Hey secular humanist atheists: Why is killing someone wrong?

File: 164 KB, 494x356, brainstorm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:20:23 2010 No.1990172 [Reply] [Original]

Hey secular humanist atheists:

Why is killing someone wrong?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:23:23 2010 No.1990189 It's not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:23:23 2010 No.1990191 it makes people sad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:25:23 2010 No.1990205 >>1990189 Does wrong have a meaning?

>>	oh gosh Tue Nov 2 20:26:23 2010 No.1990207 because their friends will miss them

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:26:23 2010 No.1990208 it's not "wrong". in most cases it's bad for the human race to kill someone, because they could be valuable in the future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:27:23 2010 No.1990211 There is no wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:28:23 2010 No.1990216 >>1990208 What is the human race?

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:28:23 2010 No.1990218

>>1990189

This.

>>1990205

Objectively? No.Can you perceive something as wrong? Yes. Also, since we have reached a point in civilization that the majority agrees on what actions are wrong and right (for the most part. And this is a very basic level of civilization), saying "It is wrong that he raped my sister" has cultural validity. If you were to say this in ancient times, it might not be seen as wrong (depending on your society of course.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:28:23 2010 No.1990219 >>1990208 cont'd euthanasia of the mentally disabled can be undesirable as well. they can be used for medical research, like drug tests or prostheses, etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:30:23 2010 No.1990228 >>1990218 Who are you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:30:23 2010 No.1990229 Because the consequences will never be the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:30:23 2010 No.1990231 Because I like my life, and I don't want it taken from me. If I think it is wrong for someone to take my life without my permission, then why should I feel otherwise for others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:32:23 2010 No.1990241 >>1990228 Elaborate on your question.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:32:23 2010 No.1990244

Killing people does the following:
destabilizes society (people get sad, they work less efficiently)
wastes resources (see the comment about the mentally deficient in research)
has potential to set back the future of the huamn race (see: butterfly effect) in most cases this is not very applicable, however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:33:23 2010 No.1990250 >>1990241 You defined yourself as a group with the word "we." What group are you?

>>	oh gosh Tue Nov 2 20:33:23 2010 No.1990256 you guys are all fucking retarded. it doesnt have some deep chemical meaning. its wrong because a person should be able to decide when they stop living, not somebody else. simple as that. everyone has the right to live.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:34:23 2010 No.1990257 File: 41 KB, 200x200, yoba smiling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's wrong because we decide it is.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:34:23 2010 No.1990258

Have you heard the phrase: "given an appropriate amount of time even monkeys can write Shakespeare?"

To kill someone is the ultimate form of arrogance in suggesting that they offer no useful perspective or data for the benefit of humanity. Not just at that single moment of their existence, but all future contributions they, or any of their offspring could produce. Killing, allowing the poor to suffer and die away, it potentially cheats human development. With all life their should be a cost/benefit analysis. Is the cost of their life, and all they could contribute, higher or lower than the cost of allowing them to continue to live in various states of being. Does their life detract or provide to humanity. This is how life and death should be justified. In this system, killing can be immoral.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:34:23 2010 No.1990259 >>1990250 We meaning the civilization I live in. No one man made my country.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:35:23 2010 No.1990268 Because our society has collectively decided that it is wrong and that there will be consequences for doing it.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:35:23 2010 No.1990269

>>1990208

The second half of this is one reason.

Mostly it's because humans developed to be social animals because we survive MUCH better in a group that works together than we do individually. It's one of the things that actually makes our intelligence actually useful. Having the intellectual capacity to manipulate the world around you is worthless if you're too busy trying to not get killed by predators to make use of that skill, which would make you safer in the long run.

Now, then two people say, hey, you look out for predators while I'm building a house, and you can share it with me.

Not to go too heavy into evolutionary psychology, basically it's because we work better as a species when we can trust everyone to a certain extent not to harm us. It allows society to work, which is better for all of us than individuals working alone. Someone killing someone attacks the very core of what makes us successful as a species, cooperation. That's why it's bad.

The emotional things like grief, empathy, love, etc. were developed to facilitate such interactions, and groups that developed such traits worked better together, and were more successful, so they were our ancestors.

Sorry that the post is kind of disjointed, but I'm rather sleep deprived. Been studying a lot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:36:23 2010 No.1990270 >>1990258 >>1990218 pretty much these. /thread >>1990256 >but that's wrong you fucking retard.tiff

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:37:23 2010 No.1990281 >>1990256 why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:38:23 2010 No.1990286 >>1990258 Define humanity

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:38:23 2010 No.1990287

>>1990258

#1 Your quote is irrelevant.
#2 Congrats, basic utilitarianism. Doesn't matter though because net good can mean you getting violently raped by a 12 inch dicked negro, so you can have a child who will become president one day. Because net good =/= good for a single person, we each devise our own system of morals based upon what makes us happy (If killing people makes you more happy than sad, you will most likely kill people.)

Relativism is king.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:38:23 2010 No.1990288 It's arbitrary, we just don't do it cause society will collapse, and or, we can rationalize not doing it..... I'm a panentheist btw....

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:40:23 2010 No.1990295 It isn't. It's just not a very social thing to do.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:41:23 2010 No.1990305

>>1990269

"Good" =/= what will help a species have many living offspring who will live and spread their genes.

"Good" doesn't exist. It is merely a personal thing we make up to give us the most joy. Our society may drill into our minds that "good" is what benefits the society, and in that case we will do it because it is what we have been programmed to do, so "good" changes from what makes you happy to what makes you obey your conditioning.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:42:23 2010 No.1990307 It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Anyone can pervert those terms to fit their worldview. We have an agreement among individuals that life is worth living, and that living is therefore preferable to dying and death.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:43:23 2010 No.1990315 >>1990269 So life is better than death?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:43:23 2010 No.1990316 >>1990288 >pantheist Auto-retard alert. > Believes good is non-existant, AND is a pantheist Ohshitniggeryoujustwentfullretarded.jpg

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:45:23 2010 No.1990330 >>1990315 Preferable. I haven't died yet, so I wouldn't know if dying is better, but I've lived and living has been at least interesting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:45:23 2010 No.1990337 File: 19 KB, 279x349, spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1990316 What's good or evil is relative to humans, god is neutral a force of nature...... lrn 2 spinoza

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:47:23 2010 No.1990353

>>1990287
Utilitarianism is the best way, because your emotions are meaningless electronic signals. Even if that assraping you receive is quite unpleasant, if the offspring develops technology that unlocks the possibility for human space travel, then that event in retrospect was a positive one for humanity. However I hesitate to suggest that you can justify any negative event because there could be a positive gain later, but if you logically examine an event, a situation, then to the best of your knowledge make a decision about how to proceed, by considering both your own safety and the benefit of your neighbors, it is the most correct one. There are other options than death after all. If someone is running around raping people and producing prodigies, the limit of your options are not "kill him or allow him to continue for the benefit of humanity."

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:49:23 2010 No.1990365 >>1990353 WHy should the individual sacrifice for the collective?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:50:23 2010 No.1990368 File: 318 KB, 686x851, immanuel-kant2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1990353 > Immanuel Kant would like to have a word with you.....

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:55:23 2010 No.1990405

>>1990365
Because without "the collective" your life is meaningless. The only way to live eternally is to support your race. I'm not suggesting complete sacrifice, but to act completely against what best serves humanity purely for your own gain is pointless. You will still die. Your feelings of comfort will be forgotten. And when you act selfishly you encourage others to do the same, which will negatively impact you in the long run.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:58:23 2010 No.1990424

>>1990305

I never actually used the word "good" in that post, but when I said bad I did mean it in the sense of 'bad for the species' not 'inherently wrong or evil'. The problem with trying to extricate it from those meanings is that our language developed with those ideas entrenched in it, so it has those connotations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 20:58:23 2010 No.1990425 >>1990353 >emotions meaningless Then the desires of humanity as a collective entity are also meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:00:23 2010 No.1990438 >>1990315 In the sense that is essentially the function of any species to reproduce and continue existing, then yes. As for more philosophical reasoning, I wouldn't really be the person to provide it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:01:23 2010 No.1990444 >>1990425 Incorrect. The emotions of immortal beings, such as societies, have meaning. The emotions of mortal individuals do not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:03:23 2010 No.1990454 >>1990444 >Society >immortal >He thinks there is such a thing as a society which won't collapse due to rebellion or lack of supplies to support the population. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:03:23 2010 No.1990456

It's not wrong, it just is of no benefit to society. Depending on who you kill you could actually be taking away a useful individual from the society. Beyond just that though, any family or friends of the who had strong connections towards this individual could be affected negatively.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:05:23 2010 No.1990469

I don't want to be killed.

I don't want to live in a society where it is ok for people to kill other people, because I don't want to be killed and I don't want to see the people I give a shit about killed either.

That is why killing people is wrong.

/thread

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:06:23 2010 No.1990472
File: 77 KB, 536x728, jb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Without context, it isn't. If that person could cause more harm than I cause by killing him, it is right to kill. If the life is innocent, though, and if killing him would cause more harm than leaving him alive, then it is wrong to kill.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:07:23 2010 No.1990482 in order to live in a society where we dont have to be watching our back all day so we can devote our time to more productive means, we must all agree not to kill each other.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:12:23 2010 No.1990507 >>1990438 The function of the species is not to reproduce. It is the behavior of the species.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:13:23 2010 No.1990514

>>1990454
It doesn't matter if all mammals die out, or if all creatures using DNA die out, or if dark energy tears the Universe we know apart, so long as the consciousness that began with homo sapiens can somehow continue then it is eternal. We do not currently have the ability to make any information eternal based on the Universe we know, but until the Universe is totally knowable as the extent of existence then we should continue to hope for its possibility. Otherwise you are correct, utilitarianism or narcissism, pleasure or pain, all ideas and states are completely pointless. But the cost of assuming the universe to be meaningless and missing a chance for survival is a much more costly assumption than assuming eternity can be achieved in a universe where it is impossible. Even if the outcome is the same, one was escapable.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:15:23 2010 No.1990523

Cause it's a gainst tha lawwwwwwww duh.

Really though, it's wrong because the person may have been of benefit to society, or to something/someone. on occasion, killing someone is right though. It all depends on the person. Killing someone is usually only right when they're uncurably ill and want to reproduce. (mental cases, genetically messed up people, etc. they shouldn't be reproducing. They can have sex, just not babies.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:16:23 2010 No.1990536 >>1990507 If a Species does not Reproduce; it dies. It's a duty that you have evolved to feel is a behavior.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:18:23 2010 No.1990542 >>1990514 This sounds like some professional armchair stoner philosophy. In any case, if what you say is true than emotions are JUST as important as societies because they "exist" just as much as societies "exist"

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:18:23 2010 No.1990543

Nihilist here.

>Why is killing someone wrong?
Killing someone is not 'wrong'. There is no inherent 'wrong' or 'right', only what we have been brought up, as a society with 'morals', to believe is as such.

That doesn't mean that I think killing people is something that should be done. Killing people hurts families and, if everyone was allowed to kill, if these fabricated 'morals' that have been developed over hundreds of years were to suddenly disappear, then I think it's quite obvious that everyone would just be killing their enemies and the people who piss them off without a second thought. There would be no structure, only chaos. Nobody would be able to live properly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:22:23 2010 No.1990566 >>1990542 Heh, think as you wish, good sir or madam. While I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it. :3

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:23:23 2010 No.1990570 >>1990543 Relativism =/= nihilism. Nihilists are relativists, not vice versa

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:23:23 2010 No.1990575 >>1990566 >While I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it. Not the person who you were talking to, but that's a very quotable phrase, right there. Stealing that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:25:23 2010 No.1990585 >>1990566 Voltaire, right? Individual liberty < Forced happiness via conditioning, involuntarily ingested chemicals, etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:25:23 2010 No.1990590 >>1990570 Explain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:27:23 2010 No.1990598 >>1990575 Lol at the uncultured. Not that I view my self as superior of course.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:28:23 2010 No.1990608 >>1990590 Someone who believes in moral relativism does not necessarily believe in all the things nihilists believe in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:29:23 2010 No.1990617 >>1990536 Duty?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:30:23 2010 No.1990623 >>1990608 I don't remember ever making that claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:34:23 2010 No.1990650 >>1990623 Just pointing out that your stating that you are a nihilist is completely irrelevant, and since you said it, it implies that you thought it was relevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:35:23 2010 No.1990656 It's only wrong so long as you value your own life. If you don't, you can kill as you wish, but you must expect others to take the same liberty with your own life

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:42:23 2010 No.1990709 >>1990650 I stated I was nihilist because the thread was directed at humanists.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 21:46:23 2010 No.1990733

Because God tells me not to.... oh wait Im a secular humanist atheist, I don't believe in God, oh shit, no sky king is there to tell me what is right and what is wrong, therefore, there is no right and wrong. Holy crap, okay by all I need to visit my annoying neighbor's house and take a shit on his doormat now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 22:53:23 2010 No.1991088 because it is a societal norm... which is developed because it is advantageous to the special as a whole

EK !D96TK2PSsI Tue Nov 2 22:55:23 2010 No.1991101

well basically we evolved ecause killinhg is wrong, and you wpuldnt want someone to do that stuff to you, so basically, the society can only propoage if the fuckin memebrs arnt killinb tyhemesleves., and each other, so the society with peoples dyins dies itself, and sdoesnt evolve more societys. so ones that do are like still alive and shit coz they dont kill, so the people learn not to harm the fellow man. there is genes and stuff.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:01:23 2010 No.1991148

The social organism that we all belong to demands that it be so.

>1610 artrance
>artrance
>art trance
>SIXTEEN TEN ART TRANCE
BOOP-DEE-DEE-BOOOOOP-DI-DI-DI-DI-BAPA-BOOP
BOOP-DI-DI-BAPA-DA-BAPA-DA-BOOP

ROOP ROOP ROOP LA LA LA ROOP ROOP
(mhm-mhm-DAH mhm-mhm-uhm-ee-DUH)
ROOP ROOP..................................WOOOOP WOOOP
(mhmm-mhm, DOOM-DA-DOOM-DA)

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:05:23 2010 No.1991169

>>1990656
And why value your own life if you can only value life when you are alive?

Evolutionarily, we value our own lives, which, as you pointed out, leads to placing value on the lives of others. Since we are intelligent and conscious, the way our species has ensured its own survival is by placing this value on life, however, if we delve into the superficial reasons for valuing our own lives, they do not exist after death.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:09:23 2010 No.1991190 It isn't.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:11:23 2010 No.1991214

>>1990172
>OP is implying that without god, there is no right or wrong.

If the decree of a supernatural being that you've never directly seen, heard or touched is the only reason you're not killing people, then it is to our advantage as a society to incarcerate/reeducate/banish you whether it fits your definition of 'good' or not.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:12:23 2010 No.1991217

>>1990172

There is no such thing as right or wrong.

However, killing others (usually) detracts from the likelihood of our species' survival, as well as our own survival (as an individual). Thus, there is little reason to kill others who do not directly threaten the lives of you or a loved one.

>>	EK !D96TK2PSsI Tue Nov 2 23:15:23 2010 No.1991230 except for food>>1991217

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:16:23 2010 No.1991245 >>1991217 Basically, having a "conscience" is selected for.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:19:23 2010 No.1991265 It is wrong because it goes against our natural instincts. We're a tribal species who consider anything good to be something that benefits society. Killing someone makes everything fall apart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:19:23 2010 No.1991266 >>1991245 However, being a psychopath is also selected for evolutionarily, because these people are able to pass on their genes incredibly successfully, although this would not work if the majority of the species were psychopaths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:23:23 2010 No.1991296 >>1991214 debatable.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:24:35 2010 No.1991304 [DELETED]

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

ag·nos·tic
/ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:30:23 2010 No.1991337

Because it just is?

Why must there be a reason for our ethics and morals?

We just know killing people is wrong. We know it hurts them and their family, we know that we ourselves would not want to be killed.

We just understand the implications and we accept that it is wrong to kill people. We don't need a God too tell us that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:33:23 2010 No.1991350 >>1991337 no but you're wrong faggot. There is a reason for this as there is a reason for everything. Fuck off. Just because you are retarded and don't understand something doesn't mean it's "just cuz". That's fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:34:23 2010 No.1991356 >>1991350 Also, nice get. 1337 ftw

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:35:23 2010 No.1991361 >>1991265 Are you new to the human race?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:49:23 2010 No.1991419 >>1991337 What are the implications?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 2 23:58:23 2010 No.1991458 >>1991337 >Why must there be a reason for our ethics and morals? Why must there be a reason for a deity?

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:04:23 2010 No.1991490

>>1991458
nah, I got a better one...

>How do you know God exists?

Because I just do?

Why must I have a reason to believe in God?

We just know that God exists. We know He created the universe, we know that He made us for a purpose.

We just understand that God is a moral authority and the First Cause. We don't need logic to tell us that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:05:23 2010 No.1991491 its detrimental to society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:07:23 2010 No.1991504 >>1991491 That implies that society has a purpose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:10:23 2010 No.1991523 @OP are you an atheist turned nihilist? your questions sound too nihilistic to determine trurh. your question is loaded. oh well.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:24:23 2010 No.1991587

>>1991523
Erm, I'm a devil's advocate. I like to show people that their "atheism" logically leads to nihilism, and that atheism is a premise, not a logical conclusion.

Basically, you cannot derive an ought from an is. If the universe and its population don't have a creator, then the words "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" are merely tools with no absolute definitions. Which means that killing someone is only wrong if you define wrong to be killing someone.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:43:23 2010 No.1991684

>>1991587

Atheists can still have values. Values are psychological which means they are ultimately created by people's own minds. Now just because we've gotten our values out of a book written by people who thought stoning prostitutes was coo' for eons don't mean one can not derive one's own values. Come to think of it every value in every religion was ultimately derived by human beings anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:48:23 2010 No.1991706 >>1990172 It's usually wrong because the net worth of utility are lowered. NEXT

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:49:23 2010 No.1991710 Because, unfortunately, it is not your life to take. It belongs to someone else, and your right to kill is nullified by their right to live, assuming you believe in Enlightenment ideals.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:54:23 2010 No.1991720

>>1990172
Its actually simple to explain why its wrong without having to evoke any magic beings, its wrong because we as a society agreed its wrong.
I'll go into some basic detail

I dont want to be killed, or have all my shit stolen. I know a whole bunch of other people who dont want to be killed or have their shit stolen. I have a great idea, lets all agree not to kill each other or steal each others shit, thus we all personally benefit from this agreement. But what if someone changes his mind and starts killing/stealing our shit, Well then as a group we need to say, throw him in jail, or else the agreement that personally benefits all is worthless. You could even say evolution has made us decide to be cooperative like this. As a group we have greater odds of living then going" every man for him self".

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:54:23 2010 No.1991721

>>1990172
"wrong" is kind of a loaded word. More like messed up. Each human takes so much time to grow, it's like unless you killed someone at age 99 or something it would just not be cool to do so.

Now if the person is trying to kill you or someone else then screw the fact that it's messed up--it's about self-preservation or protection at that point.

It's not wrong, because that implies some kind of morality but I would say that it's like cutting down a growing tree. It's just a shame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 00:57:23 2010 No.1991727 disbelieve everything. there is no reason to not kill. there is no reason to kill. bling

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:01:23 2010 No.1991740

Because you tard...
if humans (and ALL animals) had no reason to not just kill each other off for no reason then all of those species would be extinct...

Therefore, natural selection goes in favor of living things that actually have a desire to NOT be destructive to their own kind for no reason.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:01:23 2010 No.1991743 >>1990172 Because you're causing unnecessary suffering.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:03:23 2010 No.1991749 It isn't, <insert dialog from Watchmen here>

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:27:23 2010 No.1991836 >>1991684 Hmm... But is it logical to value anything at all?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:31:23 2010 No.1991861 killing someone is only wrong when it isn't justified see: justice

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:51:23 2010 No.1991957 >>1991861 justice is subjective killing isn't

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:55:23 2010 No.1991965 So the only thing stopping OP from going on a killing spree is fear of a Deity's punishment?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:58:23 2010 No.1991975 File: 40 KB, 400x600, 400px-Jennique_Zickedeluxe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1990172 >Why is killing someone wrong? "Social contract" buddy

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 01:59:23 2010 No.1991983 >>1991965 duh

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:00:23 2010 No.1991987 >>1991965 What's stopping you?

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:00:23 2010 No.1991989

Basically it is not wrong on a universal scale.
Because there is no absolute meaning of "good" and "bad"

However, there is a very clear meaning to "good" and "bad" within living things. If it were good to go on a mass killing spree none of us would probably be alive today, and things certainly would not have advanced as far.
So a natural definition of "good" could be behaviors or things that allow or encourage progression of the human species.
Going on killing sprees is certainly not progressive to the species which is why evolution has selected for us to have an inherent sense of "good".

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:01:23 2010 No.1991994 Social contract, and innate empathy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:02:23 2010 No.1991996 >>1991836 An axiom can't be logical

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:03:23 2010 No.1992000 >>1991989 There is no good inherent to species. The only factor that evolution cares about is ability to procreate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:04:23 2010 No.1992001 >>1991996 That's my point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:05:23 2010 No.1992006 File: 46 KB, 496x413, 007a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1991965

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:06:23 2010 No.1992009 File: 89 KB, 500x334, 6225692_73da197b1a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1991994

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:07:23 2010 No.1992013 >>1992000 Percentage wise there aren't that many animals that regularly kill their own kind. You could easily list dozens to make a point but considering the number of species out there it quite few.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:07:23 2010 No.1992014 >>1991994 Pretty much this, especially the social contract bit. We're at the stage in our evolution as a civilization, you know?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:08:23 2010 No.1992019 File: 28 KB, 400x400, 1277217600381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1991996 >An axiom can't be logical

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:09:23 2010 No.1992022 >>1992013 Are you saying that the rule: Don't kill, is innate to nature?

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:09:23 2010 No.1992024

Is there a time when killing someone is the right thing to do? If someone murders at 16, goes into prison for 7 years during which time he's exposed to prison gangs and gets released at 23 and murders again, is put into prison again for 9 years and at 32 he is released and murders again and is put in prison.

This is becoming fairly typical in the prison system. It seems to me, from a personal perspective, that had we put the man to death, if not after the first time he murders at least after the second, we as a society are responsible for any action he takes after that point.

TLDR, it's my opinion that some people prove by their actions that they aren't fit to live.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:09:23 2010 No.1992025 >>1992019 You're a disgrace to your mind.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:12:23 2010 No.1992033

Isn't it possible that there is some objective morality?
I would suggest that the tiny minority that holds that the rape/murder of innocents is morally good is FACTUALLY incorrect.

Don't misunderstand; morality is still in shades of grey; it is virtually impossible to describe the vast majority of acts simply as "right" or "wrong". But baby eating is LESS right than free waterslides.

I implore you moral relatavists to be sensible. Too many people like to say there is no right or wrong because it sounds profound. It isn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:13:23 2010 No.1992035 >>1992022 I think when it comes to ones own species this may be true for many animals. The military has been working hard to find ways to overcome man's resistance to killing his own fellow man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:13:23 2010 No.1992038 >>1991994 That is the weakest sauce imaginable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:15:23 2010 No.1992042 File: 70 KB, 387x386, carl_sagan.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1990172 We're made of star stuff. We are a way, for the universe, to know itself

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:16:23 2010 No.1992047 >>1992042 GTFO you dead hippie.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:17:23 2010 No.1992049

>>1992035
But humans are extremely prone to killing their own kind and always have been. All primates (that I've learned about -- and I'm assuming that it extends to all primates) kill their own kind. It's extraordinarily common in the insect world as well. I see no pattern of not killing one's own species.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:17:23 2010 No.1992051 >>1991989 How do you reconcile the "good" of creating more human beings along with the "bad" of more people dieing due to starvation from overpopulation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:18:23 2010 No.1992054 File: 13 KB, 300x461, rgn_snape_narrowweb__300x461,0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1992047 Ten points from Slytherin

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:20:23 2010 No.1992060 Because if the world lived an eye for an eye, sooner or later we would all be blind. Then how would be get our soup?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:21:23 2010 No.1992064 >>1990228 he is anonymous, silly

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:24:23 2010 No.1992072

>>1992049

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912086,00.html

>Instead, they are programmed for selfish, even murderous acts when survival and propagation are threatened.

This keeps with self preservation and continuation of blood lines. This I believe is the exception of the rule.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:24:23 2010 No.1992074

We're no longer dumb beasts and consequently we're not somehow obligated to act in accordance with nature.

Neither must our rules be based on nature. We are intelligent enough not only to recognize what is, but what ought to be. Much of what we want from life is contrary to nature. Living indoors, air conditioning, three hot meals a day, air travel, medicine and so on.

Society exists in it's present form not because nature dictated it but because we designed it that way. For better or worse. It's set up as a means of accommodating up to a few hundred million of us, taking care of our needs in echange for labor, intervening to prevent the inevitable violence (as we are descended from a particularly warlike ape) and so on.

It isn't nature or even god that dictates how society works, it has always been our practical needs. We designed society to meet those needs and the religious echoing of the same basic rule set was merely a way to keep those too stupid to understand the way they benefit from participation in the system from violating it for short term gain.

So how is that fake? How is it less legitimate than a rule handed down by god? We've got rules that are as they are because they're necessary and they work. We all want them there, they benefit all of us and we've agreed to punish those who don't abide by them. The collective will of social contract participants is, in effect, the higher power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:24:23 2010 No.1992075 >>1992060 If you kill people outright, they can't stab you back, problem solved.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:25:23 2010 No.1992079

Sometimes things are just blatantly good or blatantly bad, and killing people is blatantly bad.

I just think that people have a right not to be killed unjustly.

Anybody who denies this, I think, would have to be okay with being killed for no good reason at all, and think that others should all be okay with being killed as such.

That would seem pretty outrageous, though.

It's a shame that post-modern bullshit, which denies *entirely* the existence of "good" and "bad" is often taken as the only alternative to religion and superstition.

As though religion is where notions about right and wrong originate, and as though people didn't put notions of right and wrong into religion, after the fact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:26:23 2010 No.1992081 >>1992074 What are our needs?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:26:23 2010 No.1992082 >>1992075 you can't kill everyone

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:31:23 2010 No.1992093
File: 147 KB, 800x524, needs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1992081

>>What are our needs?

Maslow's hierarchy is an excellent guide as it orders them by priority. Pic related. Each can be satisfied only when all those below it already have been.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:32:23 2010 No.1992099 >>1992093 Why don't you be unpredictable for once? Here, I have a source that says differently... Its me. Check. Mate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:32:23 2010 No.1992101 >>1992079 The ethic of killing people unjustly are simple. The ethics of killing people with justification such as stopping a murderer are what is interesting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:37:23 2010 No.1992119 >>1992093 i think the whole of /sci/ is a testament to the ability of problem solving skills and creativity even without : sleep, sex, self-respect or financial security. hierarchy is fail

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Nov 3 02:41:23 2010 No.1992129 File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1276409210970.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1992093 >mfw I only have the first level

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:42:23 2010 No.1992131 >>1992099 >>Here, I have a source that says differently... Its me. But that's stupid. We obviously need air to breathe, food to eat and so on. These are basic biological facts.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:43:23 2010 No.1992140

>>1992119

It's for the species rather than an individual. Sex is placed on the lowest level because if nobody's getting any, extinction soon follows.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs could also be thought of as "How to build a natural habitat for humans". If you were some sort of eccentric, perverse zookeeper. Shows you the basics of what a human population needs, all the way up to the luxuries.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:44:23 2010 No.1992144 >>1992131 Believing that we need to live is as axiomatic as believing in right and wrong. There is no logical basis for it.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:46:23 2010 No.1992152

It could be argued that killing is 'wrong' because we're essentially robbing someone of their greatest possession; life. However, on the other hand, the subject may wish to die, and welcome death, in which case, we're paying them a service. Is this still 'wrong' if the person in question wants to be killed? Our social morals say so, but said person's do not. Other cultures may not. Our entire ethos is determined by our morals as a Western society, and are completely subjective as such. (Although, animals, which we, as humans are, instinctively fear death and try to survive, so are our more simple morals derived from base instinct?)

In my own personal opinion, I believe killing is wrong when a person's life it taken against their will. Euthanasia? If a person wants to die, then I believe they should have full right to do so. Life is all that we have, and if such a person feels comfort in knowing it'll be taken from them, and give consent, then I do not think it is immoral.

I had something else in mind to type here, but kinda forgot what it was... oh, well, carry on, /sci/entists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:47:23 2010 No.1992156 File: 14 KB, 248x262, 1231708531148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1992129 Don't be a pussy you are awesome, ignore that picture....

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:47:23 2010 No.1992158

>>1992144

It isn't. The statement is only that we need to live in order to live. It asserts nothing about any higher purpose for life.

As I said it's a guide for cultivating a happy, healthy, fulfilled population of humans. Which naturally you'll only be interested in if you're altruistic.

But then the prison system and capital punishment exist as a means of gradually exterminating the misanthropes, probably weeding out any hereditary factors that cause that sort of behavior in the process. It's the last socially acceptable form of eugenics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:50:23 2010 No.1992165 >we need to live in order to live a tautology is a tautology

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed Nov 3 02:50:23 2010 No.1992170 File: 6 KB, 493x402, 1259314025218.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1992156 :3

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:51:23 2010 No.1992174 >>1992165 >implying we know what live is

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:52:23 2010 No.1992180 File: 25 KB, 478x468, brofist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1992170

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:52:23 2010 No.1992181 >>1992074 What ought to be? In the end, you don't have a question to "why is killing someone wrong."

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:54:23 2010 No.1992187 >>1992174 actually, i'm implying that his statement is true no matter the meaning of live, other than that it is a verb if by "live" he actually meant "die" or "eat" it would be identically valid.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 02:56:23 2010 No.1992193

>>1992181
It's not "wrong", it's just a douchebag maneuver. Seriously everyone thinks about this to much. I don't think killing is wrong in every instance, but other humans are living sentient beings and are aware of it. People act as your actions trump another human beings when we all occupy the form of existence.... We are all citizens of this cosmos.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Wed Nov 3 02:59:23 2010 No.1992200

>>1992181

>>What ought to be?

Yeah, according to us.

>>In the end, you don't have a question to "why is killing someone wrong."

I do, you're just determined to be right. It's why you started the thread. You thought you had an edgy, poignant statement to make and you've hung around not so much to hear opposing views as to insist you're correct, superior, and impossible to 'defeat' in argument. You need to feel like the smartest guy in the room in order to stave off the depressing, epiphenal realization of how vacuous and empty your life is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:04:23 2010 No.1992214 >>1992200 Well, I don't get any hostility from you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:05:23 2010 No.1992215 >>1992200 i've decided you win the thread. +8 WIN points

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:06:23 2010 No.1992218 >>1992200 Why you mad bro? Its not worth fighting for, we should be working on into space....

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:06:23 2010 No.1992220 >>1992200 That's true but I am the smartest guy in the room.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:32:23 2010 No.1992319 jesus.. this question is stupid. its because our society looks down upon killing. This is not about god, its about Justice. Although, 200 years ago, killing in a legitimate duel was ok

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:42:23 2010 No.1992365 bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:48:23 2010 No.1992388 I BELIEVE it is wrong. Some people may not think so, but I do. I feel that maybe, just maybe, that person could be valuable, and I don't like the idea of taking a human life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:49:23 2010 No.1992390 >>1992388 valuable how?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:53:23 2010 No.1992400 >>1992400

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:54:23 2010 No.1992406 >>1992390 Fuck I don't know. They could discover a cure for cancer, or save my life. However unlikely that may be, is it not possible?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:54:23 2010 No.1992410 >>1992406 Of course that's possible. The point is, why is that valuable?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:57:23 2010 No.1992421 File: 27 KB, 240x240, jorged.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's easy, OP. When I close my hands around your throat and start squeezing, just for the fun of it, what thoughts are running through your head?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 03:59:23 2010 No.1992429 >>1992421 Perhaps astonishment, worry and fear of death.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:00:23 2010 No.1992433 >>1992429 Would you want me to stop?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:00:23 2010 No.1992435 >>1992421 Jesus would be proud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:01:23 2010 No.1992437 >>1992433 No, I would want to kill you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:02:23 2010 No.1992442 >>1992433 Good

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:02:23 2010 No.1992443 This thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:04:23 2010 No.1992450 >>1992437 Why would you want to kill me? You would want to kill me but you wouldn't want me to stop? That doesn't make sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:04:23 2010 No.1992452 >>1992410 Nihilism ruins the fun, that's why.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:04:23 2010 No.1992453 >>1992433 Good I'm glad you gave up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:06:23 2010 No.1992455 >>1992453 what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:08:23 2010 No.1992459 >>1992455 You dumbshit

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:08:23 2010 No.1992463
File: 19 KB, 275x355, 1288388708672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This kind of nihilism is fucking pointless, because after all of this meditation about the meaning of life you are going to go back out into the world and people are going to have to deal with each other. Just saying "nothing has value" is pointless!

Things have perceived value to us, what other kind of value matters? Seriously, what else do you want? You have value, right there!

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:09:23 2010 No.1992467 >>1992459 Explain your retarded thoughts to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:10:23 2010 No.1992470 >>1992467 Or else what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:11:23 2010 No.1992474 >>1992463 You are wrong. Meditation on what values we have can lead us to absolute truths.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:11:23 2010 No.1992475 >>1992156 Technoviking, I...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:11:23 2010 No.1992476 >>1992463 And the answer to any problems is transferring our minds to pandas.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:12:23 2010 No.1992478 >>1992474 What absolute truths?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:13:23 2010 No.1992481 >>1992475 I just figure we will never into the future if we get mopey and don't bro up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:13:23 2010 No.1992482 >>1992474 yeah yeah, what I meant was dwelling on a nihilistic attitude. It's just a dead end, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:14:23 2010 No.1992484 >>1992140 >If you were some sort of eccentric, perverse zookeeper speaking out of experience

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:14:23 2010 No.1992485 >>1992093 I'm skeptical. I know people who used to have the Esteem with out the Love/Belonging.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:19:23 2010 No.1992501 >>1990444 so vampires eating us ded are by default morally superior?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:21:23 2010 No.1992504 >>1992093 What complete bullshit. Sex isn't a physiological need, and it sure as fuck isn't required for any of the things listed above it. I'm prepared with historical examples.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:21:23 2010 No.1992506 It's a pretty simple, really. It's just the principle of fairness and empathy that underlies all of morality.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:27:23 2010 No.1992529

>>1992410
Because they would save more people's lives?
And why is that good?
Because those people could be valuable.
And it goes on and on and on.
The point is, I really don't think it is "right" to kill someone.
I mean, Hitler killing up some bitches, I feel no remorse, but do I think it is right? Hell no.
Its hard to really explain why you think something is that to someone who doesn't think the same way. You know this. I know this. We all know this.
So, in the end, what is the point?

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:32:23 2010 No.1992544

>>1992529
>Because those people could be valuable.
I don't know... Empathy appeals way more as a motivation to save someone.

I would hate to choose between a useless junkie and prof.Hawking (would choose the second ofc), but saving a junkie instead of valuable lab equipment would not even be a dilemma to me...

onb4: GTFO out my /sci/ hippie

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 04:45:23 2010 No.1992588 Killing someone isn't wrong in and of itself. It becomes wrong when you kill the wrong person. Just like everything else it all comes down to ones personal judgment on the matter to tell right from wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:21:23 2010 No.1993554 NURR THIS THREAD IS STILL ALIVE? HOW THE FUCK?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:23:23 2010 No.1993558 >>1992588 There is no right and wrong. They are a creation of the human mind- an evolutionarily beneficial creation- but a creation no less.

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:25:23 2010 No.1993564

Cause it causes pain and suffering. Whether that pain be from the act of killing, the suffering of family member, or simply the fear of knowing that theres someone out there killing people, and they might kill you (even if hes doing it painlessly and to people who have no family)

This begs the question, why is human suffering wrong? Well, because I'm a human, and it benefits me to believe that. Its a matter of self interest. The concepts of right and wrong are just the concepts of what we want and what we dont want. Its very simple

Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:26:23 2010 No.1993566

if the life of an average person cannot be protected, the society will be in great instability. low efficiency and terror for everyone.
it's wrong and very wrong to kill a person, unless it's under a strict, controllable procedure, with good enough reason. i.e. trials.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:27:23 2010 No.1993571 Because according to atheists, this life is our only life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:30:23 2010 No.1993577 >>1993571 Very good point. Hey theist, if all good people are going to go to heaven anyways whether they were murdered or not, why is killing wrong? It would actually be doing them a favor if all that stuff you believe is true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:31:23 2010 No.1993581 >>1993577 I believe in karma and reincarnation....

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 10:37:23 2010 No.1993593 >>1993581 The argument still stands, just replace heaven, with "better life".

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 3 11:05:23 2010 No.1993676 >>1993577 actually, killing them as soon as they're baptised or whatever would be doing them an even greater favor, since they wouldn't have a chance to commit a sin and therefore you saved them from possibly damning themselves to hell.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math