"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

[Zenmervolt]

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!

Aww, but it's so much fun to wind the Brit up.

ZV

 

[SphinxnihpS]

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.

There we have it, you are a utilitarian. Utility describes your moral guidelines.

Now we know that you oppose killing, or anything for that matter, unless it services the greater good. The only problem you will ever face in your life is determining what the greater good is. But alas, we are back to square one... This just isn't the argument I wanted to have (because we're going to end up on the same side). oh well...

 

[HAL9000]

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

I'm completely aware, but murdering is a type of killing i'm simply showing how society does view killing as a negative in certain circumstances

Also the Law in America is completely different from the Law in the UK. However we are discussing morality not legality.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Only an Englishman would refer to Ireland, Scotland or Wales as "British."
I wonder when Phineas moved to England?

 

[HAL9000]

There we have it, you are a utilitarian. Utility describes your moral guidelines.

Now we know that you oppose killing, or anything for that matter, unless it services the greater good. The only problem you will ever face in your life is determining what the greater good is. But alas, we are back to square one... This just isn't the argument I wanted to have (because we're going to end up on the same side). oh well...

Very true, while the basis for my morality is simple to understand and absolute, it's application is complex and relative. I feel that I have applied my sense of morality logically as it applies to killing. Still it was a good argument!

 

[HAL9000]

Only an Englishman would refer to Ireland, Scotland or Wales as "British."
I wonder when Phineas moved to England?

Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all British... They are in Great Britain.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all British... They are in Great Britain.

No one but the English refer to them as that. They are Irish, Scottish and Welsh to the rest of the world ya silly Brit.

 

[HAL9000]

No one but the English refer to them as that. They are Irish, Scottish and Welsh to the rest of the world ya silly Brit.

Very true, I suppose only England has logic Ya silly North American.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Also the Law in America is completely different from the Law in the UK.

Actually, aside from relatively minor statutory differences "the law" in the US and "the law" in the UK are substantially similar. Both countries use the common law system (as opposed to the "Roman law" system used in continental Europe) and share vast portions of their legal history (indeed, every law student in the US will read numerous British decisions during the course of his study due to the inherent similarities between the legal systems of the two countries).

However we are discussing morality not legality.

Then why did you bring up the law in your post?

You attempted to point out that "the law" agreed with you that, "killing is wrong." That's an absolute statement and, as I have demonstrated, "the law" takes no such absolute stand, regardless of whether one discusses British or US law.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

Actually, aside from relatively minor statutory differences "the law" in the US and "the law" in the UK are substantially similar. Both countries use the common law system (as opposed to the "Roman law" system used in continental Europe) and share vast portions of their legal history (indeed, every law student in the US will read numerous British decisions during the course of his study due to the inherent similarities between the legal systems of the two countries).



Then why did you bring up the law in your post?

You attempted to point out that "the law" agreed with you that, "killing is wrong." That's an absolute statement and, as I have demonstrated, "the law" takes no such absolute stand, regardless of whether one discusses British or US law.

ZV

No I didn't I successfully pointed out that certain types of killing are not only considered unacceptable in society, but are also enshrined in law.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I'm completely aware, but murdering is a type of killing i'm simply showing how society does view killing as a negative in certain circumstances

Also the Law in America is completely different from the Law in the UK. However we are discussing morality not legality.

Let's just make one point here then, since you opened the door.

Evolution has dictated to us that only the strong survive. Evolution rewards the very best killers. Today evolution rewarded me when I killed a pig and ate it's eyeballs and ears encased in its intestines! Let's face it, just because I didn't plunge the knife in and hack out its heart, doesn't mean I am not responsible. I became responsible when I paid old Jimmy Dean. Why shouldn't I be out there collecting greater rewards? Why shouldn't I be out there making life better for my offspring by eliminating the competition?

 

[HAL9000]

Let's just make one point here then, since you opened the door.

Evolution has dictated to us that only the strong survive. Evolution rewards the very best killers. Today evolution rewarded me when I killed a pig and ate it's eyeballs and ears encased in its intestines! Why shouldn't I be out there collecting greater rewards? Why shouldn't I be out there making life better for my offspring by eliminating the competition?

A very valid point and I'm sure anyone who subscribes to this type of evolutionary ethics would agree, however I would argue that as human beings we have evolved beyond our base animal instincts and as a result have the ability to understand and comprehend beyond being the best killer. We are able to develop our own sense of philosophy and morality, more complex than the strongest survive.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

A very valid point and I'm sure anyone who subscribes to this type of evolutionary ethics would agree, however I would argue that as human beings we have evolved beyond our base animal instincts and as a result have the ability to understand and comprehend beyond being the best killer. We are able to develop our own sense of philosophy and morality, more complex than the strongest survive.

Well, what if our ability to rationalize is actually making us worse? What if this somehow ultimately derails our evolution, and we become extinct as a result? What if because we developed this ability to empathize, we stopped killing the things we are supposed to be killing, and this directly lead to our downfall as a species, did our morality fail us? Oh Jerry, what is the answer!?!?

 

[HAL9000]

Well, what if our ability to rationalize is actually making us worse? What if this somehow ultimately derails our evolution, and we become extinct as a result? What if because we developed this ability to empathize, we stopped killing the things we are supposed to be killing, and this directly lead to our downfall as a species, did our morality fail us? Oh Jerry, what is the answer!?!?

That is an interesting thought, but I can see no logical basis for that happening. How us not killing would derail the species, without some major event making another species higher on the food chain that us very quickly. Also I can't just disregard logic like that with no logical basis (something of a paradox I suppose)

 

[Born2bwire]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read on here in days. Not believing in God does't stop me having a sense of morality. You've just made my block list. Goodbye ignorant fool.

Success! :awe:

 

[Zenmervolt]

No I didn't I successfully pointed out that certain types of killing are not only considered unacceptable in society, but are also enshrined in law.

That's what you succeeded in pointing out, yes. But that's not how your argument was phrased before I demonstrated that this was all you pointed out.

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".

That's a blanket statement. The fact that it's a blanket statement is enhanced by your use of "i.e." rather than "e.g."

Not only was that a blanket statement couched in absolutes, it also provides no support to your position that one shouldn't kill animals. This is especially true since there are numerous provisions within the law for hunting and for the killing of nuisance animals. "The law" clearly does not have this premise that the lives of, say, coyotes, deserve respect. Instead it declares them to be nuisance animals that ranchers can shoot on sight. Even in places where there are restrictions on killing coyotes, those restrictions are for the safety of humans (e.g. prohibitions on shooting coyotes in populated areas).

If you want to argue that I should have been able to understand that you didn't mean what you wrote, I suppose that's an avenue that you have open, but I'm hardly to be expected to read your mind simply because you cannot phrase things clearly.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

That's a blanket statement. The fact that it's a blanket statement is enhanced by your use of "i.e." rather than "e.g."

Not only was that a blanket statement couched in absolutes, it also provides no support to your position that one shouldn't kill animals. This is especially true since there are numerous provisions within the law for hunting and for the killing of nuisance animals. "The law" clearly does not have this premise that the lives of, say, coyotes, deserve respect. Instead it declares them to be nuisance animals that ranchers can shoot on sight. Even in places where there are restrictions on killing coyotes, those restrictions are for the safety of humans (e.g. prohibitions on shooting coyotes in populated areas).

If you want to argue that I should have been able to understand that you didn't mean what you wrote, I suppose that's an avenue that you have open, but I'm hardly to be expected to read your mind simply because you cannot phrase things clearly.

ZV

This law does demonstrate a respect for life. A respect that prevents you from taking life. It is a respect for human life yes, but it demonstrates that life is something of value legally, In certain contexts, it seemed clear enough to me and some others who read it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I would argue that as human beings we have evolved beyond our base animal instincts and as a result have the ability to understand and comprehend beyond being the best killer. We are able to develop our own sense of philosophy and morality, more complex than the strongest survive.

Please provide a clear, succinct, and objective description of just what this, "sense of philosophy and morality, more complex than the strongest survive" actually is. As it stands, the actual informational content of your post is null.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

Please provide a clear, succinct, and objective description of just what this, "sense of philosophy and morality, more complex than the strongest survive" actually is. As it stands, the actual informational content of your post is null.

ZV

Utilitarianism or one of the other ethical theories that people subscribe to and have developed using logic over hundreds of years. I'm not here to teach, I'm hear using what I've been taught, if you want to learn the same as me. Start with Utilitarianism. The guy who I was talking to earlier obviously has read up on it.

I'm not trying to give you fact based informational content, just my opinion.

 

[Zenmervolt]

This law does demonstrate a respect for life. A respect that prevents you from taking life. It is a respect for human life yes, but it demonstrates that life is something of value legally, In certain contexts, it seemed clear enough to me and some others who read it.

Human life and the life of an animal are vastly different things. Unless you can demonstrate that the law treats human and animal life the same (which you cannot, because the law doesn't treat them the same), your claim for finding support of your position in the law is specious at best.

Life is not valued "generally" in law. Human life is, but not the general concept of "life" absent humanity.

To make the jump you want to make, you must demonstrate that the law equates animal life with human life and you simply have not done that.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Utilitarianism or one of the other ethical theories that people subscribe to and have developed using logic over hundreds of years. I'm not here to teach, I'm hear using what I've been taught, if you want to learn the same as me. Start with Utilitarianism. The guy who I was talking to earlier obviously has read up on it.

In other words, you have no answer.

Simply crying "Utilitarianism" is not a statement of belief. Unless you can provide an objective method of evaluating everything, you're really no better than a hedonist. "Greatest good in the greatest number" is a null phrase. Unless one knows how the "greatest good" is calculated no information is conveyed. Both Marxism and Anarcho-Capitalism claim to provide the "greatest good in the greatest number".

I value the enjoyment of having bacon far beyond anything a pig can experience. Am I right? Who knows. But I can claim that I'm being "Utilitarian" when I place my happiness over the pig's so long as whatever evaluation scheme I create gives me the right numbers in the end.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

Human life and the life of an animal are vastly different things. Unless you can demonstrate that the law treats human and animal life the same (which you cannot, because the law doesn't treat them the same), your claim for finding support of your position in the law is specious at best.

Life is not valued "generally" in law. Human life is, but not the general concept of "life" absent humanity.

To make the jump you want to make, you must demonstrate that the law equates animal life with human life and you simply have not done that.

ZV

I found support in the law (and so society) that certain life deserves respect. That's all I wanted. I wasn't going to prove my entire point, only that certain life deserves respect.

The rest is my theory.

 

[HAL9000]

In other words, you have no answer.

Simply crying "Utilitarianism" is not a statement of belief. Unless you can provide an objective method of evaluating everything, you're really no better than a hedonist. "Greatest good in the greatest number" is a null phrase. Unless one knows how the "greatest good" is calculated no information is conveyed. Both Marxism and Anarcho-Capitalism claim to provide the "greatest good in the greatest number".

I value the enjoyment of having bacon far beyond anything a pig can experience. Am I right? Who knows. But I can claim that I'm being "Utilitarian" when I place my happiness over the pig's so long as whatever evaluation scheme I create gives me the right numbers in the end.

ZV

That's why the principles of utilitarianism have to be applied based on individual circumstance and the knowledge of the individual in that instance. My theory isn't absolute, it doesn't apply to you, it is mine and mine a lone, you can extrapolate your own notion of utilitarianism from Bentham, cant etc (as I have). But it will be different from the original concept in some ways. It is an absolute theory, that is applied relative to the applicant.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend the notion of an ethical theory, or moral theories. But I can, and have, I'm not trying to convert you to how I think, just trying to explain how I think what I do, and why. If you were looking for an absolute argument from me that will convert you to how I feel, you're in the wrong place. Make up your own moraltiy.

I am a hedonist, I am a utilitarian this works for me as an objective way of making moral decisions. I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you.

 

[Howard]

I found support in the law (and so society) that certain life deserves respect. That's all I wanted. I wasn't going to prove my entire point, only that certain life deserves respect.

The rest is my theory.

all aboard the trollercoaster

 

[Born2bwire]

all aboard the trollercoaster

It's so fun to ride isn't it!

Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

C'mon, if he blocks all of us, he'll have no one left to argue with.