Is it bad to kill people?

in #philosophy5 years ago (edited)

Is “killing” bad? When presented with this question, most of my readers will say “yes”, not because it is “the answer” but because of the sociocultural circumstance surrounding me. Most of my readers are western middle-and-upper-class internet users raised in a chiefly catholic/protestant setting (yes, very specific but true).

Let’s look away from our own context for a moment and observe the world around us. In the US and in other countries, the death penalty is a common and defended occurrence. It is also debated, but the common opinion in these areas it’s that it’s either appropriate or a necessary evil. Starting from Mexico, going south through Latin America, the death penalty is not legal in any of these countries. But south of Europe, all throughout Africa, it is a very common occurrence. In Asia, it is also very common. What does this tell us? Killing is conditionally bad in most places. This means that it is good to kill certain people in most countries but it is bad to kill others.

Does this mean that the absolute truth is that it is good to kill certain people? No, it means that in some cultures, the people’s opinion is that it is good to kill certain people. Other cultural differences are very similar:

  • Eating pork is an ‘absolute bad’ for Jewish people, but it is a relative neutral in most western countries.
  • Eating dogs is an ‘absolute bad’ in all western countries, but it is a relative neutral in China and Korea (and is even celebrated as a traditional value by some).
  • Tipping waiters is a relative good in most western countries, but it is an absolute bad in Japan.
  • Polygamy is an absolute bad in most western countries, but it is a relative neutral in many cultures in Africa and a relative good in some others.
  • Killing children is an absolute bad in most countries, yet it is considered that the nukes that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an ugly but necessary measure, perceived as relative neutral by some.
  • Stealing is an absolute bad in most western countries, but for the Vikings it was a relative good (absolute good regarding foreign nations). Pillaging, raping, stealing and killing was a celebrated and even sacred activity for some.

Conclusion

Let’s start with the Vikings. Were they evil? They perceived themselves as good. Many would consider that killing is “absolutely bad”, but as we can see, not even on this gravest of sins can everyone agree. No matter how grave or good an act seems to be for the thinker, all of morality is relative and dependent on the culture, and on each individual and their circumstance (remember the death penalty where killing is conditionally good).

(This is all of course dependent on the assumption that you don’t believe in any variation of religion, in which case there would be a dogma clause by which everyone else is wrong and you’re right because your book/teachings hold the ultimate truth.)

Sort:  

I have no problem with killing someone as long as it is for the right reasons. If you are acting in self defence then absolutely. If there is a terrorist attack then eliminating them is first prize. Poachers, rapists, murderers and Pedophiles I think could be added to the list as well. Unfortunately I live in a crime ridden country and have been bought up seeing things others wouldn't have experienced. I have seen how cheap life really is and I honestly believe the death penalty should fit the crime committed. I believe you lose any rights as a human being when you cross over the line and the criminals know exactly what they are doing.

As long as you realise that your moral judgements are individual or social and not absolute (not the same for all or applicable for all), I think we're on the same page. The social contract, relative to every community, may be abstract but it's very real and going against it has, and should have for our safety, real consequences. Now, about killing non-offending pedophiles, I'm not sure about that. I mean, unless that's your kink ;)

Posted using Partiko Android

If you haven't offended then you are safe then. We are on the same page and agree with what you say.

Dear @cryptosharon

Wouldn't you agree that if there would be no punishment for killing someone, then very quickly our values (as entire society) would change.

Wouldn't you agree @cryptoandcoffee?

Cheers
Piotr

Definitely :) If there were changes in society (such as allowing to kill people without punishment), society would change. ;)

That make sense

You make sense too 😉

Posted using Partiko Android

I can only hope that I wont ever end up on your "kill for the right reason" list @cryptoandcoffee :)

But yeah, I kind of agree. The truth is that if there would be no punishment for killing someone, then very quickly our values (as entire society) would change.

Wouldn't you agree @cryptoandcoffee?

Cheers
Piotr

I agree as it has to depend on the reason. I live in a society where life is cheap and isn't valued. I think the obvious ones like self defense are self explanatory. I think ones like poachers hunting Rhino for instance are robbing the world of something precious for a stupid horn that has more value than gold. I think in order to protect the Rhino now as their current methods are not working very well is to have a shoot to kill policy.

Are you in South Africa?

Posted using Partiko Android

I know it has one of the highest crime rates in the world (4th? Venezuela is the first). Usually when people mention the small value of life its in high crime zones, overpopulated areas and certain kind of cultures.

Rhino = Africa, you're white, in a high crime area, and you talk about coffee in your name (middle/upper class with European culture). That's SA. :P

That or an expat. Those are very few in in black African countries that I know of. Most are in Qatar and other Arab states which are not very concerned with Rhinos.

You are more like a detective lol. Been here too long and that is why I think like I do maybe. I have seen too much and this has made me a little harder than most people and nothing really shocks me anymore.

Dear @cryptoandcoffee

I only had a chance to read your comment a moment ago. Somehow I've missed it before.

Appreciate the fact that you're always so responsive.

I live in a society where life is cheap and isn't valued.

Do you mind sharing with me where do you live?

Cheers, Piotr

Hmm I wonder what such a society would be like, where it's normal for people to kill each other all the time.

Posted using Partiko Android

Hi, it seems you are stating that there are no moral absolutes, that it depends on your culture/religion/upbringing. However your position seems to conflict with itself. You are stating a moral truth that there are no moral truths. If you believe your position is correct, then there is at least one moral truth, yours.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm not stating a moral truth. I'm stating my perception on other people's perceptions on what they call "moral truths". 🎊🎉

The fact that I'm talking about morals doesn't imply that I'm morally judging something. I'm evaluating it philosophically.

Posted using Partiko Android

You are correct in saying that "there are no moral truths" could be logically true, but only by admitting that there is absolute truth (outside the realm of morality). What are the absolute truths you believe, and how did you discover them?

I don't usually talk from absolute truth but from the point of view of relativity itself according to which I cannot be certain of any truth. But in this post I talked from only three assumptions: that the scientific description of evolution is accurate, that my knowledge of different cultures is accurate and that there is no God.

If any of those three failed, my arguments would fail as well. However, as they are all likely to be true, I don't worry much about that.

edit: If you are also a relativist, we may agree on much more than you think. The reason for this post and all the recent ones is that I like to debate and antagonise assumptions of absolute truth, and I wanted to write some absurdist texts as a work of art. I can't reveal the title of the work of art but I guess you can appreciate the piece even without it. It starts on the post I made 4 days ago called "how free are we truly?" and it will continue for a few days (until I feel it is almost complete, but I may not be able to post the final piece as it is too controversial)

Moral Relativism could be defended, if it had a foundation of non-moral absolute truths, but without any type of absolute truth it is indefensible. For the record I believe in absolute moral truth, and am not a relativist.

You mentioned your three assumptions, but do you claim any of the three are absolutely true? You defined Relativism in this way "I cannot be certain of any truth" This seems to be a bigger category than moral truth. If you can't be certain of any truth, then what is the point of debate, school, knowledge, science, or philosophy? They are all worthless exercises in futility. You mentioned that you like to debate assumptions of absolute truth. What do you hope to accomplish by this? If there is no truth to appeal to, how could either side of the debate ever win?

If you can't be certain of any truth, then what is the point of debate, school, knowledge, science, or philosophy? They are all worthless exercises in futility. You mentioned that you like to debate assumptions of absolute truth. What do you hope to accomplish by this? If there is no truth to appeal to, how could either side of the debate ever win?

The objective is to have fun. I cannot deny that I have a lot of fun debating things and exploring the depths of the human mind and cultural delights. I don't expect to accomplish anything else. I don't think anything can be known except for the fact that I exist, so I decided I would instead explore and have fun.

For the record I believe in absolute moral truth, and am not a relativist.

Are you religious?

That is an interesting answer, I don't think I have ever met someone who debated simply for fun. I can see that you are an intelligent, thoughtful person. I learned a few things in coming up with my comments, so thank you.

A relativist in essence cannot prove relativism, because that would mean there is at least one absolute truth. (the relativism worldview). However, that does not prevent debating anyway.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

A relativist in essence cannot prove relativism, because that would mean there is at least one absolute truth.

Well, the only statement I make as a relativist is that I cannot be sure of anything other than the fact that I exist, at least in thought or abstraction. I don't claim that it's impossible to know or that there is no truth, only that I have been unable to ascertain those truths and I've built my life and moral system from that doubt.

Things like being sure that my body exists, my surroundings, norms and even more the dogmas of belief and faith, I can only feel uncertain about them. If I can't be certain of what I can see, I can even be less certain of what I cannot see. Although I do not claim to know any truths beyond my own existence, that truth persists and reverberates in everything I do or say, making all my philosophy be filled with scepticism.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

I've been talking with another Roman Catholic very recently. I find that it's a very interesting belief system. It's kind of like the opposite of my mindset so it's really, really hard for me to stand in your shoes and say that I could believe something so specific. I still respect your belief, though. Everybody has their own reasons to believe what they believe.


And thank you too. :) it's always good to have some sober comments from smart people. It's always more fun like that.

It falls under "Well, it depends." Then you go down a massive spiral staircase to a world beyond plagued by ethical monsters as more variables grow on trees faster than any fruit you have ever seen then gets sucked dry by counter reasoning. It really is a tricky one but I still want to be a Assassin.

I want to be friends with an assassin =)

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's ok to kill communists, my preferred method would be 1 way helicopter rides with a no parachute free fall!

LSD before throwing them or not?

Most of my readers are western middle-and-upper-class internet users raised in a chiefly catholic/protestant setting (yes, very specific but true).

Seems I'm most of your readers :p

My readership is almost homogenic, i think. 🤔

Posted using Partiko Android

I don't really like your conclusion, only because something is common and culturally defined it doesn't mean that it should still be somewhat socially acceptable.
I mean many crimes are certainly very common and socially somewhat acceptable in many places on this planet but they are still morally wrong.
Having slaves was completely fine a bit more than a century ago, it's still wrong.
I believe that killing anyone out of any reason if it is avoidable is always wrong. Everyone has a right to live since it is the only life we have.
Only because someone was either born with a psychological issue or was misdirected by unpleasant occurrences in his life doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to live.

That's precisely the point I was debating. The Vikings had an ancient culture, hundreds of years old, and it was a warrior culture. Their have been plenty of those. America had some, there's the Zulu, there's the Sentinel Island (read about this one, it's the best example), the vikings, etc., and in those societies, the death of your enemies is celebrated. For this kind of warrior society, it is not only socially accepted but a great achievement to kill your opponents. You only think it's bad because you were raised that way. They only think it's good because they were raised that way. That's why morality is relative and things are not bad by themselves but bad to the people who see them as such.

Do you still disagree? If so, what makes you think that morality is absolute?

That is exactly the point I am debating, you are saying that morale depends on a social context. While I think that morale is something which doesn't depend on the cultural context. As the examples, I was making, having slaves was bad all along, nowadays most people know it was.

We can usually try to see this through the "Do I want this happening to me" point of view.
I mean, Vikings also were sad about one of their owns being killed in a battle (Although they'd believe to rejoin them in Valhalla eventually). This means that they are not happy about people killing people. They are happy about them killing others which shows the lack of morale in this setting.

Well I'm not happy when I have to give my money to someone in exchange for a good. I'd rather keep my money. That doesn't mean that asking for compensation for essential goods and services is bad.

You're creating a symmetric moral system where things that make people feel good are good and things that make people feel bad are bad. However, first, society is filled with asymmetricalities and it's much more complicated than that. And second, it's something you created and decided was the right thing. They created another system and decided that one was the right system, an asymmetrical moral system conflicting with yours. How do you decide that yours is right and theirs is bad? It is as much their belief that they are right as it is yours that you are right.

In the end he point is: why should anyone else change their opinion and believe that yours is the right one? Why is their culture's moral system wrong and yours right? Why should morals be symmetrical and based on feelings?

Posted using Partiko Android

While you might not want to pay for a service, you might want something in exchange for a service you are offering yourself?

I know that our society is filled with asymmetries, but isn't this in huge parts the root of most problems we are facing during these times? The richest having "high" morales in protecting the environment and fighting for equality while the poor barely have enough to eat and surely other things to worry about.

So it might be fine for someone who is poor to drive an old diesel which is bad for the environment while it might not be fine for someone who can afford a cleaner car.

Or, while it might be fine for a poor person to steal food, as someone from the middle class this is not acceptable.

I'm not saying that a system of morale has to be symmetric, but, it has to be consistent. It's like math. If 1+2 = 3, then 2+1 must be 3 too.

If I find it wrong that other people kill, then it should be wrong for me too.
Of course, this can be context sensitive (Self-defense, accidentally, attack, war) but in this sense, if I find it wrong if someone kills me in self-defense, I should find it wrong for someone else, in the same situation, to do this as well. Anything else is selfishness and inconsistent.

I mean, else, when we say that morale does depend on the culture, and can be asymmetric and inconsistent, then do we need morale at all and couldn't we call it all culture, couldn't we?

I mean, seemingly you are following the path of "everything is alright".
People killing, robbing, raping, kid soldiers, it's all fine, who are we to judge them, who are we trying to impose our moral standards on them?

And don't get me wrong, I don't believe morale is absolute at all. I find the question of "is it bad to kill someone" extremely complex. Taking as an example the train paradox where you have to decide between killing one or three people. Or, should you shoot a plane full of people because it might crash into a building and kill many others?
These questions are incredibly difficult to answer and might not have a decent response at all.
But, morale has to be consistent. If I think it is right to kill the people in the plain, I must be okay with it when I am in the plain as well. Else, it's just being selfish.

Loading...

I am not old, but I have been alive long enough to know that there are fates far worse than death. So in that sense, killing people is okay. That is the difference between us and animals; our mental and emotional capabilities allow us to inflict and experience pain from different perspectives. These abilities are very faint or nonexistent in other animals. The only pain they feel is physical so killing is the utimate pain for them.

Would you kill an animal for food?

Posted using Partiko Android

Me personally? Yes but that to me is a matter of survival which is outside the scope of this post. I can understand if someone wouldn't want to kill an animal for food because as I have said before, we can feel emotions that animals cannot feel such as remorse.

Oh I was just curious. It was not a question related to the post. I would also kill an animal for food. I know people who wouldn't, as you said.

I think animals can perceive a wider range of emotions than we usually assume, but it's all instinctual or not as based on rationalisation as ours.

I like your name, by the way, it's so cute! 😍😊

Posted using Partiko Android

:) I can use the same argument to deny the sphericity of the earth, because some people in the past maintained that it was flat, and even today. If we rely on the mere opinion of people (or peoples), all the things we speak of will be relative or subjective, to the point where truth itself would cease to exist.

The earth is obviously spherical, regardless of the opinion of everyone.

But I agree with what you say, no action is absolutely good or bad, without this meaning that the good is relative or subjective.

If I hit someone for self-defense, or if I hit an innocent person, in both cases I am hitting someone, however, the circumstances are different, therefore, the same action is good on one occasion and bad on another, without the good be relative for that. The same happens at higher levels with the cultures of one place or another, or of this or that time, because circumstances are changing, not because the good is.

There is always something that is objective, something that is relative, and something that is subjective. The good is objective; the good things/people/actions are relative, varying by the circumstances; and the perception of the good is subjective. Don't you think?

I can use the same argument to deny the sphericity of the earth

No you can't lol

Morality is created by humans. So each individual has their own morals. If you ask "is tipping a waiter good?", Americans would say yes and Japanese would say no, it's bad. And it would be true for each of them because morality lives inside of them.

The Earth is outside. No matter what you say, you aren't changing the outer reality by declaring it so (unless you're god or something like that). Morality is an inner concept that belongs to you and to each thinker, while, assuming we aren't within a dream and what we see is real, the earth is an outer truth that lives beyond your opinion (unlike morality which is just your opinion about what things are good or bad).

Posted using Partiko Android

I think you're right, if we start from the basis that morality is created by humans, then you're right.

But look, don't you think that when Americans or Japanese say that this or that thing is good it is for some reason, or do you think they say that for no reason?

When we say that something is good, we simply say it to put a adjective at random, or do we say it because we perceive that, in some way, that is what will give the best result?

It is not by chance that we say that something is good or not, if it were so, not even the concept would exist.

The fact is that, as humans are looking for a multiplicity of different things, they say "good" to different things. Of course, all these things that are "good" have nothing to do with the moral good, that good that all religions and cultures seek, that which has sought every human society, that which seeks to achieve self-realization and fullness of human being, who seeks to place him in its highest state.

Now, if what all people consider good will lead them to that state then we would live in the paradise, which is not true. Good has nothing to do with opinion, and exists objectively, as does truth, which is not tangible.

The fact that many people differ in what is good means that; or there is ignorance; or two different concepts are spoken but the same word is used to designate them; or very well that being variable circumstances that what is considered good is also variable. However, the good continues to exist despite such differences.

It's like in math, someone can say that 2+2=5, but he will be wrong because of ignorance. Or two different operations can give the same result, 2+2=4 or 3+1=4, which creates an appearance of relativity.

The good, like the number, and the truth, are objective. Or at least that's what I think. And I'm not God, I swear.

You are underestimating the power of evolution, culture and human nature. The key is in something that you said.

When we say that something is good, do we simply say it to put a adjective at random, or do we say it because we perceive that, in some way, that is what will give the best result?

As evolution, cultural values and circumstance have influenced human beings, they have imposed a certain common sense, an instinct, involuntary impulses both on the body and the mind.

What this means is that it's not for "no good reason", it's a very good reason, and it's that we perceive it as such. If I see that a cup is red I'll say it's red. The difference is that this perception lies within our genes, our culture and our minds.

However, as it is not an ultimate truth beyond our bodies but a truth within ourselves, what is "good" is different for every person. Evolution and culture have inserted behaviour guidelines so deep into us that we perceive them as as intensely as the truths outside of us. So if someone says something is good, they say it for a good reason: they perceive it as such.

Posted using Partiko Android

Interesting perspective on the subject. Well done 👍🏽

Posted using Partiko iOS

You got a 83.29% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @cryptosharon! :)

@ocdb is a non-profit bidbot for whitelisted Steemians, current max bid is 60 SBD and the equivalent amount in STEEM.
Check our website https://thegoodwhales.io/ for the whitelist, queue and delegation info. Join our Discord channel for more information.

If you like what @ocd does, consider voting for ocd-witness through SteemConnect or on the Steemit Witnesses page. :)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.13
JST 0.030
BTC 66561.16
ETH 3492.16
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.63