"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

[HAL9000]

I propose a movement to stop posting in necktards threads.....we will all benefit from it. Even better, lets all put him on ignore.

Why did you quote me for this?

 

[BePrepared]

HAL9000, since you clearly failed to see my first post, please allow me to repost it so that you might share your thoughts with us.

Thank you

I joined this forum just to add my input to this topic

Killing is NOT "morally" wrong. Killing, as an abstract action, bereft of context, lacks any moral content whatsoever.

The taking of a life, ANY LIFE, is only an issue of moral significance when view in the context of a literal action.

The killing of a plague carrying rat is a good thing.

The killing of a child on a playground playing with his toys is a bad thing.

The killing of a combatant in a war is both good AND bad depending on which side of the conflict you consult.

These things are all obvious to rational men.

Even our resident "Englishman" has acquiesced to the idea that killing another human being is not "morally wrong" in some circumstances.

He has said that it is justifiable to kill a man who is actively trying to kill you. If that is the case, then it is possible to make a sound logical case that killing a man to can be good in many OTHER circumstances which do not require the immediately visible threat of death from that man

Let us, for instance, consider that a man breaks into your home through the living room window in the middle of the night. This man awakens your entire family from their sleep and moves you all into a bedroom from which there is no exit. He tells you that he has no intention of causing you harm so long as you allow him to rape your wife and daughter, and then take all of your possessions and leave.

So far, according to my English friend here, killing this man is utterly unjustified.

Let us assume that i am also aware that in the last week, 3 other families have had their homes invaded in a similar manner, and have been herded into the same room where the women were raped before all members of the family were murdered.

At this point, i believe it it PURELY rational to assert that one can feel an extreme threat for one's own life and the lives of one's family.

At this point, our english friend would probably assert that i should try to overpower the man, and end the conflict without killing him. For this reason, let us assume that i have no weapons available to me other than the shotgun that i have hidden under the bed (of which he is unaware)

My choices are simple (if you'd be of a mind that a choice is really available)

1. I can attack the man bodily, hoping to overpower him, but at the risk that i might lose, and die, whereupon my family would be raped and killed

2. I can pull out my shotgun, and blow a large hole in the man who knowingly invaded my home, ending ANY threat and securing the safety of my family.

Now i ask, as i rational being, is it my duty to, in an effort to save the life of a man who has shown his disregard for mine, to put at risk the lives of my family and myself?

Obviously not.

So at what point do we see this killing as being a good thing?

Clearly, going out and finding a man sitting in his living room who is thinking of robbing my house and killing him is not good... this would be murder as there is no viable threat present

Obviously when he is walking through the street to my home, ambushing him in the parking lot next door would be murderous and wrong.

probably, shooting him from the window of my house when he opens my gate would be an overreaction

Do we really need to know that these other families were killed? No, because we could just be the FIRST of these families.

Do we need to confirm that this man carries a knife and intends to rape our family members? Obviously not. It can be safely assumed that a man entering my home through a broken window in the dead of night is not coming for any peaceful, friendly purpose.

The only information we need to ASSUME with relative certainty that there is a credible threat to our LIVES is that this man has broken into my home, while I am there. I cannot KNOW what he is armed with, or what his intentions are, and by the time i have ascertained this information, I may have already lost any window available to defend myself...

Should i shoot him in the leg to try to spare his life? Of course not. If he has a gun or knife, he might shoot ME or stumble into me and stab me even if somewhat disabled

In this circumstance, I will kill the man, without hesitation, the moment he crosses into my home.

I will do this, because it is only rational to do so. There is no rational man who can refute the fact that this man poses a CREDIBLE threat to my safety based on the available information at that moment

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Edit: to clarify, when I say "Killing" I mean taking a life.

ORLY? What else could you mean by that?

For me the notion to kill anything is unacceptable except in self defence.

That's a lie... or needs further refinement. Your definition of self defense is whacked. You've made it clear that you're ok with taking another life if your life is in immediate and obvious danger. However, in your view, a woman being raped isn't entitled to use deadly force in self defense. If she's not physically capable of ending the attack, she just has to lie there and take it.

Any sane, rational person would consider such an attack to warrant the use of any means necessary to end the attack... Including causing the death of the attacker.

 

[BePrepared]

i wonder why he's made over a dozen posts since i reposted mine and has managed to avoid replying twice.

Guess he doesn't like replying to a logical proposition

 

[HAL9000]

i wonder why he's made over a dozen posts since i reposted mine and has managed to avoid replying twice.

Guess he doesn't like replying to a logical proposition

It's not that, this was a thread from months ago, haven't really been reading it since someone bumped it out of no where... I'll get round to it at some point I'm sure.

 

[BePrepared]

My post was essentially self contained, and is relatively easy to understand so long as the basic context of the thread is understood.

One does not need to have an intricate grasp of the entirety of the thread's content in order to formulate a reply to my proposition.

The rational thing to do would be to examine my statement carefully, then acknowledge that you are wrong on several counts as to the logic of lethal force.

Of course, it's always possible that you might present some alternative viewpoint which i can then answer in kind before we reach the point where you accept the above acquiescence

 

[HAL9000]

My post was essentially self contained, and is relatively easy to understand so long as the basic context of the thread is understood.

One does not need to have an intricate grasp of the entirety of the thread's content in order to formulate a reply to my proposition.

The rational thing to do would be to examine my statement carefully, then acknowledge that you are wrong on several counts as to the logic of lethal force.

Of course, it's always possible that you might present some alternative viewpoint which i can then answer in kind before we reach the point where you accept the above acquiescence

It's 4am, I'll get to it when I'm properly awake and in the mood for a debate.

 

[MikeMike]

It's 4am, I'll get to it when I'm properly awake and in the mood for a debate.

but yet you knew of it 10 hours ago... which if my math is anywhere near right, would have been 6pm...

 

[HAL9000]

but yet you knew of it 10 hours ago... which if my math is anywhere near right, would have been 6pm...

That's true!.... And it was my birthday. I didn't have time.

 

[BePrepared]

i understand. It's not easy to come up with an abstract rationalization in answer to a concrete rational argument while not properly rested.

Take your time. I have no doubt that given sufficient time, you will formulate something adequately interesting.

 

[HAL9000]

i understand. It's not easy to come up with an abstract rationalization in answer to a concrete rational argument while not properly rested.

Take your time. I have no doubt that given sufficient time, you will formulate something adequately interesting.

Splendid, In all honesty I haven't read it yet, but soon.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Killing is fine just don't get caught. Watch murder she hopes and CSI Miami for crime tips. If you get caught watching LA LAW and Picked Fences would help a great deal

 

[MovingTarget]

Utilitarian! Stone him!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My post was essentially self contained, and is relatively easy to understand so long as the basic context of the thread is understood.

One does not need to have an intricate grasp of the entirety of the thread's content in order to formulate a reply to my proposition.

The rational thing to do would be to examine my statement carefully, then acknowledge that you are wrong on several counts as to the logic of lethal force.

Of course, it's always possible that you might present some alternative viewpoint which i can then answer in kind before we reach the point where you accept the above acquiescence

I like you; please tell me, what would the proper moral judgment of killing a robotic eye, determined to annoy you unto death, be?

 

[Howard]

I like you; please tell me, what would the proper moral judgment of killing a robotic eye, determined to annoy you unto death, be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ96oEwYrE8

 

[mcurphy]

I like you; please tell me, what would the proper moral judgment of killing a robotic eye, determined to annoy you unto death, be?

I like him too, lol! I am (I can't believe I am typing this...) looking forward to Neckbeard's reply...(ack, excuse me one moment while my stomach settles).

It has potential to be a very entertaining debate if Neckbeard doesn't puss out.

 

[BePrepared]

We shall see if the gentleman is one of conviction... men of conviction are a great irritation to me, as they often take it upon themselves to maintain a position of wrongness simply because it is THEIR position.

of course, I must accept that there is the slim chance (insert tone of moderate incredulity) that my logic is flawed and he might be able to demonstrate that fact.

 

[corwin]

We shall see if the gentleman is one of conviction... men of conviction are a great irritation to me, as they often take it upon themselves to maintain a position of wrongness simply because it is THEIR position.

of course, I must accept that there is the slim chance (insert tone of moderate incredulity) that my logic is flawed and he might be able to demonstrate that fact.

Your logic is sound, as have been all the arguments with him that I have read...his most likely response will be he doesn't like to make "assumptions" about anyones intentions, no matter how rational it may be to do so...or he'll keep ignoring it since it's entirely too well thought out and written to refute with anything other than playground language, of course he is but a child so that's a possibility

 

[HAL9000]

I joined this forum just to add my input to this topic

Killing is NOT "morally" wrong. Killing, as an abstract action, bereft of context, lacks any moral content whatsoever.

Agreed. The reason the op for this thread was so ambigious, is that I was told categorically by another member, that killing is morally fine, and that most people think so. So I sought data on the subject.

The taking of a life, ANY LIFE, is only an issue of moral significance when view in the context of a literal action.

The killing of a plague carrying rat is a good thing.

The killing of a child on a playground playing with his toys is a bad thing.

The killing of a combatant in a war is both good AND bad depending on which side of the conflict you consult.

I accept this statement, on the premise that killing is the only option in the situations you give, i.e. the rat can't be cured or the conflict resulting in war could not be dealt with democratically.

These things are all obvious to rational men.

Even our resident "Englishman" has acquiesced to the idea that killing another human being is not "morally wrong" in some circumstances.

I have.

He has said that it is justifiable to kill a man who is actively trying to kill you. If that is the case, then it is possible to make a sound logical case that killing a man to can be good in many OTHER circumstances which do not require the immediately visible threat of death from that man

I take issue with this statement, While I have said killing a man is justifiable I have never said it is good, only that it is the lesser of two evils.

Let us, for instance, consider that a man breaks into your home through the living room window in the middle of the night. This man awakens your entire family from their sleep and moves you all into a bedroom from which there is no exit. He tells you that he has no intention of causing you harm so long as you allow him to rape your wife and daughter, and then take all of your possessions and leave.

So far, according to my English friend here, killing this man is utterly unjustified.

That is how I feel, when speaking rationally.

Let us assume that i am also aware that in the last week, 3 other families have had their homes invaded in a similar manner, and have been herded into the same room where the women were raped before all members of the family were murdered.

At this point, i believe it it PURELY rational to assert that one can feel an extreme threat for one's own life and the lives of one's family.

At this point, our english friend would probably assert that i should try to overpower the man, and end the conflict without killing him. For this reason, let us assume that i have no weapons available to me other than the shotgun that i have hidden under the bed (of which he is unaware)

My choices are simple (if you'd be of a mind that a choice is really available)

1. I can attack the man bodily, hoping to overpower him, but at the risk that i might lose, and die, whereupon my family would be raped and killed

2. I can pull out my shotgun, and blow a large hole in the man who knowingly invaded my home, ending ANY threat and securing the safety of my family.

Now i ask, as i rational being, is it my duty to, in an effort to save the life of a man who has shown his disregard for mine, to put at risk the lives of my family and myself?

My response would be that there would be a point in the proceedings where his intention to kill became obvious, that is the moment that killing becomes justified in my opinion, assumptions that result in someones death are not acceptable.

Obviously not.

So at what point do we see this killing as being a good thing?

Clearly, going out and finding a man sitting in his living room who is thinking of robbing my house and killing him is not good... this would be murder as there is no viable threat present

Obviously when he is walking through the street to my home, ambushing him in the parking lot next door would be murderous and wrong.

probably, shooting him from the window of my house when he opens my gate would be an overreaction

Do we really need to know that these other families were killed? No, because we could just be the FIRST of these families.

Could is never good enough, maybe is never good enough, possibly is never good enough. Absolutely is good enough. In my opinion.

Do we need to confirm that this man carries a knife and intends to rape our family members? Obviously not. It can be safely assumed that a man entering my home through a broken window in the dead of night is not coming for any peaceful, friendly purpose.

That's not obvious to me, to me it is completely illogical to assume that any assailant, or thief is about to kill you or your family. It is logical to assume they may hurt you, it is logical to assume they will steal from you, making the jump straight to murder is not logical. The statement that "all theives are murderers" is a logical fallacy. It is more logical to make this assumption based on the case you mentioned earlier with previous deaths in the street backing your theory, but none-the-less it is an assumption, it is just a theory.

The only information we need to ASSUME with relative certainty that there is a credible threat to our LIVES is that this man has broken into my home, while I am there. I cannot KNOW what he is armed with, or what his intentions are, and by the time i have ascertained this information, I may have already lost any window available to defend myself...

That is your assertion, mine is that absolute certainty is required before taking it upon yourself to take someones life.

Should i shoot him in the leg to try to spare his life? Of course not. If he has a gun or knife, he might shoot ME or stumble into me and stab me even if somewhat disabled

...

In this circumstance, I will kill the man, without hesitation, the moment he crosses into my home.

I will do this, because it is only rational to do so. There is no rational man who can refute the fact that this man poses a CREDIBLE threat to my safety based on the available information at that moment

There is no rational man that can assert that every thief has the intent to kill. Therefore a credible threat to your safety is not found in this conclusion, what is found is a huge assumption that would lead to a death.

 

[Scotteq]

< Pulls up a comfortable chair >

< Sets out snacks, sandwiches, and suitable Libations >

 

[HAL9000]

< Pulls up a comfortable chair >

< Sets out snacks, sandwiches, and suitable Libations >

Gah, that took a while, pretty sure I went through all of it in the thread already.

 

[Scotteq]

Gah, that took a while, pretty sure I went through all of it in the thread already.

It's a never ending topic, and the positions of the various combatants are well known. Not to mention documented Ad Nauseam. Nevertheless, I am curious to observe the efforts of the latest intrepid adventurer who has thrown down the gauntlet.


You've said you're a beer man, but alas I have none. Is Ale acceptable? < Offers to Pour >

 

[HAL9000]

It's a never ending topic, and the positions of the various combatants are well known. Not to mention documented Ad Nauseam. Nevertheless, I am curious to observe the efforts of the latest intrepid adventurer who has thrown down the gauntlet.


You've said you're a beer man, but alas I have none. Is Ale acceptable? < Offers to Pour >

That it is. Alas I will continue down this route until I'm ultimately banned or get bored here.

I may have said I'm a beer man :hmm: but if that is the case I would like to change my position and state categorically that I'm an Ale man!

< Accepts the offer and tips hat. >

 

[BePrepared]

soon, i will make a detailed analysis of the flaws in your refutation, but, as i am somewhat stretched for time at this momen, let me begin by pointing out the OVERWHELMING flaw in your assertions.

Before I do this though, please allow me to request that you cease the use of the term "in my opinion" as this is nothing but an escape clause written into your side of our dialogue to allow an escape route when your logic fails. There is no "opinion" in a debate concerning the rationale of proper action. There is only logic, and blind assertion.

Now, to your statement. You seem to use the idea of "Absolute Certainty" as the standard upon which you base your determination as the whether a killing is justified.

This thing of which you speak "Absolute Certainty" does not exist. Even in retrospect, it is only illusory, but in relation to any standard of determining proper action, one can quite literally NEVER have "absolute certainty" BEFORE one acts.

Let us examine an example. A man kicks in your front door while you are sitting on the couch. He is carrying a shotgun and is covered head to toe in blood. He screams "I'm going to kill you" and points the shotgun at you. His finger is on the trigger.

By your standard, killing this man is utterly unjustified... there is no "absolute certainty" that he is going to kill you. Why?

Let us consider the options
1. It could be a prank... the gun could be fake and he could just be trying to scare you
2. He may no know HOW to use the gun... that being the case, he couldn't kill you with it
3. there could be an asteroid milliseconds from hitting the man in the head hard enough to incapacitate him before he can hit the trigger

there are literally an infinite number of alternative postulates which make it impossible to say with "absolute certainty" that he is about to kill you.

For that reason, if i am to accept your standard, the only way for me to know that i have the right to kill the man is to wait for him to kill ME first...

seems counter productive to me

 

[Scotteq]

< Pours a drink for BePrepared in the interest of fairness >