my husband over the edge about 600 million times faster than he could push me. Is that what you are saying? Having good people and special people around to teach us how to control the trigger might be a good thing. I am not talking about a spanking for kids here, I am talking about good people making an impact on these kids.
With the death sentence, I thought of this last night and I had already been on here too much to start all over again, I think if that was the case with my daughter, her being raped over and over again, I don't think by killing the man that did it would stop any of the pain, maybe a little bit of the fear but not the pain, and in all honesty, it might bring on more pain. At least for me. I am definitely confusing myself!

Jillian... you are answering your own question.

A. you are saying that people are not born "good" and...

B. you are saying that the Columbine kids were a result of their surroundings.

Realistically, a baby born is born "good", if such a thing is fathomable. In other words, they are not born "evil". Whether it is a result from their upbringing, their surroundings, or one instance that they were not prepared to deal with... SOMETHING sets it off.

If you took those kids from Columbine when they were 3 months old and brought them somewhere else, they could just as likely become the next President of the US... no?

excon you make a good and debatable point. We stood up for the Jews in WWII (well, the fighting was for other reasons too), but we thoughtlessly dropped two bombs in Japan. We did nothing as a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda; thus far, we have done nothing about Darfur. We never touched Sierra Leone. Seems that when it happens in the West we want to cry about human rights violations, but if it's in the East or god forbid, AFRICA we ignore it. Blame it on "tribal" conditions and such. Now, WE (the US) didn't kill those people (except Japan), but we certainly didn't do anything to stop it. Now we are at war (where? Oh, in the Middle East, not the Western world) and still people are being killed. It's a shame when innocent lives are lost during a war; but as I said before, casualties are a natural part of war. Somehow we justify the deaths during a war, probably because we think everyone "over there" is against us and if we don't kill them first, they will kill us.

startover I'm not sure what you mean by "bad and dangerous stuff" but I had a friend in high school who collected knives. He never killed anyone. You're right that being middle class doesn't make you a good parent, but from what I recall about the story, the parents were not neglectful, etc. Perhaps they didn't watch their kids like hawks, but how many parents really do? Especially when you think you have a good kid; when your kid never gets in trouble. The trigger I'm talking about is that everyone hits a point where they could kill someone; some just hit it sooner. I agree that having good people in your life and teaching other ways of anger management deters this, but I have to wonder if for some people it doesn't matter. If Charles Manson's mom had hugged him more, would he have done the things he did? What about Hitler? I really wonder if some people are just born "evil".

DrJizzle I don't think the Columbine kids' environment turned them into killers. I think they had a shorter fuse than other people do. Their environment pushed them over the edge, but their environment didn't CREATE that edge. I think nature did that. I think if you had taken them away at a young age they still would be likely to do the same thing; anyone who is teetering on the edge of killing people because they are being teased is fragile. Maybe they would have made it through high school, but what about when girl after girl turned them down for a date? What about an angry boss? These kids had to have had some element in them that made them more likely than others to commit such a crime. I don't believe external environment does that alone. Does it contribute? Without a doubt. But music, video games, unloving parents, etc does not make someone a murderer, it pushes them over the edge that (I think) nature put them on to begin with.

Yes I just checked and they thought they were normal, godd kids. I think I was referring to Thurston here in Springfield Oregon. Bad news there, I tell you! (School shooting) Anyway, I wonder if Hitler would have been different if he were brought up differently. I keep thinking two of my children are like their daddy in many ways, more than me and the other two, well it is the other way around. Some of the stuff that we ARE is WHO we are DOWN THE LINE of our family tree and I beilieve strongly the only way to change that is to actually realize you want to change it and then do so. I am not good on commenting on wars, well to tell you the truth I love history but am confused on where to start learning about it. Books, who to believe and so on. So I won't even go there.

Jillian... Im curious as to your religious/spiritual beliefs, although that is for a different thread.

What then, could determine whether a child is born good or evil? Is it hereditary? Is it natural selection? Divine intervention?

Hello again:

Here's some more dirt I'm throwing into the game, if my first comment didn't get you. I'll concede that we, as a society think killing one on one is wrong. We don't, however, think killing millions at a time is wrong.

excon


My guess is that one on one , you are likely to know your opponent / victim and maybe , just maybe, you see that they are not much different than you are.


when a group is marginalized, devalued, viewed not as human [ because they look different or speak differently or think different ideas etc.] I imagine it would be easier to kill.



good point





Grace and Peace

I see this heading towards the Nature Vs Nurture debate; since the scientists haven't settled this one one way or another I doubt we will either. The consensus has always been that's a little of both.

inthebox, I just saw the rating you gave my other post, and wanted to comment on it. Yes the Korean war and the Vietnam war were fought over communism, but that's not the same thing as the Cold War. The Cold War was the US-Soviet arms race; no lives were lost, because no battles were fought. That's why it's called a "cold" war. It began as an effort to contain communism, but you cannot lump Vietnam and Korea in with it. They are different things. Also, please read my post more carefully. I never said a fetus wasn't alive, I said the law doesn't recognize it as a human with rights. Those are two very, very different things. Perhaps your moral/religious beliefs tell you a fetus is a human with human rights, but until the law agrees with you, my post is accurate.

DrJizzle Thank you for recognizing that my religious and spiritual beliefs are for a different thread. :) I don't know what determines if a child is "good" or "evil". Perhaps, if you believe in destiny, it's destiny. God? The devil? Heredity? I don't know. I just don't buy into "the devil made me do it!" or "video games and violent music made me do it!". I think there is something biological that made an individual predisposed to do it. Now, where did that predisposition come from? Well, that depends on your spiritual beliefs.

Jilleanleab:


Cold War - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569374/Cold_War.html)


Not only is the fetus alive from moral point of view but any high school biology book will tell you so. Just because it is "the Law " does not make it factually correct or morally correct. For example
Dred Scott states blacks were not citizens and could not vote.


This may be off topic but the opening question is about killing.





Grace and Peace

Not only is the fetus alive from moral point of view ...You write that as a fact when in fact it isn't.

inthebox the COLD WAR and the VIETNAM WAR and KOREAN WAR are still three different things! Yes, they were all fought over communism, yes they were related, but, from your link:

American journalist Walter Lippmann first popularized the term cold war in a 1947 book by that name. By using the term, Lippmann meant to suggest that relations between the USSR and its World War II allies (primarily the United States, Britain, and France) had deteriorated to the point of war without the occurrence of actual warfare.

So thank you for doing my legwork for me and allowing me to prove my point more effectively!

Again, no denial a fetus is alive - only that the law does not give it human rights. THAT is a FACT.

I say, getting back to the point, I won't do any killing if you don't and maybe we can start a chin reaction! Great conversation I think I have learned a bunch of great stuff on here! I talked to a guy that volunteers at our tiny little river library and he said he would show me around on how to get started with some history books. You guys better watch out, my debate team is going to work one over on you, just give me some tiime! Any suggestion which to read first? I will write them down and check them out! I really love the ones about each war although I do not know the names of each war and the means to have been started in the first place.

Good for you Startover! You can't go wrong with history books. Start where ever you are most interested; WWI will lead you to WWII, which will lead you to the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Of course, starting back at the American Revolution and the Civil War is interesting too. Then, of course there is world history as well... I recently picked up a book called; "The Century of Warfare" by Charles Messenger; it goes from 1900 to present day. Lots of good stuff in there to give you a starting point and figure out which wars and parts of history interest you the most.

Jillianleab, hey thanks, I really want to find Factual books rather than something I won't be able to tell if it is the truth or not. You know what I mean. I will write this down and get to the library. Mind you it may take a while to read it, I have 4 kids and a wild husband!

startover, see if your library has electronic resources as well. My public library system has an entire online database of articles, encyclopedias, etc free to use, all you need is a library card number. If you are busy, having this as an online resource is good because you can be reasonably sure of its accuracy, but don't have to worry about due dates and overdue fines. The book I mentioned is quite large - it's a coffee table book, so getting through it with kids might be hard!

Ok, threadjack over!

Because we ought to love one another, now why on earth do you want to kill someone you love?

Didn't Abraham sacrifice his son because God told him to?

Abraham did not sacrifise his son, yes God did ask him to do it, and honestly... no one can question God.

And what of those today that kill in the name of God or because God told them to? Of course, we just don't believe those people... but who are we to question? We don't know if God truly talks to them or not.

And what of those today that kill in the name of God or because God told them to? Of course, we just dont believe those people... but who are we to question? We dont know if God truly talks to them or not.


I would like a statement from one of them telling me the exact words God used. I think that is crap! God doesn't say kill people. He told Abraham to sacrifice his son, ONLY AS A TEST mind you. Not to actually do it.

God was directly responsible for about 2,270,365 deaths in the Bible, not including such deaths as the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc.

Why would this end after the times of the Bible and not continue into today's world?

You got me there didn't you? 2,270,365? Really? Did God start the Plagues? Oh my I really do need to brush up on my bible skills, don't I. I am opting out. I need to know more to say more. Hugs, Start... I just don't think he is saying hey guys for the sake of ME I want you to go bomb people. Maybe cause I don't want to fathom it.

A running list of people god has killed according to the bible.
Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html)
I didn't come up with the list, I don't believe the list (I'm sure for other reasons than most on this board but we won't get into that) just showing where DrJizzle might have gotten his info from.

I almost want to take a couple of years off to go do my own research! Ok, I am done now!

Its not a problem at all... I definitely don't claim to know a lot about the specifics of the Bible either. And I really don't want to give the impression that I agree with them or think that it actually IS God telling them to kill people... but who knows? :)

EDIT (after I saw the other posts)

Yes, that is where I got that current number. I don't know how accurate it is but I know its close. I have seen and heard 2,200,000+ from other sources as well

But who knows? Only God will actually know since they can't prove it. I still don't think that God is telling them to kill themselves or others. But what if? That has to stay a question I guess. I am taking a year off, hope my family understands! LOL

God Kills?

If you believe in the God of the Bible, all death is due to sin. Since the fall of man in the garden of Eden, death is inevitable.
Also God hates all sin - death is the result.
Sin is the result of free will / choice.
And all are sinners Romans 3:21 -26
That is why He sent Jesus - John 3:16

It is hypocritical for those who don't believe in God and the Bible to take verses out of context. If you don't believe in the Bible /God /Jesus then why do you rattle off verses, other than to antagonize? You never seem to point out all the passages about love [ 1 cor13:4 1john 4: 7-12 for example ]. This just reveals your intent .




Grace and Peace

I am not sure who you are referring to but you do not know what I believe.

I understand that death is the result of sin... that is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

So why is it so hard to believe that people still kill those sinners in the name of God? Or at God's request?

Also

If you don't believe in God/ Bible / Jesus


What do you believe in?
Yourself?
Humans?
Nature?
All are going to die. What is the point?


If you believe in Darwin / Evolution / Natural selection

Why are you wating your limited lifespan on the internet?
Shouldn't you be procreating to ensure your genetic legacy?

Why not kill? Survival of the fittest, right?

Why aren't you enjoying a hedonistic lifestyle - after all time is limited.
Why try to be good? If there is no God to please?



Grace and Peace

Im not sure where you are going with this... did you read my post before you posted that?

Also


If God is responsible for < 3 million deaths isn't he just a weak god

After all Stalin beat him out
Human kind has beat him out.




Grace and Peace

inthebox, are your saying the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you fear what God will do to you? That might be the most frightening thing I've ever read.

Why try to be good?? if there is no God to please?
That is a frightening bit of text.

Hello again,

I'm good (on occaision). But, not because there's a god. But because there's my mom.

excon

Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another

Also


if God is responsible for < 3 million deaths isn't he just a weak god

After all Stalin beat him out
Human kind has beat him out.




Grace and Peace

So you believe Stalin is the stronger God? (sorry just trying to match the ridiculousness)

No matter what His kill count is, the fact remains (I suppose I should use that term loosely here) that He has been responsible for deaths in the biblical era. Why couldn't He be responsible for deaths today?

What is to say that bets are still not being made between Him and Satan? What is to say that a national disaster was not caused by Him to show Satan that even after that, His people will still worship Him? Or to show who is currently winning the battle here?


Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another

The ability to kill is genetic? That is an interesting theory. Would you pose that to killing in general or what we would call "cold-blooded murder"?

Is it simply a human convention?
Because u deinnetly will go to jail

U will go to jail
:cool:

Jail

Do you honestly believe that every human that has killed another has been jailed for it?

And even so, ones decision not to kill had better be a little deeper than the fear of going to jail lol

The ability to kill is genetic? That is an interesting theory. would you pose that to killing in general or what we would call "cold-blooded murder"?

Killing is just the ultimate anti-social behavior. Humans that are anti-social generally aren't as successful as humans that are. We all have the ability to kill it's just whether we do it in a socially acceptable form or not. If not killing suddenly no longer gave us an advantage as a species, the human race would change as those that took that step gained an advantage and those that didn't lost theirs.

[QUOTE=DrJizzle]So you believe Stalin is the stronger God? (sorry just trying to match the ridiculousness)

No matter what His kill count is, the fact remains (I suppose I should use that term loosely here) that He has been responsible for deaths in the biblical era. Why couldn't He be responsible for deaths today?

What is to say that bets are still not being made between Him and Satan? What is to say that a national disaster was not caused by Him to show Satan that even after that, His people will still worship Him? Or to show who is currently winning the battle here?

Note the "if" and the small "g" in god.

IF God is responsible for all death past, present, and future, does that means we humans don't have any responsibility for death?
Don't we have free will?
How can God and satan be making a bet when there is no free will ?

I know of one death that God willed, so to speak.
That of Jesus Christ, for all our sins, conquered by His resurrection..

That is not death, that is love.



Grace and Peace

Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another





THat natural selection sure is taking along time, because humans are still killling each other.
In fact our ability to kill one another keeps on increasing.

Hitler believed in natural selection.

Why have welfare, social security, medicare if you believe in Darwinism?
What is the selective advantage of keeping those unable to support themselves
Financially or medically?


Grace and Peace

Is it simply a human convention?
I think about my own demise sometimes my own end .for me it would probably be interesting to live for ever I could be wrong.. at the point were in life you find yourself with noting left to do put die.. then that's that.. . taking a life I would think that if someone is so bent on violance then I say killem.. if some one is so bent on hurting another.I say killem.. and think if you are thinking about killing some one I say kill you self.

Note the "if" and the small "g" in god.

IF God is responsible for all death past, present, and future, does that means we humans don't have any responsibilty for death?
Don't we have free will?
How can God and satan be making a bet when there is no free will ?

I know of one death that God willed, so to speak.
That of Jesus Christ, for all our sins, conquered by His resurrection..

That is not death, that is love.



Grace and Peace

Im sorry, but you continue to not make any sense.

First of all, where did I spell God with a lowercase 'g'? :confused: And when did I say that God was responsible for all deaths past, present, and future? :confused: Of course humans are responsible for MANY deaths :confused: How would you conclude that I am saying the opposite? And yes, of course there is free will :confused: And God and Satan have made bets before (the story of Job) :confused:

Instead of "attempting" to attack me for what you believe I do or don't believe in, why do you not just try to join in the conversation.

It is written that God has ordered the deaths of many. Shall I start quoting or do you know enough of the Bible that you understand this? Once again, do not assume that you know what I believe.

THat natural selection sure is taking along time, because humans are still killling each other. In fact our ability to kill one another keeps on increasing.

Natural selection takes a long time in the order of millions of years and why our ability to kill has increased I am 100% sure that the chance of being involved in a random act of violance has decreased in the last 1,000 years.


Hitler believed in natural selection.

Just because Hitler supported something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is bad. Hitler was a Christion. He also supported the VW bug.



Why have welfare, social security, medicare if you believe in Darwinism? What is the selective advantage of keeping those unable to support themselves
financially or medically?

Is it not the point of welfare to help those people become a contributing member of the community and give the rest of us an advantage by doing things for us that we do not want to do ourselves.
What advantage does social security give then, since people on social security are at the end of there life and not able to work any more?
Just because a person doesn't work doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the community a grandparent teaching lessons of the past to their grandchild can have more value than any job.

Killing is just the ultimate anti-social behavior. Humans that are anti-social generally aren't as successful as humans that are. We all have the ability to kill it's just whether we do it in a socially acceptable form or not. If not killing suddenly no longer gave us an advantage as a species, the human race would change as those that took that step gained an advantage and those that didn't lost theirs.

Hmmmmm... the only way that killing would suddenly loose its advantage (and Im not saying that the way that it sounds lol) would be if all humans finally conformed under ONE belief... if all humans essentially became the same.

DrJizzle:

My deepest apologies. I did not intend to attack you or what you believe.

The book of Judges is a fine example of murder and mayhem.
But I believe the Bible has to be take in its entirety.
Contrast that book and its violence to the promise of everlasting life with God, and how that was made possible.

I truly don't believe in using fear [hell] to convince those who don't believe.
The contrast is His love for ALL.


Again, I am sorry





Grace and Peace

I appreciate the apology. Thank you.

I do not mean to disrespect the Bible or any of its teachings. My point in even bringing into this conversation was that of people today killing in the name of God. This was done, permitted and accepted in the Biblical era but anyone who claims such a thing today is consider a nut-job by most.

What is to say that this does no longer occur? What is to say that people killing people is still a part of God's plan?

I appreciate the apology. Thank you.

I do not mean to disrespect the Bible or any of its teachings. My point in even bringing into this conversation was that of people today killing in the name of God. This was done, permitted and accepted in the Biblical era but anyone who claims such a thing today is consider a nut-job by most.

What is to say that this does no longer occur? What is to say that people killing people is still a part of God's plan?


I think "Killing in the name of God" is the key phrase.
Today we know that the command is to love.
There are those who have been killed for God's sake.


Unfortunately, it has occurred. 9/11/o1 for example.




Grace and Peace

Clarification

9/11/01 was not for God's sake. The crucifixion of the Apostle peter is an example.


9/11/01 was one of those "killing in the name of God" events.



Grace and Peace

I agree... but who are we to decide? However, this can be disputed because a difference in who they believe God is...

But what of events that are not known to the nations? I am sure that someone that was actually killing because he believes that God led him to do so, will do it under the radar.

One can contest that there are no reports of these killings since the arrival of Jesus, but how much time is reported since then? Not much compared to the years reported throughout the Old Testament

inthebox agrees: God gave His only Son, for me and the world, it is that Love that keeps me from killing. Also my parents taught me the 10 commandments - that 6th one , kind of stood out.
Inthebox agrees: It was a question directed at those who don't believe in God. What is your answer?

Yea, that didn't make you sound any less scary.
Through a process of natural selection, our ancestors urge to solve things with violance has been replace with the ability to solve problems in a civalized manner. Now doesn't sound less frighting.

First, you need to define normally and wrong. To that end, I'll define normally as typical for "everyday" persons in a given so-called civilised society. As for wrong, I'll take the low road and assume some majority rules-based approach, and say for a given normal situation—by which I mean to except self-defence, war, capital punishment, and abortion—where the majority would consider something not right, sidestepping the definition ever so conveniently.

Is anything right? Can anything be right absolutely? If you can't say what is right, can you say what is wrong? Is wrong the opposite of right? Of course, I can define it this way, but is it a true characterisation? Hmmm... and can anything be proven to be true in the first place?

Nope. I can't answer this question. I'm too tired.

Is it simply a human convention?
My opinion is that it is an easer question if we think in terms of contraries, because the concept of wrong is contrary to the concept of right; and given that survival is an inherent heuristic in the evolution of the human species; therefore the killing of a human is contrary to survival.

So no, I don't think it is strickly a human convention; it is what led to what is termed human.:)

So, when some homicidal idiot comes at you with a knife and you happen to have a nice Glock 45, do the christian thing and spare his life and let him take yours. The great sin of murder will be on him and you will instantly have your reward. Twisted.

My opinion is that it is an easier question if we think in terms of contraries, because the concept of wrong is contrary to the concept of right; and given that survival is an inherent heuristic in the evolution of the human species; therefore the killing of a human is contrary to survival.

So no, I don't think it is strickly a human convention; it is what led to what is termed human.:)

DC, I agree that the wrongness of killing is more than a human convention but is it explained entirely in terms of evolution? The survival of a particular individual is not self-evidently desirable - particularly if he or she poses a threat to others. I believe the infinite value of human life has to be linked with a non-scientific reason for existence. Why should an accidental freak of nature be worth more than anything else in the universe?

I don't think any freak of nature is worth less or more than me, he/she is here for a reason. It doesn't really matter if we know what that reason is or not! But they aren't WORTH more or less.

Is it simply a human convention?


A cultural society such as ours based on the parameters of ethics and morality [notice that I have not mentioned one iota of religion] considers the killing of 'a person' wrong, however, clarifications are necessary.

Your question, such as it is, is not sufficiently clear to give a rational answer.

What defines your interpretation of 'person' will undoutedly affect the answer given.

The killing of a criminal or an innocent 'person' depends on many variables, so, again a logical and reasonable answer is impossible unless the question is further defined and given parameters which will determine a variety of answers all of which could be valid.

A cultural society such as ours based on the parameters of ethics and morality [notice that I have not mentioned one iota of religion] considers the killing of 'a person' wrong, however, clarifications are necessary.

Your question, such as it is, is not sufficiently clear to give a rational answer.

What defines your interpretation of 'person' will undoutedly affect the answer given.

The killing of a criminal or an innocent 'person' depends on many variables, so, again a logical and reasonable answer is impossible unless the question is further defined and given parameters which will determine a variety of answers all of which could be valid.__________________
Life is a series of experiences which teach us lessons, we either take those lessons to heart, or not, the consequences will be as we choose them.

Sorry for the double answer... not sure how to delete one of them.

Is it simply a human convention?
You kill only the physical body so you cannot take away someone's life, only their body.
I believe that this cannot be done without invitation as there are no victims nor accidents,
Therefore it cannot be "wrong". For example, if someone desires to die by being shot and killed in some scenario why is that wrong?

Human beings are group bound social animals who cooperate with each other by dividing tasks in order to survive. Social order and happiness is a requirement for living in proximity with others! A negative emotional road is anger, fighting then murder, the origin of murder. That is not satisfactory for people living in groups in order to feel safe and thrive.

So, it is normally wrong to kill a person!

Human beings are group bound social animals who cooperate with each other by dividing tasks in order to survive. Social order and happiness is a requirement for living in close proximity with others! A negative emotional road is anger, fighting then murder, the origin of murder. That is not satisfactory for people living in groups in order to feel safe and thrive.

So, it is normally wrong to kill a person!

We are taught that murder is "wrong" because most people believe that killing a person is permanent, when it isn't. Now, if we are talking about society then it is normally wrong but only accirdubg to the current world view. I am talking about two different levels here:
Spiritual reality and physical reality. My take is usually based on spiritual reality.

We are taught that murder is "wrong" because most people believe that killing a person is permanent, when it isn't. Now, if we are talking about society then it is normally wrong but only accirdubg to the current world view. I am talking about two different levels here:
Spiritual reality and physical reality. My take is usually based on spiritual reality.

So you feel that based on something that you have no proof of "spiritual reality" you think if is okay to take something we have proof of. I tell you what you give me all your money and I'll promise you will go to heaven, double your money back if you come back and tell me you didn't make it.

So you feel that based on something that you have no proof of "spiritual reality" you think if is okay to take something we have proof of. I tell you what you give me all your money and I'll promise you will go to heaven, double your money back if you come back and tell me you didn't make it.

I certainly don't believe in heaven or hell! I have my own subjective proof of spiritual reality. I need no outside proof. Science can only offer proof of things physical.

Is it simply a human convention?
It is if you want to be an atheist and deny God. But the Bible clearly says "Thou shalt not kill." That's good enough for me.

Is it simply a human convention?

There are several reasons but I think one that can be argued against even the most cynical of peoples is this;

It is socially irresponsible. If you kill someone that extinguishes their existence. If that person where some day going to contribute something to man kind, maybe a sort of technology, that would either improve or preserve our lives you would have eliminated that person. So in the interest of self preservation you would have shot yourself in the foot.

we humans are the most selfish of all species !
we make rules and often bend them when we don't find arguments working for us or situations don't work out for us .
we play safe trying to act morally but often do it loosely as to sin is basic human tendency of distinguishing it self from the group of commoner>

Killing someone is wrong because one uses them merely as a means to someone else's ends. People deserve to always be treated always as an end and never as a means to an end. (Kant)

Because it is evil, life is precious, and you have no right to rob him of it.

Maggie 3

because it is evil, life is precious, and you have no right to rob him of it.

Maggie 3

I agree with you but if people decide to reject the value of life, arguing that death destroys everything, we cannot force them to change their view. But they are not entitled to impose it on everyone else and drag them down.

Schopenhauer believed it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet but he was inconsistent: he also believed that beauty can liberate us from our misery! The most logical thing he could have done would have been to commit suicide or let himself die painlessly :rolleyes:

Of all living things on this planet , humans as far as we know have reasoning and consciences that we are alive. In turn we become aware that there are living beings like me and living things around us. We are aware we are alive. This in itself makes us a Stewart of life and of all livings things.

We have the means and power to respect or destroy that life and all living things on the planet. Because of being aware of that, it makes us a Steward of protecting a life/lives and living things around us, and in turn ourselves.

Our basic instinct of self preservation is hardwired

To take a life for the sake “because we can” demonstrates we don't value life nor our life and cheapened the greatest gift as we should no it, being alive. Therefore it would be morally wrong to take a life from someone that wasn't yours to take just because “you can” This is what separates us from the rest of the animal world.

Simply put. I tell my kids.” Remember, You hope the other persons life is just as important to them as your life is to you” Some day that may be achieved, and by doing so we now have all basic morals.

Another Basic moral is…. Do unto them as you would have them do unto you. Taking a life just to take it becomes morally wrong at the most basic level,

I realize this is an old post but some things keep on living

Human life starts with cry and should cross many cries and ends , it shouldnot be ended by killing

WELL... what rights do you have to take away someone's right to live? It's wrong to the victim, but maybe in the killers' minds, he/she has a different idea.

You can't steal, that's bad, so killing is basically stealing someone's life.

But they are not entitled to impose it on everyone else and drag them down.


Why on earth not?

I don't know if anyone here has ever killed a person or tried to do so... I certainly have... fired three shots at an armed robber awhile back... and felt perfectly justified in doing so as this person had robbed one person and was pointing a gun at another. Under normal circumstances we know it is wrong to kill another person because we know that it would be wrong for another person to kill us. In other words, it would be wrong to do something to someone else that we would not want done to ourselves.

The Lord gives life and the Lord taketh away life. It is the Lords decision. So be it.

Maggie 3

It will always be wrong for human beings to take another life of a human, we are of the same species and do not kill one of our own.

Our brains understand that it is wrong, we have a moral code ( not to mention... the law)
That prevents us from doing so.

However, to kill an animal is to some people acceptable ( although I wouldn't ) we are the superior species on this earth, which is why we rule this planet by our terms and they don't .

It is normally wrong to kill a person because when one human is killled, another human cries. It's wrong to kill all creatures, not just humans. When a creature is killed there will always be another that's saddened at it's passing. The ideal of right and wrong is based solely on the moral compass of the individual. It is argueable that there is no right answer, but the passing of life is always a tragedy. It may come down to circumstance or personal feelings, and killing will always continue, but also will continue the hurt and sorrow of those the dead leave behind. Life is precious, no matter what form it takes. The justification of taking that life will always be controversial, but never will it be enough to comfort the hearts of those that held that life dear.

Morality is conventional. It changes over time. "Right" and "wrong" keep people under control. There is no logical basis against murder. What is God? What is good and evil? What is beauty? Why is it wrong to kill? These are metaphysical questions; they escape the limited scope of material validity. Are you scared yet? When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he wasn't boasting... he realized the cornerstones of European morality were crumbling... Right an wrong have shown themselves to be mythical projections that once served to benefit groups of people... efficiency in the community (no one wants the hunter/gatherer murdered). However, there is a grand question which arises out of this. The "danger" is not of murder (which is completely natural in the world) but the baseless foundation of our own moral code... why do human beings remain passive regarding the conventional morality of their time? In asking this question, you could consider yourself far more "moral" than those that simply do as they are told, like robot sheep.

Morality is conventional. It changes over time. "Right" and "wrong" keep people under control. There is no logical basis against murder. What is God? What is good and evil? What is beauty? Why is it wrong to kill? These are metaphysical questions; they escape the limited scope of material validity. Are you scared yet? When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he wasn't boasting... he realized the cornerstones of European morality were crumbling... Right an wrong have shown themselves to be mythical projections that once served to benefit groups of people... efficiency in the community (no one wants the hunter/gatherer murdered). However, there is a grand question which arises out of this. The "danger" is not of murder (which is completly natural in the world) but the baseless foundation of our own moral code... why do human beings remain passive regarding the conventional morality of their time? In asking this question, you could consider yourself far more "moral" than those that simply do as they are told, like robot sheep.

Hi Thomas,

I am not sure I would agree with some of the things you have said.

Yes, morality can be conventional. It comes under normative theory of ethics. These type of theories attempt to answer questions, such as how humans 'ought to act' in given circumstances. It attempts to explain the standards of right and wrong. Granted these standards can and do change over time. I would say the logic employed by a consequentialist would be that murder is wrong because it has very negative consequences for society. "Why is it wrong to kill?" doesn't have to be a metaphysical question. I think I have demonstrated this.

Yes, terms such as good and bad right and wrong are subject to metaphysical examination. This type of examination comes under, 'meta ethics'. Meta ethics seeks to understand the meaningfulness, or lack of, such terms. Meta ethics would also look at the differences between right and wrong, good and bad.


Tut

I have pondered over this many times, and to me it seams like a human convention, or some sort of forced moral passed donw through time.ITs because we as humans, judge things in right and wrong with is subjectiv(relativ). There for its isn't wrong, its just people / society that deams it wrong. But what it comes down to is thare there is no right, or wrong there are merely human delussion.

I have pondered over this many times, and to me it seams like a human convention, or some sort of forced moral passed donw through time.ITs because we as humans, judge things in right and wrong with is subjectiv(relativ). There for its isnt wrong, its just people / society that deams it wrong. But what it comes down to is thare there is no right, or wrong there are mearly human delussion.


Hi Questioning,

You seem to be putting forward an argument which suggests there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. If this is the case then we have to live with the fact there is only some type of convention in place when it comes to right and wrong . As far as I can see this is a possibility and there are many arguments to support the idea there is only subjectivity when it comes to morality.

On this basis actions don't have any special properties. Right and wrong is an attitude. However, there is a problem here. If right and wrong are simply a delusion then there is no good reason why anyone should make the effort to make a move towards what they perceive as right and wrong. In other words, if morality is a delusion, belief or attitude then why do people make the effort to make the connection between right and wrong and how we behave.

For example, if you think it is morally wrong to steal from other people then it doesn't make sense to say your are not going to do anything about your habit of stealing. I will steal a car whenever the opportunity arises. The question then becomes, the ability to give a satisfactory the motivation for actions.

Regards

Tut

Hi Questioning,

You seem to be putting forward an argument which suggests there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. If this is the case then we have to live with the fact there is only some type of convention in place when it comes to right and wrong . As far as I can see this is a possibility and there are many arguments to support the idea there is only subjectivity when it comes to morality.

On this basis actions don't have any special properties. Right and wrong is an attitude. However, there is a problem here. If right and wrong are simply a delusion then there is no good reason why anyone should make the effort to make a move towards what they perceive as right and wrong. In other words, if morality is a delusion, belief or attitude then why do people make the effort to make the connection between right and wrong and how they behave.

For example, if you think it is morally wrong to steal from other people then it doesn't make sense to say your are not going to do anything about your habit of stealing. I will steal a car whenever the opportunity arises. The question then becomes, the ability to give a satisfactory explanation for motivation and actions.

Regards

Tut

Just fixed this up a bit. Probably would help if I actually proof -read the things I write.

It is wrong to kill because u will have to face punishments and u will suffer from the guilt.

I believe that killing for no reason is wrong, but in the same sense, without cold blooded killing, the overpopulation would be even worse. Our morals endanger the planet, because killing is a form of population control. If animals don't kill each other, nature falls out of balance. Why should humans be any different? Humans are unbalanced creatures. I think we need to reevaluate ourselves, then fix the messes we've made, while also fixing ourselves to prevent further issues. In summation, yeah looking is wrong, but it's necessary to ensure the balance of humanity, and the world.

Well no act can be evil in itself, only if its done under the wrong circumstances. The idea that killing is always wrong is just something that is hammered into our skulls by our parents from the moment we are born and that is why we "feel" that killing is wrong just we "feel" god exists. The idea that killing is wrong wasn't even brought forth in most countries until well after 1500 A.C and the only reason a killer would get punished was if he killed an important person or if a family member of the deceased sought revenge. This idea that all killing is wrong was brought forth by misguided idealists and then supported by the corrupt government to avoid a repeat of the french revolution while continuing to do whatever was in their own best interests instead of their countries best interests.