• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is Killing fine?

  • Yes

  • No

  • In self defence

Results are only viewable after voting.
neckarb said:
Absolutely sir, I believe that life deserves more respect than inanimate objects. I.e. A dog deserves more respect than a briefcase. One can be destroyed no moral repercussions and the other cannot. Purely because things that are alive have the capacity to understand or respond to pain, and has the capacity to experience life. You are not depriving a briefcase of life when you destroy it but you are when you kill a dog.

Now, given that there are obviously certain times when the respect you should show for a living thing can be over-ruled I would argue that this is only the case when a life which deserves greater respect is threatened. I.e. a Dolphin has a greater capacity to comprehend it's existence and experience it's life than a chicken does. So we should give more respect to dolphin life than chicken life. As a result when the life of a dolphin is threatened by a chicken (which I'm sure happens regularly lol) we should protect the chicken and (if no other option is available) kill the chicken. That being said it is still depriving life and is a negative thing, an evil (if you like that word [which I don't]) The lesser of two evils however.
Click to expand...

You're not answering my question.

The first thing you're going to need to do is define "wrong". Wrong on what basis, what authority? What makes something wrong? I mean, if you're going to say "so and so is wrong", then you're going to have to decide on what basis. I mean you gave an example that killing is depriving something of it's future experiences, and that you respect living things more than inanimate things (I don't know where you stand on dead things), but you really failed to say why. Perhaps we can figure it out, but we will need more information.

After we get these details ironed out, we can begin to do some thought experiments and have fun with this topic. Perhaps you will need to do some thought experiments to figure out what makes something wrong? Maybe you can't answer my question?

I think when you want to have a big philosophical discussion like this, you should be careful not to take anything for granted. I mean, whet do you really discover when your entire argument turns out to be based on a fallacy? I think you are taking quite a bit for granted, about life, death, morality, who knows, and then expecting us to take the same things for granted. We won't get anywhere that way! Let's straighten that out first.
 
MikeMike said:
okay since you are misunderstanding this... let me rephrase.

Could you link me to a thread or two that you are NOT the OP of, in which your first response was not a direct opposite feeling to that of the OP.
Click to expand...

OH I see. No. Do your own research I'm not here to entertain you. 🙂
 
SphinxnihpS said:
You're not answering my question.

The first thing you're going to need to do is define "wrong". Wrong on what basis, what authority? What makes something wrong? I mean, if you're going to say "so and so is wrong", then you're going to have to decide on what basis. I mean you gave an example that killing is depriving something of it's future experiences, and that you respect living things more than inanimate things (I don't know where you stand on dead things), but you really failed to say why. Perhaps we can figure it out, but we will need more information.

After we get these details ironed out, we can begin to do some thought experiments and have fun with this topic. Perhaps you will need to do some thought experiments to figure out what makes something wrong? Maybe you can't answer my question?

I think when you want to have a big philosophical discussion like this, you should be careful not to take anything for granted. I mean, whet do you really discover when your entire argument turns out to be based on a fallacy? I think you are taking quite a bit for granted, about life, death, morality, who knows, and then expecting us to take the same things for granted. We won't get anywhere that way! Let's straighten that out first.
Click to expand...

When I say wrong I mean immoral based on the premise that life deserves respect.

Ok that's all valid but in any philosophical discussion certain premises are always taken for granted an assertion is made about what it means to be "wrong" and then a conclusion is developed. In this case I argue that life deserves respect purely based on a humans' ability to empathise with depriving something of it's life. If someone deprives you or you're family member or even a complete stranger of their life, you feel empathy for them and most would argue (as I do) that this is an immoral act without extenuating circumstances.

This is the basis for my argument. That life deserves respect as society tends to agree with both in religion and law. I.e. It is illegal to commit murder or "Thou shalt not kill".
 
rudeguy said:
what about plants?

Can we kill plants?
Click to expand...

Well seeing as my argument is based on the living being's ability to comprehend it's own existence and to experience that life, and seeing as we have no scientific foundation for the idea that plants can know or experience anything I would argue yes plant life deserves less respect than animal life.
 
I just read through this entire thread, and I agree with the three main points discussed here.

Poll is fail
Killing is mostly OK
Neftard is a British troll
 
neckarb said:
The UK isn't a single country. It's 4. It's a Sovereign state, but not a country.
Click to expand...

From the OED:

Country: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory"

Nation: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory"

According to the OED then, the UK is indeed a country.

ZV
 
Zenmervolt said:
From the OED:

Country: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory"

Nation: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory"

According to the OED then, the UK is indeed a country.

ZV
Click to expand...

Sigh... Whatever. I'm English call me English, just as I call you american. Not Northern American even though both are technically accurate.

On a side note, Wales has it's own language.
 
Zenmervolt said:
"British" is a nationality. "North American" is not.

ZV
Click to expand...

English is also a nationality and I'm English. If I tell people I'm from Great Britain there are 4 possibilities of where I'm from, If I say I'm English. I'm English. I still disagree that Great Britain is not a country

Edit:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818052516AAdPGhg

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Great_Britain_a_country

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/britain.htm
 
Last edited:
neckarb said:
On a side note, Wales has it's own language.
Click to expand...

So do the indigenous peoples of the United States. Doesn't mean they're not citizens of the United States even though they are also, simultaneously, citizens of their respective indigenous nations. (And yes, the indigenous tribes within the US are indeed sovereign entities; there are huge swaths of the US legal system devoted to handling this fact.)

ZV
 
Zenmervolt said:
So do the indigenous peoples of the United States. Doesn't mean they're not citizens of the United States even though they are also, simultaneously, citizens of their respective indigenous nations. (And yes, the indigenous tribes within the US are indeed sovereign entities; there are huge swaths of the US legal system devoted to handling this fact.)

ZV
Click to expand...

They don't live in separate countries.
 
neckarb said:
When I say wrong I mean immoral based on the premise that life deserves respect.

Ok that's all valid but in any philosophical discussion certain premises are always taken for granted an assertion is made about what it means to be "wrong" and then a conclusion is developed. In this case I argue that life deserves respect purely based on a humans' ability to empathise with depriving something of it's life. If someone deprives you or you're family member or even a complete stranger of their life, you feel empathy for them and most would argue (as I do) that this is an immoral act without extenuating circumstances.

This is the basis for my argument. That life deserves respect as society tends to agree with both in religion and law. I.e. It is illegal to commit murder or "Thou shalt not kill".
Click to expand...

OK then, since you are asking, I can make several arguments, but let's do a thought experiment first.

You are the only rider on a trolley in San Francisco. The driver has a heart attack. The trolley is speeding downhill out of control. Ahead is a track switch. To the left a crew of workmen is working directly on the tracks. There are perhaps 6-8 men. To the right is a stopped trolley loading passengers. There are perhaps 10 people on board, but you can see they are mostly elderly people. You can not figure out how to make the trolley stop, but you do see how to operate the track switch. You have no time or method to warn anyone. At the speed you are going, you know that your time on earth is soon to be over, and anyone the trolley hits is going to be killed as well. What do you do?
 
Last edited:
neckarb said:
They don't live in separate countries.
Click to expand...

Actually, in a strictly technical sense, yes, they do. They have their own constitutions, in many cases they have distinct borders, and they have their own separate legal systems and governments.

The Native American tribes within the US are "nations" by any definition, they have their own government, and they have distinct territories. They are "countries" by the plain meaning of the term as defined in the OED.

ZV
 
neckarb said:
Great Britain is not a country.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818052516AAdPGhg

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Great_Britain_a_country

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/britain.htm
Click to expand...

Yahoo answers and wiki answers are not legitimate sources. I've provided definitions from the OED (an unquestionably authoritative source). You've provided unverified comments from unknown people on the internet.

Your third link doesn't even contain the word "country" in it at all; it contains no commentary whatsoever about whether "British" is a nationality.

ZV
 
SphinxnihpS said:
OK then, since you are asking, I can make several arguments, but let's do a thought experiment first.

You are the only rider on a trolley in San Francisco. The driver has a heart attack. The trolley is speeding downhill out of control. Ahead is a track switch. To the left a crew of workmen is working directly on the tracks. There are perhaps 6-8 men. To the right is a stopped trolley loading passengers. There are perhaps 10 people on board, but you can see they are mostly elderly people. You can not figure out how to make the trolley stop, but you do see how to operate the track switch. At the speed you are going, you know that your time on earth is soon to be over, and anyone the trolley hits is going to be killed as well. What do you do?
Click to expand...

An interesting though experiment, using utilitarianism (which is what I tend to use in these situations) given the limited data we would do the following.

Let's assume 7 men. Each age 40. Life expectancy for each would be about 75 lets guess (given that I have to use the data in my head rather than statistics to make this determination)

so each peson has 35 years left to live.

7 x 35 = 245 Years.

now let's look at the other people. "Elderly people" is some what vague, but lets assume they are all old age pensioners, over the age of 65. Let's assume an average age of 70. A combination of men and women, with men's life expectancy again at 75 and women at 80. So now each person has between 5 and 10 years left statistically. Averaging to 7.5

7.5 x 10 = 75

Logically (using this method we would choose to kill the old people)

However this does not take into account all of the hedonic calculus

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Extent: How many people will be affected?

Only duration and certainty could be taken into account in this instance.

Now obviously Utilitarianism isn't absolute and it is only the method that I tend to use as it (on the whole) agrees with my personal theory on the duration of life etc being important.
 
Last edited:
Zenmervolt said:
Yahoo answers and wiki answers are not legitimate sources. I've provided definitions from the OED (an unquestionably authoritative source). You've provided unverified comments from unknown people on the internet.

Your third link doesn't even contain the word "country" in it at all; it contains no commentary whatsoever about whether "British" is a nationality.

ZV
Click to expand...

OK. But you based your interpretations on that information, which I argue to be faulty based on the fact that Scottish, English, Welsh, and Irish history is hugely different, as is the culture as is the language. We also have separate governments. Particularly Northern Ireland which has no relation the governance of the rest of the UK.
 
Zenmervolt said:
Actually, in a strictly technical sense, yes, they do. They have their own constitutions, in many cases they have distinct borders, and they have their own separate legal systems and governments.

The Native American tribes within the US are "nations" by any definition, they have their own government, and they have distinct territories. They are "countries" by the plain meaning of the term as defined in the OED.

ZV
Click to expand...

You guys are arguing over semantics about an irrelevant point.

The UK would not normally be referred to as a country. It may fit some definition, but there are more precise words to describe it. Now shut up and talk about killing!
 
neckarb said:
It is illegal to commit murder.
Click to expand...

You're aware that "murder" has a very technical legal definition and that it is not at all synonymous with "to kill", right?

"Murder" is a very small subset of what is known as "homicide" (the latter being the legal term for killing a human being). "Homicide" is justified in many situations. In Switzerland (and in the US state of Oregon) it is legal for a person to assist another in committing suicide. There are many differing statutes regarding situations where homicide is justifiable in self-defense. The penalties for different types of homicide vary greatly (e.g. situations of mere negligence, as where a tool falls from a scaffolding and hits someone in the head, are punished much less severely and possibly not at all criminally, than non-aggravated intentional homicides).

And all of this is only applicable to homicide, the killing of humans. The law is even more complex (including not only the law, but also administrative codes and other non-statutory regulations) when it comes to whether or not it's OK to kill animals and plants.

The law is hardly black and white about killing and to suggest that it is demonstrates a significant lack of familiarity with the law.

ZV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top