What's new

Is killing another human being wrong?

Is killing a person ever right?


  • Total voters
    49
i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x
 
I do think that keeping a capital criminal alive for so long with a death sentence hanging over his head, through endless appeals or whatever process, is cruel and inhuman punishment.

Yeah, but in most cases whether to appeal or not, once leave for appeal is granted, is a personal choice. The other alternative would be to proceed with the sentence and execute the convict, which would probably violate the convict's right to a fair trial and indeed his right only to be punished lawfully.
 
Is it rationally possible to be an atheist and also believe that human life is somehow sacred? Why would a human life be worth more than a fly's?

You see, the problem with living in an era following thousands of years of religious dominance (supposing that the dominance of religion has come to an end, or is at least declining), is that many words have taken a religious connotation in such a way that using them, in any way, by a secular, sounds inappropriate and even contradictory to our non religious stance.
"Sacred" here means simply primordial, i.e. protecting it is a basic principle that we need to observe as much as we can. Religion generally paints that with absolutism but, speaking for myself, I can only say that I would give priority to saving/protecting a human life over everything else, no matter what that human has done in his life. But I'm fairly sure that there are cases where such a principle cannot be fully observed (self-defense for example).
My conception of morality is very relativist, and on a general basis I'd opt for a case by case analysis to make the "right" decision in any given situation. But even such an analysis demands a basic frame of rules which are more or less stable: protecting human life is one of them I think. I don't want to derail the thread, so if you're interested to know my personal conception of morality see my post on this page:

Secular Humanism

I do think that keeping a capital criminal alive for so long with a death sentence hanging over his head, through endless appeals or whatever process, is cruel and inhuman punishment.

Agreed! Though if there's a possibility for them to be freed from the sentence, that would be a necessary toil...

i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x

Erm, you're calling for personal justice there?! ☝
 
Last edited:
Killing is a grave crime which must be punished by capital punishment. An eye for an eye. Take one's life and yours will be taken. This is absolute justice in my opinion.

War is a little different scenario. Killing must happen in war; though, I think that both sides must try to limit the number of deaths of both sides.
 
i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x
That is very black and white. The subject is grey. Soldiers are known for committing such atrocies in war, yet they are not executed for it. Do we lower ourselves down to the same level as the killer, or should we be better? In some cases a rapist or a murderer can suffer from mental problems. Is it right to kill the mentally ill? If so then why not kill anyone who suffers from a mental problem before they commit the acts as a preventative measure.
 
Is it rationally possible to be an atheist and also believe that human life is somehow sacred? Why would a human life be worth more than a fly's

I think it's quite rational for an atheist, or someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, to put a high value on life, because we believe this is the only chance you get.

I don't think human life is intrinsically more important than a fly's. I value all life. I don't eat meat and would never kill another creature intentionally, not even a fly. If I do value human life more highly in practice, it's only because it's difficult to eliminate chauvinism altogether; one naturally has more or less of a bias towards one's own species Other humans generally have a greater impact on our lives than other animals, although that's by no means a hard and fast rule.
 
I donツ´t think ,that killing a person is that different from killing any other mammal you can get used to it just like butchers get used to killing pigs and cattle.
I personally wouldnツ´t kill because I know at some point my actions would have consequences.
 
I don't really like the 'If ... then.' approach so commonly used. Why the hell would the universe have a special set of rules for when it is not wrong to bring about the destruction of an animal belonging to the species homo sapiens, located within the Via Lactea, in this specific Solar System, on planet Earth? It doesn't sound plausible, does it? Not that I believe that there is such a provision, but it would be less foolish to think of killing as either wrong or not wrong. Either way, the question is answered and we avoid the pitfalls of fictitious ethical problems.
 
Yes, there are times when it's right and even justified (i.e. when a violent criminal is sentenced to death or when a soldier is fighting for his or her life in battle).
 
Why shouldn't I be allowed to kill then ,who says ,that a government is the authority and not me a human being of a sound mind.
Who is a trustworthy authority anyway ,is there any authority ,that can be trusted?
Why should I believe ,that a statesman in any way is authorized to make these decisions.
I believe if a soldier or policeman is entitled to kill me Iツ´m entitled to kill him just as much.
So itツ´s either everyone has the right to kill everyone or no one has the right to kill anyone ,the latter would be the one I find easier to relate to.
 
Who are they to claim there opinion as truth and who are you to blindly believe them?

Laws in society have nothing in common with the laws ,that Einstein or Newton discovered ,they were put there by people not omnipotent,omniscient beings ,why should I trust in their validity?
 
Who are they to claim there opinion as truth and who are you to blindly believe them?

Cosmic laws have nothing to do with human nature. Human laws deal with human nature and human behavior and anyone who believes in the traditional conception of the divine will also believe that the divine also mandated the creation of courts and codes of laws to govern human society. Touchy-feely conceptions the divine simply don't work because they don't take into account mankind's nature as an apex predator.
 
Cosmic laws have nothing to do with human nature. Human laws deal with human nature and human behavior.

Cosmic laws have everything to do with our society ,we developed the way we did because of the cosmic laws setting certain boundaries for life on earth.

A law is always only the acknowledgement of our incapability to solve a problem technically,
if you canツ´t make travel in cars so safe the risk of an accident will be literally 0 put you make a law to restrict the actions of the driver.
 
Cosmic laws have everything to do with our society ,we developed the way we did because of the cosmic laws setting certain boundaries for life on earth.
A law is always only the acknowledgement of our incapability to solve a problem technically,
if you canツ´t make travel in cars so safe the risk of an accident will be literally 0 put you make a law to restrict the actions of the driver.

How so? Does, say, quantum theory determine the course of human behavior? If you think that the blind, scientific laws of nature have anything to do with a dynamic human mentality, that's believing in a sort of scientific astrology.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about , you seem to be missing the fact ,that all our actions in the physical world are tied to boundries set by our body and our sorrounding.
Both were formed according to laws of nature ,some of which we think to know some of which we donツ´t know.

I highly doubt ,that if your arm would grow back after having it cut off the sentence would be the same for the person convicting the "crime".
It might just be a warning for littering...

So why should I accept authority as truth and not truth as authority?
 
I have no idea what you are talking about , you seem to be missing the fact ,that all our actions in the physical world are tied to boundries set by our body and our sorrounding.
Both were formed according to laws of nature ,some of which we think to know some of which we donツ´t know.
I highly doubt ,that if your arm would grow back after having it cut off the sentence would be the same for the person convicting the "crime".
It might just be a warning for littering...
So why should I accept authority as truth and not truth as authority?

The laws of nature, ultimately, are scientific laws.
 
Science is only the observation of the world around us without morally evaluating it.

Therefore these laws in my opinion are more suited to be the basis of our laws ,than any human could ever be ,as wise or intelligent he might be.
 
Science is only the observation of the world around us without morally evaluating it.
Therefore these laws in my opinion are more suited to be the basis of our laws ,than any human could ever be ,as wise or intelligent he might be.

The observation and testing of amoral phenomena. Nature has no morals, nor can science offer a proper basis for laws. For example, the Nazis used science, good and bad, to justify their racial theories and racial laws and many today also support eugenics (a scientific discipline) for, say, the forced sterilization of certain kinds of people they deem unfit to reproduce. Science can be used to justify killing someone, a black or a Jew, someone "not human" according to some scientific definition (people have done and still do this sort of thing), but if a deity says "Thou shalt not murder" that's something set in stone.
 
The observation and testing of amoral phenomena. Nature has no morals, nor can science offer a proper basis for laws. For example, the Nazis used science, good and bad, to justify their racial theories and racial laws and many today also support eugenics (a scientific discipline) for, say, the forced sterilization of certain kinds of people they deem unfit to reproduce. Science can be used to justify killing someone, but if a deity says "Thou shalt not murder" that's something set in stone.

What is a "proper basis" for laws?
I canツ´t argue against something I donツ´t know.
 
What is a "proper basis" for laws?
I canツ´t argue against something I donツ´t know.

Whatever the majority agrees it is, there's the proper basis. Anyone who thinks that humans will follow rational, scientifically-proven laws are mistaken. Science offers theory; what's believed today, like the Big Bang theory, can be replaced by another theory tomorrow, like the Electric Universe theory, if enough scientists accept it.

Years ago, theories were put into communism, which ultimately failed, despite the utopian drivel. Many Marxists glowed with descriptions of "the science of communism" and whatnot, as if it was some grand law of nature. The Soviets believed it, up until 1990 anyways. Today, people still apply similar logical arguments, economic and socio-political, for free market capitalism.
 
Huppiflupp,

Let me just give you a basic view of what I'm thinking of.

God (source of morality)>>>Nature and Man co-equally, as God creates both. God tells man what good and bad mean. Nature is to declare the glory of God, etc. and is to be for man's cultivation, exploitation, and use.

Nature>>>Man, who has to discover what "good" means via inquiry and observation. Man is a product of nature, which cannot, by itself, create morality even if its processes are mechanistically perfect. Man is at the mercy of amoral nature rather than a benevolent deity.
 
Whatever the majority agrees it is, there's the proper basis. Anyone who thinks that humans will follow rational, scientifically-proven laws are mistaken. Science offers theory; what's believed today, like the Big Bang theory, can be replaced by another theory tomorrow, like the Electric Universe theory, if enough scientists accept it.
Years ago, theories were put into communism, which ultimately failed, despite the utopian drivel. Many Marxists glowed with descriptions of "the science of communism" and whatnot, as if it was some grand law of nature. The Soviets believed it, up until 1990 anyways. Today, people still apply similar logical arguments, economic and socio-political, for free market capitalism.

Most of the theories which where incorporated into nation-socialism and communism were cut back according to the size which would fit into the idealistic world view of the party.
And because of this they were worthless and not to be taken seriously in this system.

To share your point of view I would have to accept democracy to some extent at least and I donツ´t.
I believe ,that democracy as any man made structure is only put there to make up for our intellectual shortcomings.
 
Most of the theories which where incorporated into nation-socialism and communism were cut back according to the size which would fit into the idealistic world view of the party.
And because of this they were worthless and not to be taken seriously in this system.
To share your point of view I would have to accept democracy to some extent at least and I donツ´t.
I believe ,that democracy as any man made structure is only put there to make up for our intellectual shortcomings.

Democracy is limited by the fact that it allows predatory capitalism to flourish. Democracy and capitalism aren't the same things, that just seems to be the case to many.
 
Why shouldn't I be allowed to kill then ,who says ,that a government is the authority and not me a human being of a sound mind.

If you are a person of sound mind, I doubt you would think killing should be allowed, even if it meant it contradicted what government authorities stated. Are you implying that your mind is more sound than those in power?

Who is a trustworthy authority anyway ,is there any authority, that can be trusted?
Why should I believe ,that a statesman in any way is authorized to make these decisions.
I believe if a soldier or policeman is entitled to kill me Iツ´m entitled to kill him just as much.
So itツ´s either everyone has the right to kill everyone or no one has the right to kill anyone ,the latter would be the one I find easier to relate to.

The only way a soldier or policeman would be entitled to kill you is if it was in self defense, and vice versa for you. So in that sense, yes, you are already entitled to kill him just as much as they are entitled to kill you. I don't see a need for a dichotomy as you have put it.
 
Back
Top Bottom