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.
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?
The true answer will only be found in a kill or be killed situation.
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?
Pacificism: violence as a necessary evil. I can at least respect that. It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Circumstantial. Typically wrong, but can be a good thing. FP
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was probably unnecessary. Sorry.
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.
329 users online 
225247 members 531 active today Advertise Here
329 users online 225247 members 531 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
