Why are we not allowed to kill

[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.

[Don Corleone]

It really comes down to moral relativism versus moral absolutism, doesn't it? As much as the concept of universal justice is ridiculed and bemoaned by the sophisticated elite, without it, can one really formulate a solid argument against anything as being inherently bad? If one can, doesn't that mean one has unconciously stepped into the world of moral absolutes themselves, no?

I have tried as an intellectual exercise to formulate arguments against theft, battery and murder without resorting to the use of universal concepts. I guess I'm meant to be a defense attorney, because at the end of the day, I find myself much more capable of rebutting said arguments than I am of formulating them. Any justice system I can propose that has apriori prohibition on murder or theft requires the concept of moral absolutes.

For those of you sniffing "theocracy, by any other name, does it not smell so sour", note I said moral absolutes and universal truths. I did not say that I require a concept of a supreme being. I believe one can codify law based on moral absolutes without the need for a formulator of said absolutes. "LIFE" in and of itself can be a moral absolute, without the need for a life-giver.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It really comes down to moral relativism versus moral absolutism, doesn't it? As much as the concept of universal justice is ridiculed and bemoaned by the sophisticated elite, without it, can one really formulate a solid argument against anything as being inherently bad? If one can, doesn't that mean one has unconciously stepped into the world of moral absolutes themselves, no?

I have tried as an intellectual exercise to formulate arguments against theft, battery and murder without resorting to the use of universal concepts. I guess I'm meant to be a defense attorney, because at the end of the day, I find myself much more capable of rebutting said arguments than I am of formulating them. Any justice system I can propose that has apriori prohibition on murder or theft requires the concept of moral absolutes.

For those of you sniffing "theocracy, by any other name, does it not smell so sour", note I said moral absolutes and universal truths. I did not say that I require a concept of a supreme being. I believe one can codify law based on moral absolutes without the need for a formulator of said absolutes. "LIFE" in and of itself can be a moral absolute, without the need for a life-giver.

I agree wholeheartedly. I try to post my responses and THEN read the responses of others.

[Meneldil]

Doesn't the simple fact that by killing someone, you put an end to his life even though he doesn't want it, and then have no way to change what you've done pretty much explain how and why killing is bad?

None ask a murderer to have remorse. I don't, simply because what is done is done, and remorse or not, nothing is going to change it. But on the other hand, the murdered might have appreciated to have a voice in the matter.

If, according to you, there's no reason as to why killing is bad, then what is bad? I'm somewhat puzzled here: are you being cynical or are you trying to push relativism as far as possible?

Edit: this was directed at AdrianII.

Don, let's assume that human beings don't kill eachothers simply because they don't want to spend their time protecting their back or seeking revenge (ie. out of a pure rational and self-centered thinking). Would you consider that as relying onto morals?

[Don Corleone]

Don, let's assume that human beings don't kill eachothers simply because they don't want to spend their time protecting their back or seeking revenge (ie. out of a pure rational and self-centered thinking). Would you consider that as relying onto morals?

No, that is in fact a pragmatic argument. I do not resort to violence so that I can safely assume others won't engage in violence against me.

But this pragmatic argument breaks down on two levels.

First, it's a suggested reason not to kill, not an imperative not to kill. If I am going to act as amoral (not immoral) operator within society, what requires me not to break my end of the social contract? If I believe you're going to be peaceful, as is everyone else, why shouldn't I just, on my own step in and take the benefit of your non-violence AND the added benefit of my own violence? Without using universal precepts such as 'fairness', explain to me why my action would be wrong.


Second, it assumes that all human beings will act rationally and will weigh the consequences of their actions prior to partaking them. It's been my experience that would be a rather poor assumption.

[Husar]

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