If no one even batted an eyelash...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

There are plenty of aweful people in the world, there are plenty of aweful people in the world who we could definately do without. There are child molesters, rapists, fundamentalist christians, extremist muslims, the list goes on. There are those who try their hardest just to be different, they act dark, depressing, but they turn around and make fun of the nearest fat girl walking down the street, while she is thinking to herself, “that guy has some stupid hair”. People who make it their life passion to be different only to scorn those who are supposedly “the same”. We could probably do without them.

With some form of deep explanation, and maybe a little disregard for common law, some of us could probably look away if one of these people were to flat out fall off of the face of the earth. Yeah, and all their twisted morality with them.

If no one batted an eyelash…

Would you take one of these people out? One of those disgusting human beings, and to quote Johnny the homocidal maniac, “Two species under one name - human - seperated only by the workings of their minds, this one is human only in appearance!! A clever disquise for a simple animal. The real humans are harder to find.” As he is ripping a child molester’s skull open.

Is it fundamentally wrong to kill? Are there any fundamental truths at all? If you were completely relativist, even in being completely relativistic you’re being fundamental… O.o

Anyways, I threw that last part in on a tangent, the real question is this:

Is it fundamentally wrong to kill?

2

If I rip a child molestor/rapist/fundamental christian or muslims skull open aren’t I at least as bad if not somewhat worse than them?

3

I would disagree, but please explain your point :slight_smile:.

4

I would say yes, it is fundamentally wrong to kill humans.

Judgement that is based on 3rd person observation of actions is weak and fleeting at best. The child molester may not really be responsible for his actions in a psychological way. If his introspective abilities were scarred so far beyond repair as a yound child where he/she was molested themselves should that person really be held responsible? Perhaps in some cases, but how do we access them? - we try to with the law.

The law pretty much holds that killing is inherently wrong. Cept in Texas, Georgia, etc.

5

Please don’t toss the word fundamentally around lightly :slight_smile:…

Self defense is included as well.

6

Well, I don’t see how much a threat people like Ned Flanders are to society, and I’ve had first hand experience with Islamic people who where firm believers, human and decent.

Would you destroy your PC, or upgrade/repair it, if there was a problem?

The same applies to a larger and more valuable machine.

If no one batted an eyelash…

That’s frustrated-ape logic.
It doesn’t fit expectation,
it cause stress and make frustrate!
Smash, kill, destroy!

Hey, maybe we can look at life as a learning experience, and we can change our expectations instead of the world?

Killing has its place. But its an abusable and extreme tool, so people need to be careful and modest with it. Capitol punishment gives too much power to the state, and leads to abuse/strong-arm tactics of state.

K, screw labels! Let’s think about wide-scale practicality.

This is such a stupid question, because it’s best answer is an yes-no-depends-on-the-situation answer. If people could legally kill for any reason they wanted, social units would become endo-despotic-war-zones. It’d be bullshit! Anarchy would be so much closer from there on it.

My sig is cool.

I just ate some nachos.

7

Forgive me but the last timeI checked this was a philosophical forum for conversation and not a common law forum. Please don’t judge these ideas based on common law! :slight_smile:.

Your answer would simply be to say that killing isn’t fundamentally wrong then, don’t call my question stupid, I got asked this question in my econ and government class by my teacher!

8

This quotation, I can’t believe I am saying this about my brother monkey man, is fundamentally flawed because it does not take into account those who are genetically aberrant, or otherwise not necessarily given a particular psychological impetus, for such pathologies.

It is also flawed because it does not recognize the fact that laws are built upon predominantly herdish opinions, and outrages, that are politically motivated to be written into law, as a manner of appeasement to the herd.
(think social stigmatization … same as law enacted)

My problem is, when an ambiguous question is asked, i.e. “is killing humans fundamentally wrong?”, from what defined position is this being asked?

Morality?
Ethics?
Religion?
Society?
Governmental/Law?
individual governance?
specieal survival/genetic dominance/natural selection?

Please rephrase the query to meet a particular criterion so that it can be properly assessed as to what suppositionary position one can answer from with implied accuracy.

9

I’m gonna have to go with morality for 500, Mastriani.

Sorry if I was vague :slight_smile:.

10

Mas,

I just typed out an answer… any answer… this question is way too vague.

Laws are built on herdish opinions yes, but most of the time they arn’t so bad. I had a lengthy talk with my parents the other day (they’re both cops) and when it comes to the law here in Canada at least, the gov’t does a fairly good job of finding a type of middle ground between ethics, morality, etc.

Ultimately to kill someone requires them to be -responsible- for a particularly heinous act, and insofar as I’ve read from various contemporary free will thinkers… I havent’ been able to find a justified case for total responsibility.

If anyone wants to present one I’d love to hear it. Personally I like Nagel’s view the best…

11

Religious morality?
Christian morality?
Muslim morality?
Judeaic morality?
Buddhist morality?
Taoist morality?
Zen morality?
Voodoo morality?

Social morality?
Which society?
Civilized society?
Aboriginal society?

Relative morality?
Situational morality?

Family morality?
Paternal morality?
Maternal morality?
Offspring morality?
Sibling morality?

Where would you like to go with this question?

12

More-ality!

13

Are you kidding?

Isn’t there a fundamental morality? :\

Even if it were relativistic…

14

Don’t toss that ‘f’ word around so lightly, Shamino.

  Now, I would say that killing another person is always wrong, but that life shows us that doing immoral things is sometimes for a greater good. We may disagree about the death penalty, but tend to agree that  cop can kill someone in the line of duty in the right circumstances, and so on. 
  What would be the motivation of someone to kill one of these undesirables? Because they are full of hate for that kind of person? Because they see the person about to perform a hideous act, and act in turn to stop them? Because they get a big fat erection from the act of murder, and they feel that murdering evil people is guilt-free way to satisfy that urge? That's what really matters. From what I can tell, very few of the reasons that come to mind justify such an act.
15

Fundamental implies a form of religious morality.

Relativistic implies a form of individual socialistic morality.

Which is it?

16

Hey Shamino, wonderfully articulated post. A good question, too.

On my part, I think that morality is relative (no moral signpost floating around in the sky), but that there is a (mostly) common morality anyway, greated by genes and modern societies, and that the morality is essentially Utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number.

I greatly admire your courage in posing unpopular questions. You have been given the usual reward - people giving stock answers, not really thinking for themselves, and judging you for being an awful person.

I think murder can be absolutely justified in many instances. The obvious ones: if you could go back in time and murder Hitler when he was an infant, would you? YES, in a heartbeat. Who is so selfish that they would put their own comfort (none of us WANTS to kill an infant) above the lives of millions? Everyone should be willing to kill baby Hitler.

But more than that. There are people currently in positions of power who make terrible decisions. There are people who aren’t in positions of power, and yet manage to spread stupid and harmful ideas. There are rapists and child molesters - and there are even people who are mean and spiteful, and while not on the same level as the rapists, still cause more harm than good. Should these people die? Mostly, I think yes, they should. Better, of course, that they change their ways and become good people. But if I had a button that, when pressed, would instantly destroy all crack dealers, all rapists and child molestors, and all self-righteous Christians who preach vehemently that “god hates fags”, I would press that button in a second, and feel grateful that I had the opportunity to advance the overall quality of the world so significantly. If the cost of pressing the button would be that I die too, I would still press it gladly.

Now, maybe someone could make a good precise argument that killing those people would be a bad thing. If so, I’d gladly listen to it, and be willing to change my mind. But vomiting up the “but then we’d be as bad as them!” crap isn’t going to cut it.

Anyone else love the movie “Boondock Saints”?

-Tristan

17

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … aby+hitler

18

Your initial point, that killing baby Hitler is precisely the quality needed to BE Hitler, is totally wrong.

The quality needed to be Hitler is one where you are willing and eager to kill MILLIONS of people who don’t fit your concept of an ideal race.

Being willing to kill one person like that before they commit an atrocity is not only PHENOMENALLY different - it is a moral imperative. If you have this stupid wishy-washy attitude of “I can’t kill him, he hasn’t done anything yet” when you are ASSURED that he will kill MILLIONS of people, don’t you think that you’re being a bit selfish? What do you think the Jewish families destroyed by his madness would want you to do? What do you think they’d do themselves?

19

Hmmm, I’d like to keep it simple here…

Imagine that there is a universal morality that can be bent relative to any situation.

Go beyond social taboo, beyond religious fundamentalism.