Why are we not allowed to kill

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[rasoforos]

Without a metaphysical superlative - murder, theft, etc are not wrong, they may just be inoportune in the name of balance and hypothetical personal security.

This is rather insulting. You are insinuating that without believing in a god you don't find all these crimes wrong. It is like saying that if i.e you are a Catholic then you believe murder theft etc is right. It groups a whole group of people (Atheists) and makes an unsubstantiated accusation against them and their moral codes.

Apart from insulting it is, of course, very very wrong.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is rather insulting. You are insinuating that without believing in a god you don't find all these crimes wrong. It is like saying that if i.e you are a Catholic then you believe murder theft etc is right. It groups a whole group of people (Atheists) and makes an unsubstantiated accusation against them and their moral codes.

Apart from insulting it is, of course, very very wrong.

How? I'm not saying that you are a murderer, just that murder to you is simply something that shouldn't happen because of some social balance. You don't believe that there is some cosmic right or wrong or plan - just that some things are jerky to do.

I believe in both. In fact, I don't beleive that a religious or secular person is more or less likely to kill, just that the religious beleive that there are reasons beyond the temporal why we shouldn't kill one another.

Are you insulted because I've said that there is no logical reason why a human killing another human is any more wrong than a bear or shark killing a human, possibly in tandem with butcher knives strapped to their heads? Face it - Universal superlatives are not the atheists strong suit, unless they are confused.

Morality is only social pact to you, and "right" or "wrong" depends on your willingness to enter into that pact.

[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.

[rasoforos]

You assume that unless someone believes in God he will inherently be immoral and he will not let's say murder someone just because it will be socially damaging to the said person.

In other words it assumes that an Atheist would have no problem to murder people if he would benefit from it and there was no fear of punishment. This is a very common religious argument 'that people who dont believe in gods have no moral values'.

This is clearly wrong and offensive. Substitute 'Atheist' with your religious belief and you will see what I mean.

But apart from being wrong its also religion bashing. (Atheism being a religion according to the backroom rules).

I would like to stop this here. Maybe I cannot explain what I mean well enough.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You assume that unless someone believes in God he will inherently be immoral and he will not let's say murder someone just because it will be socially damaging to the said person.

In other words it assumes that an Atheist would have no problem to murder people if he would benefit from it and there was no fear of punishment. This is a very common religious argument 'that people who dont believe in gods have no moral values'.

This is clearly wrong and offensive. Substitute 'Atheist' with your religious belief and you will see what I mean.

But apart from being wrong its also religion bashing. (Atheism being a religion according to the backroom rules).

I would like to stop this here. Maybe I cannot explain what I mean well enough.

I don't beleive that they are more likely to do it (as I have said) - but I don't beleive that morality as it is traditionally understood exists without faith in the intangible.

So essentially there is no morality without the superlative that exists seperatly from the practical.

There is no morality for you - just agreement with others on policies - and we all know how much those matter. From your point of view there is also no morality for me either because my rationale is incorrect. Just because I was confused wouldn't mean that I was any more moral than you, you know?

So you take morality to be synonomous with social contracts. I take it to be synonomous with a divine plan. Your understanding is not universal where as mine is - yet those who adhere to humanist contractual morality constantly use universal rhetoric to lambast murder. I just don't get it.

[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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

Yes!