Why are we not allowed to kill

[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.

[Meneldil]

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.

1 - What do you mean by wrong? I assume you mean "why my action would not profit me?". I'd say because by then, you would be seen as a potential danger by the rest of the population, which mean someone would soon take care of you so you don't threaten the social contract anymore. As long as it is in the vast majority's interest to prohibit murder, we can *assume* that murderers would be dealt with. Once again, this postulate is valuable only if you're rational and think on the long-term.

2 - Agreed, human beings are probably as much emotional as they are rational. But while I see where you're coming from, doesn't your argument also apply to nowadays societies, in which murder is prohibited according to universal principles and laws ?
Some people chose to not respect these principles, even though it is not rational and apparently a poor choice. Yet, it happens.

[Don Corleone]

1 - What do you mean by wrong? I assume you mean "why my action would not profit me?". I'd say because by then, you would be seen as a potential danger by the rest of the population, which mean someone would soon take care of you so you don't threaten the social contract anymore. As long as it is in the vast majority's interest to prohibit murder, we can *assume* that murderers would be dealt with. Once again, this postulate is valuable only if you're rational and think on the long-term.

2 - Agreed, human beings are probably as much emotional as they are rational. But while I see where you're coming from, doesn't your argument also apply to nowadays societies, in which murder is prohibited according to universal principles and laws ?
Some people chose to not respect these principles, even though it is not rational and apparently a poor choice. Yet, it happens.

1) Good point. Please revise my question from 'what would be wrong' to 'what would preclude me and others like me from acting in such a manner'.

2) I totally agree that universal truths are no more appealing to the rational mind than a rational argument. But if we accept the existence of universal truths, there is no need to justify the state's actions against the individual in the particular. In a system where the cohesive force is the rational justification to each and every member, can not one individual make the argument that the state has no right to act against them in punishment, as they were merely acting in their own best interests? My system of 'universal truths' sidesteps that argument, because it does not require a reponse by the state to each and every individual. Put another way, by assuming a 'universal truth', the social contact is made by the state with the body politic, not the individual members. If one abandons the idea of 'universal truths', truths which apply not to 'all' members of the body politic, but each and every member, than the social contract must be made with each and every member, a system which is untenable beyond the village level.

[Ironside]

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.

It is none, being ruthless will give you the benefits.

But such a group is weaker than the cooperative group. So every action that's damaging for the integrety of the own group is considered bad, because it threatens the strength of the group.

Short version:
Being alone= bad
Being in a group= good for all in that group
Abusing the group = good for you, bad for the rest
Act in a manner that threatens to destroy the group = bad

And therein lies the balance that runs the world today.

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.

There are some instinctual rules that most people will follow. But I doubt you can call it the universal truth, because thanks to our capacity of thinking, we can go beyond our instincts and go to be slaves to the rule that says what the group does is always right (justifies murder, rape, theft, giving up/killing your own child, etc).

[Husar]

Well, I can certainly say that for myself, emotions do play a role. There's a bit more to it than just the rational and if I'm the only one who thinks that way I shall kill all the others to create a better world.