View Full Version : Is killing another human being wrong?
Jericho Desu
Jul 29, 2009, 10:59
Ok, first of all no I haven't gone mad or plan to kill anyone...
This subject has been bothering me quite abit and it really didn't hit home till I started watching Red Cliff (part 1) which is basically another Chinese old "swords and arrows" movie (albeit a pretty good one) and I was thinking "wow all this killing and this is basically... entertainment" which led me to this question.
Do you in your honest opinion believe there is a justifiable reason to kill a fellow human being? When people go to war for example they do it to "defend their country", but going to war usually means killing, regardless of the circumstances that is what you would do, so does war justify killing? The death penalty is another one, a person commits a grave crime and people decide he deserves death essentially meaning a person or a group of people play God and decide to take that person's life.
I know this could be a very broad subject really, but the jist of it I think is pretty clear.
As for my own opinion well, personally I believe no human has the right to take another's life, we should be far above that. You could argue then do we have a so called "right" to take an animal's life? For me I would only kill an animal to eat it not because I think it should die, of course that's a whole different thing anyway.
ASHIKAGA
Jul 29, 2009, 11:22
I voted "I don't know".
If someone was anout to chop up my loved one with an axe, and I had a gun in my hand,
I don't think I would hesitate to shoot that person (the person with the axe, not my loved one). If that person ends up dying from the gunshot, is my action justifiable because I was just trying to save my loved one? Does the fact that I did not set out to KILL her/him make any difference? I don't know. :?
Jericho Desu
Jul 29, 2009, 11:33
I voted "I don't know".
If someone was anout to chop up my loved one with an axe, and I had a gun in my hand,
I don't think I would hesitate to shoot that person (the person with the axe, not my loved one). If that person ends up dying from the gunshot, is my action justifiable because I was just trying to save my loved one? Does the fact that I did not set out to KILL her/him make any difference? I don't know. :?
I've also thought about a situation like that; if someone say killed my mum and I had them cornered with a gun or something I'm not sure what I'd do. I would like to say I would think of how my mum wouldn't want me killing someone and end up going to jail for the rest of my life therefore proberly leave the guy black and blue for the cops, but I don't know...
Morbid little quiz maker aren't ya! :D
I voted Yes, there are times when it is ok. I used to be more on the side that it is never right; however, I'm far more pragmatic now. If someone is going to try to kill me, I will not hesitate to defend myself by any means necessary. If someone tries to kill those I care about, then I'm going to take them out first. Now, I won't actively seek out to cause harm, but I have no moral problems with defending myself or others from anyone who directly, and clearly seeks to do them mortal harm.
Of course, this can get murky really fast, especially when it gets into international relations, wars, and who knows what...
justin
Jul 30, 2009, 15:59
To protect my family and friends I will kill, but it would be quick and clean.
Derfel
Jul 30, 2009, 16:15
I think there should be an option 'No, its not.', because I personally don't think it is right or wrong. I merely think of it as a fact, an unfortunate one from our perspective, but still merely a fact.
Tsuyoiko
Jul 30, 2009, 16:50
Like Derfel, I'm not happy with the terms "right" and "wrong". I voted "Yes, it's sometimes right" because that matches my opinion most closely, although I wouldn't phrase it in exactly those words. I think in some rare situations, killing someone is the most reasonable course of action.
Like Derfel, I'm not happy with the terms "right" and "wrong". I voted "Yes, it's sometimes right" because that matches my opinion most closely, although I wouldn't phrase it in exactly those words. I think in some rare situations, killing someone is the most reasonable course of action.
I agree,and i choose "Yes, it's sometimes right" ..
No one have the right to take the life of someone else or even his life.
Derfel
Jul 31, 2009, 03:32
I agree,and i choose "Yes, it's sometimes right" ..
No one have the right to take the life of someone else or even his life.
That is contradictory, I'm afraid.
Jericho Desu
Jul 31, 2009, 04:52
Hmm... I understand what you guys mean, it is a fact and maybe in certain situations it's the only option, but for me it feels weird, I think there would always be a plan B. I guess I'm just naive, but that's ok with me lol
That is contradictory, I'm afraid.
hmmm..let's say someone else's life,because your life or my life will lead to another subject like Suicide.
Derfel
Jul 31, 2009, 07:27
Hmm... I understand what you guys mean, it is a fact and maybe in certain situations it's the only option, but for me it feels weird, I think there would always be a plan B. I guess I'm just naive, but that's ok with me lol
Of course you would feel weird. Any normal person would feel pretty weird if he had to kill another being (animals included). Its only a matter of whether you attribute special importance to life, something inherent. And yes, there's always plan B, but people quickly forget the risky, dangerous plan B which could prevent the death of the assailant or whoever, because, to tell the truth, when the survival mechanism kicks in, most people care so very little for others' lives.
Jericho-san,Did you kill someone ? hahahaah i wonder why you ask such a question like this lol.
MyNoteToSelf
Jul 31, 2009, 07:49
I voted "Yes" because I think it's fine if it's to defend yourself, and/or you can't possibly save yourself and let them live.
Jericho Desu
Jul 31, 2009, 08:28
Jericho-san,Did you kill someone ? hahahaah i wonder why you ask such a question like this lol.
Haha, no not yet, its just that I see death/killing depicted in so much of our media and the general reaction is like this is the norm, which in some ways it is, but I sometimes feel people are not very conscious about what they're seeing or what they are enjoying.
I mean growing up it was very simple wasn't it? There are the good guys who beat the bad guys, as you get older the bad guys are not only beaten but are killed, but that's made out to be perfectly acceptable, the fact that the person is human, proberly has family and a heartbeat like all of us seems to float out of the mind.
The older I've gotten the more conscious I've become of this, I know this is part of us, it has been proberly since the beginning, but with how we "advance" make new technologies, get smarter, go political correctness crazy, go into space etc etc, it seems some things never change.
Can't wait to play Killzone 2 on hard tonight! :blush:
Jordan X Anthony
Jul 31, 2009, 10:11
I think it's only right if you're forced to, if you're fighting for your life and have no other option. Although I'm not a fan of the whole "Kill or be killed' phrase, some people don't have a choice. It makes me glad that I don't have to kill other humans to live my daily life.
Jericho Desu
Jul 31, 2009, 10:16
Yes that's very true, in some place right now a person has to make that decision to survive. I do often think how lucky I am even though I complain alot, but I get that from my mum =P
P.S. Welcome!
Jordan X Anthony
Jul 31, 2009, 10:21
Yes I agree. I feel very sorry for the less-fortunate people that live in the world. I want to some how make a difference, or at least try and help as many people as I can.
And thank you for the welcoming ( :
out-topic:
uhm,you are a gamer Jericho !
Do you play Killzone 2 on Playstation 3 ?
On-topic:
I am glad i am not forced to kill someone ^^
Haha, no not yet
sounds like you are waiting for the Opportunity hehe *joke*
I hope no one of us forced to kill someone ever.
Quailboy
Jul 31, 2009, 15:05
Yes I agree. I feel very sorry for the less-fortunate people that live in the world. I want to some how make a difference, or at least try and help as many people as I can.
And thank you for the welcoming ( :
But really Jay...can we help all the ignorant selfish people in this place?
Jordan X Anthony
Jul 31, 2009, 15:19
But really Jay...can we help all the ignorant selfish people in this place?
Negative, it is their choice to help themselves.
Derfel
Jul 31, 2009, 17:21
The ignorant, selfish people being?
Quailboy
Jul 31, 2009, 20:04
The ignorant, selfish people being?
In the USA at least, the majority or people.
Jericho Desu
Jul 31, 2009, 20:20
In the USA at least, the majority or people.
There are ignorant selfish people everywhere and I think saying the majority of the US is ignorant is abit too far.
Quailboy
Jul 31, 2009, 20:40
There are ignorant selfish people everywhere and I think saying the majority of the US is ignorant is abit too far.
I noticed you live in London...have you been to the US?
Jericho Desu
Jul 31, 2009, 20:50
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
Jul 31, 2009, 20:54
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.
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
Aug 4, 2009, 04:49
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
Aug 4, 2009, 06:40
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 :blush:
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.
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
Aug 10, 2009, 21:31
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?
Derfel
Aug 11, 2009, 18:21
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
Aug 12, 2009, 04:49
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
Aug 12, 2009, 09:38
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.
who killed a person in desire should be killed by the government.
Derfel
Aug 13, 2009, 05:42
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
Aug 13, 2009, 05:52
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
Aug 13, 2009, 07:08
Agreed. The individual should be isolated from society so they are no longer a threat to that society.
Totally agree with that.
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.
Derfel
Aug 14, 2009, 01:04
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.
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
Aug 20, 2009, 12:12
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
Aug 20, 2009, 13:23
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
Sep 3, 2009, 04:48
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.
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.
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 !
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
Sep 10, 2009, 16:53
I heard a pretty good argument against capital punishment yesterday: If you hate the idea of killing you're against it.
I don't believe it's right for the purposes of 'revenge'. And anyway, I would much rather make them suffer by being locked up for a long time (though my preferences would no doubt be much stricter than the law!). But that doesn't mean I would necessarily be good and refuse the temptation to get revenge on a loved one... :-s
However, I think it could be justified in a case of suffering. Now, I usually do not agree with 'mercy killing' in a situation where the person is not in pain, or the pain could be alleviated, and I'm not talking about elderly or terminally ill people who want a nice injection. I mean if I was in the army, for example, and I had a colleague who had been horribly injured and they were in pain and I knew they could not live anyway, and there was not a chance of getting medical help within a reasonable timeframe, I would not hesitate to shoot them out of mercy.
aroundtraveler
Oct 2, 2009, 21:45
Killing is allways a wrong decission.
Killing is allways a wrong decission.
So simply,can someone tell me if killing Bin Laden is wrong ? or Killing someone who is about to kill you ?
Tsuyoiko
Oct 3, 2009, 01:33
So simply,can someone tell me if killing Bin Laden is wrong ? or Killing someone who is about to kill you ?
I think killing Bin Laden is wrong because I don't think capital punishment is an acceptable form of justice. It's hypocritical to punish a person for killing people by killing them!
I think killing someone in self defence is understandable and impossible to classify as right or wrong. To know the difference between right and wrong a person must be of sound mind, and it's reasonable to assume that a person who's in mortal danger will act on instinct rather than rational judgement.
aroundtraveler
Oct 3, 2009, 08:26
I think killing Bin Laden is wrong because I don't think capital punishment is an acceptable form of justice. It's hypocritical to punish a person for killing people by killing them!
I completely agree with you, Talion's law is one of the worst human action, it makes no sense and calls for more violence.
Anchyyy
Oct 24, 2009, 18:47
I voted it's never right. I really don't know if I could kill anyone, even if were talking about self defense.
RavenRockstar
Oct 25, 2009, 15:47
Im not sure if I can really call it right or wrong
It just is.
But if I was about to be raped or something, and I had a weapon with me, his *** is grass.
But if I was about to be raped or something
Haha, you don't need all that bollocks. If you were assaulted without a means to escape, you could easily kill in self-defence and claim that you thought that your life was at risk. Even if the lack of information wouldn't acquit you, the jury would. :D
RavenRockstar
Nov 4, 2009, 23:33
More than likely ^^
Not that Im looking forward to it or anything, just saying that there are acceptable situations
grayburst
Nov 5, 2009, 03:29
I would say it is justified to take another humans life in the following cases.
1. Self Defense or defense of a loved one.
2. Wartime, but then you get into the moral and ethics question of what is and is not a just war.
3. When a people or state execute a person proven guilty of a horrorible crime such as murder, but even here there are huge questions about 'right and wrong'.
4. It may not be right, but there are many cases in where small groups of people both compete over scarse resources for survival. Only enough for one group, so some one wins and some one loses. That leads to conflict and often killing.
This one of the deepest questions in all of Ethnics and no final answer yet.
RolandtheHeadless
Nov 5, 2009, 18:58
In moral terms, some people simply forfeit their right to life. We've had a couple serial killers here in Alaska who deserved to lose their lives. I don't want to consider any possibility that they might ever be out walking the streets again, released by corrupt or bone-headed officials.
From a rational perspective, incarcerating these vermin for life makes no sense. It costs on the order of $80,000 per year to incarcerate a prisoner in the US. Government funds are not unlimited. We have better things to do with these funds, like maybe providing the free medical care that prisoners get to more of our poor and unemployed law-abiding citizens.
Because taxpayer largesse is not unlimited, governments have to make trade-offs in lives versus money all the time. The curve of the new highway will cause six deaths per year, some bureaucrat will calculate. It might have been reduced to three deaths per year, if only taxpayers had been willing to pay for a better, more expensive design.
I don't see how economic expediency would justify killing people. Also, I don't see how anything would justify not killing them. I think many of the people in this thread are trapped in the web of arbitrariness. Economic expediency can be a reason for causing death, it is not a justification. You are neither meant to take life, nor are you meant not to take it. The taking of life is a fact, the rest is just rubbish. It is nothing else but fact.
grayburst
Nov 6, 2009, 03:14
I disagree vehemently, Derfel. Any of over a dozen major religions put marked and intense significance on the taking of a human life. People who live by any of those religions or ethics systems derived from them will never see the ending of a human life as just arbitrary or a simple matter of fact situation.
RolandtheHeadless
Nov 6, 2009, 04:39
"So simply,can someone tell me if killing Bin Laden is wrong ?"
If I could find him in my sights, I'd be honored to be the one to squeeze the trigger.
I disagree vehemently, Derfel. Any of over a dozen major religions put marked and intense significance on the taking of a human life. People who live by any of those religions or ethics systems derived from them will never see the ending of a human life as just arbitrary or a simple matter of fact situation.
Does that really matter? Superstition hardly has the authority to make valid normative claims. Ultimately, if we discard all the fictitious shells concealing our reality, we find only one type of law: the laws of nature. And this type of law is self-enforcing. Any other claim or command is laughable in terms of authority.
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.