Is killing another human being wrong?

[Jericho Desu]

I noticed you live in London...have you been to the US?

Nope, although I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant, just going to a country doesn't mean I've met every person there and can say "The majority of the people are ignorant", it doesn't work that way. I'm sure there are stupid people there, but we have stupid people too.

Also since this is going off topic, let this be the last on this matter thank you.

 

[Quailboy]

Nope, although I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant, just going to a country doesn't mean I've met every person there and can say "The majority of the people are ignorant", it doesn't work that way. I'm sure there are stupid people there, but we have stupid people too.

Also since this is going off topic, let this be the last on this matter thank you.

Except it is relevent.
If you go to a place with 100 people in it and 70 of them are ignorant.
Can you say the majority are ignorant? Yes.
Now, based on that, I can take the number of poeple I've talked to in my life and safely say that at least 70% of them are ignorant.
I can take that, and just plug it right in and figure that most the country is ignorant.
The US is an arrogant nation.
EDIT: Didn't see your edit until I posted. This is the last on the discussion, sorry.

In my opinion, killing another human being isn't wrong what-so-ever. Its nature. We are animals, animals kill other animals.

 

[Haruspex]

Except it is relevent.
If you go to a place with 100 people in it and 70 of them are ignorant.
Can you say the majority are ignorant? Yes.
Now, based on that, I can take the number of poeple I've talked to in my life and safely say that at least 70% of them are ignorant.
I can take that, and just plug it right in and figure that most the country is ignorant.
The US is an arrogant nation.
EDIT: Didn't see your edit until I posted. This is the last on the discussion, sorry.

How many people do you know at best? Hundreds. How many people are there in the US? 300 million approximately. Saying the majority are ignorant is a bit too judgmental. Besides, there is no official, widely-used way of measuring 'ignorance' and so your notion of 'ignorant' may differ from others' notion of 'ignorant'.

 

[Revenant]

I'm not going to vote, but I think there are some powerful instincts at play here...

Fair is fair, an eye for an eye and revenge served well as justice before prisons existed... it took the person off the streets anyways...

However, while I know that I would want revenge for the death of a loved one, I would hope that as I know now, that a large part of it could be explained by messy neuro wirings, and I'd hope that in that situation I would realize that. I think the best prevention would be life imprisonment (as in an entire life), and the study of these people by neuroscientists and pyscholigists. I feel that the collected data could one day help identify people highly predisposed to commiting such actions, which would be the best interest of society and perhaps that individual as well. Perhaps one day there will be interventions for those people, as neuroscientists have discovered definite differences between normal people and psychopaths, and are experimenting with drug interventions last I heard.

 

[Jericho Desu]

I'm not going to vote, but I think there are some powerful instincts at play here...
Fair is fair, an eye for an eye and revenge served well as justice before prisons existed... it took the person off the streets anyways...
However, while I know that I would want revenge for the death of a loved one, I would hope that as I know now, that a large part of it could be explained by messy neuro wirings, and I'd hope that in that situation I would realize that. I think the best prevention would be life imprisonment (as in an entire life), and the study of these people by neuroscientists and pyscholigists. I feel that the collected data could one day help identify people highly predisposed to commiting such actions, which would be the best interest of society and perhaps that individual as well. Perhaps one day there will be interventions for those people, as neuroscientists have discovered definite differences between normal people and psychopaths, and are experimenting with drug interventions last I heard.

You can never tell, people are very complicated animals, they can be night or day, it's true certain fields of study have scratched the surface of our mentality so to speak, but I believe nobody really knows how deep the rabbit hole goes.


I made a rhyme

 

[Jimi]

Some people just have to get rid off, for their own and other people's sake. Like the dude form austria,Joseph Fritzl (or something). He sexually abused his daughter form age 11 and locked her up in the basement at age 18. She was locked up for 44 years and got pregnant of 7 children conceived by her father (Joseph), the kids never saw daylight until 2008.

That man needs to die.

 

[Mitsuo]

I'm going to say that there are times when I feel that it's justified to kill another human being. Of course killing should be the last resort. I know that if anyone killed a loved one of mine that I would want to be the one who "took them out". I don't think that I would hesitate to kill another person to protect a loved one.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I feel that the collected data could one day help identify people highly predisposed to commiting such actions, which would be the best interest of society and perhaps that individual as well. Perhaps one day there will be interventions for those people, as neuroscientists have discovered definite differences between normal people and psychopaths, and are experimenting with drug interventions last I heard.

I would be very concerned if law enforcement started acting just from people's genetic predispositions, assuming that's what you meant by "predisposed". Even if someone has the genes of a psychopath (if such genes even exist), I don't think we can treat him like a psychopath until he starts to behave like one.

Phenotype is not completely determined by genotype, but is influenced by environment to varying degrees.

Joseph Fritzl...

That man needs to die.

Why? What would his death achieve?

 

[Haruspex]

Why? What would his death achieve?

I think even if his death would contribute (I know its nonsense, but only for the sake argument), why the 'needs'? Such a declaration is tantamount to claiming that there is some sort of obligation on humanity to destroy Fritzl, which just cannot be true.


I appreciate the fact, Jimi, that his deeds are, from society's perspective, heinous, but nevertheless, we cannot issue truly authoritative prescriptive commands, descriptive ones, yes. I could, for example, say that his execution would increase newspaper sales, and would thus contribute journalism, but thats about it.

 

[InvisibleSkyMagician]

Killing human beings is always wrong if it's you or people you care about being killed.

Killing human beings is okay when you're the one doing the killing or the people dying are people you don't care about.

My evidence for this view is the entire history of mankind.

 

[Mitsuo]

Phenotype is not completely determined by genotype, but is influenced by environment to varying degrees.

This can be very true. If I can remember correctly it's referred to as phenotypic plasticity.

 

[Hezam]

who killed a person in desire should be killed by the government.

 

[Haruspex]

who killed a person in desire should be killed by the government.

That is low and barbaric. In a healthy society the state does not sink so low as to exact vengeance in the name of individuals. That threatens the objectivity of both state and society and could easily lead to moral crusaders butchering people as a result.

 

[Half-n-Half]

That is low and barbaric. In a healthy society the state does not sink so low as to exact vengeance in the name of individuals. That threatens the objectivity of both state and society and could easily lead to moral crusaders butchering people as a result.

Agreed. The individual should be isolated from society so they are no longer a threat to that society.

 

[Jericho Desu]

Agreed. The individual should be isolated from society so they are no longer a threat to that society.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Hezam]

that's weird !! why do we give him the right to live after he finished off someone's life ??
if he knows that he will be killed then he will not dare to kill.
see how many crimes around the world,here in Saudi Arabia we dont hear about killing crimes,maybe one or two setuation in the year...
Can you please think about it....

to exact vengeance in the name of individuals

No it's not in the name of individuals,If i kill the one who killed my friend or my brother that will cause a series of vengeance.So the government should handle it to stop vengeance.

 

[Haruspex]

that's weird !! why do we give him the right to live after he finished off someone's life ??

He never had a right to life to begin with. We do not give him any right, simply we decide to preserve order, the character of persons and our values through refraining from setting up a whole mechanism, the sole purpose of which is to 'exterminate' individuals whom we deem 'pests'.

if he knows that he will be killed then he will not dare to kill.

If he knows he will be killed if he steals, he won't steal, although, he will become a f*cking coward, bent under draconian laws.

see how many crimes around the world,here in Saudi Arabia we dont hear about killing crimes,maybe one or two setuation in the year...
Can you please think about it....

Yes, and there is another thing Saudi Arabia doesn't have, a good human rights record. That is the price the country has to pay for its unnatural and synthetic 'order'. By letting its citizens die and even carrying out the killing, a state strips said citizens of a fragment of their capacity, they become less powerful.

No it's not in the name of individuals,If i kill the one who killed my friend or my brother that will cause a series of vengeance.So the government should handle it to stop vengeance.

Yeah, and any 21st century state worth a damn would handle it through imprisonment. The price the citizens would have to pay for a bit more security is just disproportionate.

 

[Hezam]

If he knows he will be killed if he steals, he won't steal, although, he will become a *******
coward, bent under draconian laws.

he will not be killed if he steal,only if he kill...and yes,let him be coward instead of being killer !

Yes, and there another thing Saudi Arabia doesn't have, a good human rights record. That is the price the country has to pay for its unnatural and synthetic 'order'. By letting its citizens die and even carrying out the killing, a state strips said citizens of a proportion of their capacity, they become less powerful.

if we are talking about Islamic law ( Sharee'a ) All people here is agreed and Satisfied,But if we are talking about the Political laws then Yes i agree with you 100% .

Yeah, and any 21st century state worth a damn would handle it through imprisonment. The price the citizens would have to pay for a bit more security is just disproportionate.

hmmm,i think imprisonment is not enough to deter murder crimes.

Anyway,people are different and they have different laws..
Thanks.

 

[randomdiscussionblog]

Even though there is a consensus that killing humans is wrong. That is only a matter of opinion and nothing more. I personally believe that it is not wrong; however, you must accept the legal consequences if you were to do so, which I cannot possibly do, as you have implicitly accepted to be judged under the laws of the country wherein you live for any crime you commit in its jurisdiction.

 

[undrentide]

that's weird !! why do we give him the right to live after he finished off someone's life ??
if he knows that he will be killed then he will not dare to kill.

Unfortunately it does not work so simple.
It seems that there are people who find death as an easy exist from where they are.
There were more than one case in Japan that a man randomly killed the people who happened to be there, because he wanted to get arrested and excecuted...
I'm not against the death penalty, but for certain people it does not work to prevent the crimes, and if to live is a hartship for those criminals, they should not be allowed to die.
(Sorry this is getting a bit off-topic.)

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Events like the release of the Lockerbie mass-murderer cause me to rethink my general opposition to the death penalty. When there is a risk that some future bone-headed or corrupt public official may subvert a life sentence, the death sentence seems to provide the only assurance and justice that society deserves.

Hezam has a point. A real justice system will dispense justice so that a victim's family does not have to take measures themselves. If I were a family member of one of the Lockerbie victims, I doubt it would trouble my conscience at all to step in where the Scottish justice system has failed. I wouldn't have a problem pulling the trigger on someone like him or bin Laden.

 

[Haruspex]

Events like the release of the Lockerbie mass-murderer cause me to rethink my general opposition to the death penalty. When there is a risk that some future bone-headed or corrupt public official may subvert a life sentence, the death sentence seems to provide the only assurance and justice that society deserves.

For a certainty that conclusion was not reached through utilitarian logic. Even if certain criminals may perhaps go free (you are exaggerating without a doubt, implying that the release of criminals is a very serious and common issue domestic justice systems have to deal with), people should not be executed for that reason solely.

Not to mention that killing someone off, lest he be released through (legal) discretionary powers, is pretty weird logic. Culpa tenet suos auctores. A fault binds its author. This is a pretty basic maxim of law and to suggest that criminals should be held accountable for the errors of officials is, I think, a bad idea.

Hezam has a point. A real justice system will dispense justice so that a victim's family does not have to take measures themselves. If I were a family member of one of the Lockerbie victims, I doubt it would trouble my conscience at all to step in where the Scottish justice system has failed. I wouldn't have a problem pulling the trigger on someone like him or bin Laden.

The purpose of the criminal law is not to provide a 'vengeance system' for the aggrieved, but to promote stability and neutralise conflicts through intervention.

To attempt to please the victims or their relatives is to set a subjective test. No one can determine where is the point at which the aggrieved party feels content. Not to mention that the person executed might be my friend. You may have bereaved me, through your meddling, of a friend so dear that it is comparable to a relative of yours, in which case I may rightly demand that you be put to death. Provided, of course, we apply such vicious, vengeful logic.

 

[Hezam]

To attempt to please the victims or their relatives is to set a subjective test. No one can determine where is the point at which the aggrieved party feels content. Not to mention that the person executed might be my friend. You may have bereaved me, through your meddling, of a friend so dear that it is comparable to a relative of yours, in which case I may rightly demand that you be put to death. Provided, of course, we apply such vicious, vengeful logic.

I think if your friend lose his money then it's not your problem,also if he killed someone why would you side with him if he was wrong ?
Everyone is Responsible for his actions,what if he steal a car and the police Fined him for that,do you consider that a vengeful logic ?
That person who killed will continue his crimes usually,will you live the person who killed your friend alive ?
It will be a big problem if the Government ignore the victim !

 

[Haruspex]

I think if your friend lose his money then it's not your problem,also if he killed someone why would you side with him if he was wrong ?
Everyone is Responsible for his actions,what if he steal a car and the police Fined him for that,do you consider that a vengeful logic ?
That person who killed will continue his crimes usually,will you live the person who killed your friend alive ?
It will be a big problem if the Government ignore the victim !

Because he is my friend, perhaps? If my friend needed help, I would offer some form of help, otherwise he would, by definition, not be my friend.

If the police fined him, that would be to deter, educate and offer some form of restitution, not to punish and kill the **** off.

Prove to me with medical evidence and statistical data that the convict will continue to kill.

The Government need not ignore the victim. The victim needs to be restored to his or her original state so far as it is possible. The criminal needs to be imprisoned and rehabilitated.

Additionally, crime needs to be suppressed through education and social security not through fear and loathing.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I heard a pretty good argument against capital punishment yesterday: If you hate the idea of killing you're against it.