Why are we not allowed to kill

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

Loads of animals will kill their own species - for personal gain. E.G. Male lions will kill each other, and then kill all the rival's cubs so they can produce their own. Birds will kill eggs of rival birds.

Going to more simple animals, many amphibians view developing amphibians of the same species as a snack, ditto fish and their fry.

[Adrian II]

On the other hand the case can be made that societies need enemies (hence killing) in order to be civilized, i.e. internally stable, relatively peaceful and productive.

I see a lot of social or evolutionary arguments. But I believe OP meant to ask something else. He wants a 'valid reason why killing is bad'.

There is none.

In any given situation each of us makes a personal choice to kill or not to kill. Whether it is based on our own considerations or on an external authority (religion, the law), the choice is ours and we are responsible for its consequences. Most people chose to obey 'God' or the law, others make their own 'laws' or moral guidelines, but all of us act out of a personal conviction, implicit as that may be. There are no immanently valid reasons for either choice.

OP may want to read Albert Camus' novel The Stranger, in which the main character Meursault commits a murder and feels no remorse. He flouts formalities and received ideas, which makes you realise (whilst reading) how much of our daily life is really governed by them, and how absurd they really are.

Meursault is sentenced to the guillotine not because of the murder as such, but because he is judged to be an insensitive and unsociable person.

[Husar]

Not to forget that having friends is much more rewarding than having enemies everywhere.

[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.