Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Killing other people... Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]IndecisiveBitch[/m] at 5:45 pm on Aug. 15, 2008[quote]Wow. I just realized how much I typed. It was probably unnecessary. Sorry.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post FutileRhetoric Posted at 5:32 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Explain what option you chose and why. I chose #1 because all I know is that morality is multi-faceted and we choose what is moral and immoral. I didn't choose #2 because it implies to me that there is some objective basis for morality which I find irrational. For example, one who defends the argument that killing is OK if it is justified due to necessity such as self-defense will say that unjustified killing is wrong because: a. unnecessary b. it's taking away a life that does not belong to you The main difference is of course a because b applies to both scenarios, but the problem is b since it cannot be proven that taking anothers life is wrong. One can say,  "How would you like it if I killed you?" Nearly everyone fears death and treasures their life for good reason, but this is just appealing to emotion. Even the fact that it is considered wrong on a massive scale does not mean it is wrong.

Replies sophos Posted at 7:45 pm on Aug. 19, 2008 Quote: from FutileRhetoric at 10:10 am on Aug. 18, 2008 Quote: from sophos at 3:01 am on Aug. 18, 2008 The true answer will only be found in a kill or be killed situation. In a kill or be killed situation, why does it become right to kill your attacker? By defending your own life aren't you creating two victims? There is no right or wrong. While some may like to preach scripture, and others stand on ideals, the true answer can only be known when one is in such a dilemma. Everything else is simply lip service. exceedinglyrare Posted at 10:55 am on Aug. 18, 2008 Quote: from Tangaroa at 8:21 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 It is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the alternatives. Is there now a scale of wrongness? If something is less wrong, doesn't that make it more right? FutileRhetoric Posted at 10:10 am on Aug. 18, 2008 In a kill or be killed situation, why does it become right to kill your attacker? By defending your own life aren't you creating two victims? Prince o palities Posted at 6:00 am on Aug. 18, 2008 Quote: from Tangaroa at 7:21 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 It is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the alternatives. Pacificism: violence as a necessary evil.  I can at least respect that.  It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church. sophos Posted at 3:01 am on Aug. 18, 2008 The true answer will only be found in a kill or be killed situation. Cumulonimbus Posted at 5:47 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 Taking the life of another person is always wrong, but, in some circumstances, failure to act is just as wrong.  In these moments there is either no good way, or the good way might cost more than anyone is willing to pay. Macropiper Posted at 5:21 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 It is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the alternatives. Prince o palities Posted at 4:22 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 It's absolute, like most moral dilemmas. I voted for the third option, but I would probably have phrased it (were it open ended) that I cannot presently conceive of a situation in which taking another human life would be justifiable. kthxbye Posted at 3:28 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 If you chose #2 you're playing God =p. nik1 Posted at 1:53 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 Our President Bush claims to be a religious person yet he ordered the unnecessary killing of 3-400,000 innocent people including our own.  He apparently feels no guilt for it.   I would choose number two but would use it only as a last resort.  The easiest part is pulling the trigger.  The hard part would be to have then mentality to use the power of killing someone as a very last resort by communicating and reconciling.   exceedinglyrare Posted at 6:27 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 It's circumstantial, like most moral dilemmas. Majo Posted at 5:47 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Quote: from FutileRhetoric at 8:40 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Quote: from Majo at 5:38 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Quote: from FurryPanther at 8:34 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Circumstantial. Typically wrong, but can be a good thing.   FP    Echoed.    For example, the 1966 shooting at the University of Texas at Austin. That guy had to be taken down. Had he not been, he might have kept going until he ran out of ammo. You're missing the message, apparently so has FP. Would you not say that taking down the the guy in Texas was justified because it was NECESSARY, specifically to protect the lives of "innocent" people? I'm missing the message? Psh, you're the one who is confused. My reasoning is right there in my post, in plain English. Maybe you should go back, reread it, and think. I very clearly stated that HE HAD TO BE TAKEN DOWN OR HE MIGHT HAVE KEPT GOING. How could I make my opinion any clearer that I think killing to protect the lives of innocent people is, at the very least, better than sparing the life of the murderer and, in turn, allowing him to continue killing. I just fucking agreed with the actions of the cop who took him down, what I think is right there. FurryPanther Posted at 5:45 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Quote: from FutileRhetoric at 6:42 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Yes and I wanted people to explain why they believed. Why do you think it's wrong most of the time? Life is the most sacred thing we have, and to take it without reason is the ultimate theft. I want to say sin, or evil, but I don't believe in those. FP IndecisiveBitch Posted at 5:45 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 Wow. I just realized how much I typed. It was probably unnecessary. Sorry. IndecisiveBitch Posted at 5:44 pm on Aug. 15, 2008 We as people define what is right or wrong. Now, in my opinion, killing in self defense is justified, someone killing another person because this person angered them, or did something that caused them mental pain is also justified because the killer had a reason to kill them. I don't think killing the other person was necessary in situation, but I am prepared to try to understand the killer's thoughts and feelings in this situation. Killing without reason, is not something I will be able to understand. I also do not understand people who kill for pleasure, because that is unfair to the victim to a high point of extremity. War, I believe is part of human nature. However, I personally think that war has been taken too far. In places where drafts are in effect, or people are just forced to fight without the desire to do so, I believe this is where war has been taken too far. As much as I am for Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect , what I have stated above is my beliefs. I understand that living in absolute peace and harmony with everyone, is unattainable due to human nature. I think you can only do so much within yourself. Most recent 15 of 28 previous replies displayed.