Why are we not allowed to kill

[Beefy187]

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Could anyone inspire me please?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, the trite response is: would you personally like to be killed or in fear of your life every moment?

[InsaneApache]

Well, the trite response is: would you personally like to be killed or in fear of your life every moment?

A bit like posting an atheism/free health care/gun control thread in the backroom then.

[KukriKhan]

A bit like posting an atheism/free health care/gun control thread in the backroom then.

Blimey*,





*it's my new favourite word, now that I know what it means

-edit-
more on-topic: I guess we decided we wanted to reduce the stress of a kill-or-be-killed lifestyle.

[rasoforos]

Hmm its one of these questions that u never think unless asked...

...the answer would be different for every person.


I would say (from a strictly secular point of view) because:

a) we are self aware and know that killing is a permanent change. This has given us a feeling of the vast importance of life.

b) we usually do not desire to be killed and we agree that 'to not kill' is a decent price to pay for 'not be killed'. In simpler words we as individuals probably feel that we have better chances in a society that killing is illegal.

c) frankly, we are too good at it. You dont become the dominant species on earth unless you are a very efficient killer. We are one of the few animals that kill for fun. A Taboo on murder is therefore a way to prevent self destruction.

[rory_20_uk]

Not to kill one's group is an evolutionary advantageous thing to do as then all can be looking out at threats rather than all looking every way. The the powerful ones who are expendible (men) can be stationwed at the rim whereas the weaker, more important ones (women, children) stay safe in the middle.

It's not the killing that has made us number 1, it's the eating. We can eat most things everywhere, and can even make food grow where it otherwise isn't to further boost numbers.

I'd say this is why we also are fine with "hunting" each other in "packs" as that is what is also an evolutionary advantage. Only killing what is perceived to be part of the "pack" is when we revile killings. Else they're a glorious victory.

This of course emcompasses armies in one sense, but also gang warfare where they'll happily kill each other's members for power and position.

[KukriKhan]

Hmm its one of these questions that u never think unless asked...

...the answer would be different for every person.


I would say (from a strictly secular point of view) because:

a) we are self aware and know that killing is a permanent change. This has given us a feeling of the vast importance of life.

b) we usually do not desire to be killed and we agree that 'to not kill' is a decent price to pay for 'not be killed'. In simpler words we as individuals probably feel that we have better chances in a society that killing is illegal.

c) frankly, we are too good at it. You dont become the dominant species on earth unless you are a very efficient killer. We are one of the few animals that kill for fun. A Taboo on murder is therefore a way to prevent self destruction.

That makes sense. I wonder if we (humans) started banning human-killing about the same time that we switched from hunter-gatherer to farmer. Killing a rival hunter over who gets to drag the wholly mammoth home to the cave was brutal, but understandable.

Killing your fellow wheat-grower would just be stupid (less wheat production).

[julius_caesar_the_first]

This is just my personal opinion born from my little observations about the world so I could be completely wrong but...

I believe we are geneticly programed NOT to be able to kill each other in order to protect the species from self-destruction. From what I understand animals in general don't kill members of their own species except rarely and accidentally. Since I believe evolutionism I believe humans have the same instincts as other animals. Most normal people would have a hard time killing another human in normal circumstances.

As an example: as far as I know soldiers, for who killing is "good", need to be conditioned to be able to kill. It's not something natural in most cases. And in order to make it easier the "enemy" is always demonized and made to look non-human in the eyes of the soldiers. And at the end of the war, from what I have heard, many soldiers have long term psychological problems.

Again, I have little information too back this up so I could be wrong. It's just from my observations about people in general.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, the trite response is: would you personally like to be killed or in fear of your life every moment?

That has always been the worst and most irrelevant response. Who cares what other people want, realistically? Does me not killing one person have anything to do with whether someone kills me or not? Probably not. In specific instances that rationale would make sense, such as when you are in a room full of people who want to kill one another. Most of the time you killing someone wouldn't impact whether or not you are killed, so the question is irrelevant as it relates to its inherent immorality. To do that you have to find out where your specific moral code comes from.

[Lord Winter]

That has always been the worst and most irrelevant response. Who cares what other people want, realistically? Does me not killing one person have anything to do with whether someone kills me or not? Probably not. In specific instances that rationale would make sense, such as when you are in a room full of people who want to kill one another. Most of the time you killing someone wouldn't impact whether or not you are killed, so the question is irrelevant as it relates to its inherent immorality. To do that you have to find out where your specific moral code comes from.

It may force people to take action against it, by at first dealing with the murderer then eventually establishing courts and what not. That action may morph into a kind of moral code.

[Ironside]

That has always been the worst and most irrelevant response. Who cares what other people want, realistically?

Caring about other people's perception of yourself is about one of the most essential things a human does, due to us being social beings. That's because it controls social contact, something that's essential to our well being and sometimes also our lives.

That makes sure that people care (due to empathy) or pretend to care.

[Kagemusha]

Because society cant function properly, if people start killing each other because of various reasons. without being punished. Killing would automatically turn into blood feuds, because if you would kill someones family member, more likely he would come after you for revenge.

[Meneldil]

I think Norbert Elias' The Civilizing Process more or less covered how and why killing and harming other people became more and more of a tabou as "civilisation" "progressed" (notice the double quotation marks).

As for the basic premises, I'd say it's partly because of religion, partly because of an egoistic need to protect yourself.
Religion because, according to most myths, human beings were created by some superior guy(s). Thus, killing an human being with no reason would basically mean destroying your god's work.
Egoistic point of view because, despite all the crap about the afterlife, I think most people enjoy their life, or somehow think that they could at some point enjoy their life, and thus want to protect themselves from violence. Establishing rules to outlaw murder seems like a good way to do so.

Then, you have the classical theories of nature, by Hobbes, Locke and many other thinkers. Even though each of them has its own flavor, the idea is that, in an anarchical state, you were either going to spend your life trying to survive or to be killed at some point. Since a society simply couldn't work that way, human had to overcome their rivalry and greed and to reach an agreement on various rules such as "You shall not kill your neighbour" - rules mostly enforced by what would become states, governments, etc.

[Andres]

As others said, because otherwise ("civilised"?) societies wouldn't function.

On the other hand, when it happens on a large and organised scale for various preferably vague reasons, they call it "war" and your government even encourages you to go kill other people.

Absurd, isn't it?

[naut]

I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

There isn't any.

Society tries to create intricate moral codes and methodologies and philosophies in an attempt to fabricate reasons why it is, such as Good vs Evil, Truth vs Lies, Moralism, Human Equality and Humanism. But, all of these are just thoughts, nothing more.

Also there is the matter of whether you believe in good and bad as universal truths. But, I digress before I start arguing semantics.

Edit: Adrian beat me to it.

[Kralizec]

People have already mentioned Hobbes, providing the reason why murder is banned. The reason why you shouldn't kill is because in all probability, you'll be caught and jailed.

If you're smart and can evade being caught, there isn't any objective reason not to. Only your subjective feelings about it. Like feeling sorry for those you kill, for example

[Crazed Rabbit]

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Could anyone inspire me please?

It is the greatest infringement on the rights of another person. Of course, some people forfeit this fundamental right when they attack others - so a person breaking into a house has forfeited their right not to be killed by infringing on the rights of the homeowner. It should go without saying that not all infringements of rights committed by a person lead to the forfeiting of the right to life.

CR

[Beefy187]

Thanks heaps for many ideas I think everything said here makes sense, and I will not argue with any of them because they are all right in a way.

just to stir up more discussion. Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Ill keep observing the arguments, and hopefully I can come up with my own ideas soon.

[Meneldil]

It is the greatest infringement on the rights of another person. Of course, some people forfeit this fundamental right when they attack others - so a person breaking into a house has forfeited their right not to be killed by infringing on the rights of the homeowner. It should go without saying that not all infringements of rights committed by a person lead to the forfeiting of the right to life.

CR

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Using my previous arguments:
In an anarchical state, because that family might very well have friends, or relatives, and they might very well be pissed off by you're action, thus seeking revenge, and creating an institution of fear and disorder until one of the two parties completely disappear.
In an organized society, because you'll be seen as a potential threat by everyone, forcing them to act accordingly by punishing you or killing you.

Overall, the kind of situation you describe cannot be solved. If you fear that you have to kill someone before he kills you, what prevents other people from thinking they should kill you before you kill them? After all, you will be the one who already comitted a murder on a simple assumption. Who is to say that you're not going to try to kill someone else after? Thus, you achieve no peace by killing the other family, but only create a sentiment of constant fear.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Our culture views Life, Liberty and Property as being fundamental for the individual. This draws, obviously, on the ideas Locke advances regarding these concepts.

If one views property as a fundamental right, than the defense of that right is a compelling interest on the part of the individual.

The person considering breaking and entering can protect their fundamental right to life quite readily by NOT infringing on the fundamental right of another.

[Meneldil]

Our culture views Life, Liberty and Property as being fundamental for the individual. This draws, obviously, on the ideas Locke advances regarding these concepts.

Then we're back to culture.

That has always been the worst and most irrelevant response. Who cares what other people want, realistically?

I think you're quite wrong on this. Everybody actes according to others' view. Not only we care about what they want, but also about what they think, do or say, and we define our behavior given these informations. Some people chose to behave as people expect them to do, some others willingfully chose not to.

Without a metaphysical superlative - murder, theft, etc are not wrong, they may just be inoportune in the name of balance and hypothetical personal security. The funny thing is that those who beleive in nothing still appeal to universal concepts to express their outrage when killing happens.

Everyone dies.

The real question is "why not" embrace nature and kill as callously as a falling tree or suffocating tide if you'd like to? You have better than a 50% chance of getting away with it - and if you beleive that humans are just animals, then the guilt should be gone in the same basket as God, Heaven, and hell.

By metaphysical superlative, do you mean some kind of god? If so, I call on BS. Many people wanted to explain why murder is bad without using universal principles. We so far reached several conclusions:
- there's actually no reason why murder is "bad"
- we decided it was bad out of a rational, egoistical reasoning
- we avoid killing eachother because of empathy
- we avoid killing eachother to protect our gene pool

Yet, even if I think each of these postulates is somewhat right, I still on a personal level use universal concepts to blame (most) murderers, and I don't believe in God/gods/Heaven/Hell. Universal Concepts are not limited to believers. We had this whole Enlightment thingy a few centuries ago you know.

[CBR]

Yet, even if I think each of these postulates is somewhat right, I still on a personal level use universal concepts to blame (most) murderers, and I don't believe in God/gods/Heaven/Hell. Universal Concepts are not limited to believers. We had this whole Enlightment thingy a few centuries ago you know.

By universal I assume that is meant as in 100% ?

Not all humans shows remorse/empathy and some seem to have no problems with killing. So killing=bad cannot be seen as universal for humans. I guess it can be considered universal if one looks at society(the majority) in general.

AFAIK there are examples of animals showing compassion even towards other species so one cannot even say it is a human concept only.


CBR

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

Because our life is the basis for all that we are as humans. It is being alive that is the essence of our existence and to take that completely and totally destroys a person in this world. Life is a gift from God, and to take it destroys that gift.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Breaking into a house - a significant difference. And I'm not about to bet my safety or the safety of those I care about on the benevolence of a person who has already committed a crime against me.

Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Very vague, but here's a bit of an answer - call the police or whoever if you have evidence they are going to kill you. Otherwise, simply be prepared should they arrive at your house.

I think it is wrong to want to kill simply so one is not inconvenienced. It is preemptive action in this case - essentially judging them guilty before they even commit a crime.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Could anyone inspire me please?

By realistic standards, nothing is bad. I don't see why if a lion kills me it is just nature but if a human does it is somehow morally wrong. From a religious perspective it is wrong because it contravenes God's law, but from a rational human perspective I have never been able to figure it out. I know it may not be "nice" or fair, but when has life ever been? I see realistic reasons why you shouldn't do it, such as getting caught, creating blood feuds, etc - but I don't see why it is inherently wrong if you can get away with it.

Call me crazy, but I don't do it because it isn't worth the hassle right now. If it ever becomes worth the hassle I wouldn't do it because God doesn't want me to, not because I beleive that I shouldn't from a secular point of view.

[CBR]

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

Ok I don't know the details of that trial but it does sound a bit odd. If she feels sorry for the victims then why did she do it in the first place and why that last bit about "why we can't kill". If she truly was sorry would she even ask that last question?

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Humans are social animals. If we were 100% sociopaths(especially with low "social cognition") instead of just about that 1% of the population I doubt we would have moved much beyond the Primordial Soup.

Having empathy/conscience has a nasty tendency of limiting violent acts against fellow human beings. Of course it can be reduced by various factors but empathy seems to be working pretty well for a majority of humans. And that is IMO the main reason why most people find killing bad.


CBR

[Beefy187]

Ok I don't know the details of that trial but it does sound a bit odd. If she feels sorry for the victims then why did she do it in the first place and why that last bit about "why we can't kill". If she truly was sorry would she even ask that last question?

I just read it on the news so I don't know the details or the actual murder incident. But I think she is trying to challenge the society by killing the children for fun rather then personal grudge against particular child. If thats not the case then I have no clue what she was trying to do or if she is even sane.

[Husar]

Humans are social animals. If we were 100% sociopaths(especially with low "social cognition") instead of just about that 1% of the population I doubt we would have moved much beyond the Primordial Soup.

Having empathy/conscience has a nasty tendency of limiting violent acts against fellow human beings. Of course it can be reduced by various factors but empathy seems to be working pretty well for a majority of humans. And that is IMO the main reason why most people find killing bad.


CBR

Yes, I was about to say (again) that feelings do play into this more than some seem to admit, it's not all about logic, for example who here chose his wife after calculating which woman would net him the biggest financial benefits?
Many humans do kill despite all the rational reasons etc. when their respect for their "victim" goes below a certain level, when they momentarily lose all empathy for that person. There are other reasons, like a hired killer may have more logical reasons to kill like monetary gain but then the percentage of professional killers is rather low I'd guess.

Soldiers also fit into this nicely as they are trained not to respect the enemies of their country and they seem to "make up" for this by having very strong bonds inside the army. I'll make a wild guess that when they start to realize their enemies are humans as well, is when many of them get nightmares and the like.

[Quietus]

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Could anyone inspire me please?

The pressure not to kill/cannibalize comes from us preserving our gene pool (since only of the same species can reproduce). That's why most other species do not either. Simply put, the species who does should be and must be extinct already.

That's why you have a predator and a prey. You don't have a predator lion and a prey lion right?

[Beefy187]

I heard a while ago that there is this switch in our head which prevents us from killing others. According to some stats I heard from my history teacher which I vaguely recall, only ten percent of American soldier in WWII successfully hit the enemy with their rifles, while others panicked and missed.

To get rid of this switch, Spartans trained their youth by letting them massacre the helots even though this leads to lower production. I agree that it is natural instinct to avoid killing each other. But what I originally wanted to know is if there is a way to convince someone not to kill or to condemn someone who committed murder.

[CBR]

I just read it on the news so I don't know the details or the actual murder incident. But I think she is trying to challenge the society by killing the children for fun rather then personal grudge against particular child. If thats not the case then I have no clue what she was trying to do or if she is even sane.

Ah I see. Yes she certainly seem rather disturbed. Nothing that can't be fixed with a short trip at the end of a rope though...


CBR