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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Husar]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Beefy187]

This might create a huge mess and I realized its a really bad example. But I applied this to the game of pokemon.

While other animals only has two options either kill or run, added to that human has other options like negotiate, sue, ask church, read books, go to counsellings etc. As we are dominating species, humans level are much higher then what we originally started as. It just doesn't make sense if we keep using those low grade moves rather then what we gained through various level ups.

Those options are always available when we run out of options (XP in pokemon), but that degrades us to beasts rather then humans. We can kill but we chose not to. Because we are better species (pokemon) then them.

From this perspective, why we don't kill is nothing more then our arrogance that humans are better then other species.