[s_cianci]

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.

[enigmagnetic]

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.

[greatodie]

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>

[xxelainexx0]

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)

[Maggie 3]

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

Maggie 3

[tonyrey]

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:

[21boat]

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

[rajesh varma]

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

[survivorboi]

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.

[Tokugawa]

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

Why on earth not?

[JimGunther]

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.

[Maggie 3]

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

Maggie 3

[0rphan]

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 .

[guardiAngel]

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.

[Omnithomas]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[QuestioningLIfe]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[TUT317]

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.

[bfefuoqieuqeg]

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