• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Murder

when your in the army and you kill the enemy its not murder.

its not murder when a drone takes out innocent civilians, and a potential terrorist. its collateral damage.
 
To expand on what Ceterva said earlier, look at in the converse: If someone came up to you and said, "You know, the world is shit; we're both clear on that. Let me kill you and send you a better place." If you would agree to that, then good for you. I think 99.9% of people wouldn't, though, not even the old and infirm.
 
Etna said:
Thats mistake mate, plants are living things but they have no feelings,
frankly i cant get that, how can you compare plants and animals? Do you really believe that they have the same feelings???
You can escape it if you wish, stomach is below, and vegetables contain all necessary substances that is needed for
healthy living.
Click to expand...

yes but it's splitting hairs IMO. All living things feed off something else that is or was alive. If all of your food is from accidental deaths does that make you a better person? Who knows how many ecosystems have been obliterated to start farms. Look at what the soy crop is doing to the Amazon jungles.

But the whole "assuming you go to a better place" argument is kind of intriguing. If we must assume that we are going to a better place, what else must we assume? That Catholicism is the true religion? There are a million different variations of religious people's beliefs and we can't assume they're all true, so we can't assume that they are all going to a better place then right? In which case the possibility of them being wrong must be taken into consideration before you try to kill a person to save them.
 
murder is cool guy and you can make a game out of it. see how many people you can kill in one day, then try to beat your record!
stock-photo-5528590-small-happy-child.jpg
 
CfD
no religion, no better places and no - im better person etc..
just killing for eating, for me is unacceptable,
 
Oh that religious argument was just referring to the OP, the first paragraph was for you. Are you really in Patagonia? That's sweet. So you probably know more about the soy farms and how they affect the Amazon than I do. If you didn't kill the animal then you are a scavenger, not a murder, how many animals and food webs were wiped out from the expansion of all those giant farms? What's the difference? That's what I mean by splitting hairs. If you just don't like meat that's fine, but I'm trying to understand your side a little more.
 
"Murder" is a legal precedent, it's not necessarily synonymous with the act of homicide. Shooting an intruder in the face may or may not be considered murder, as laws vary from place to place. Killing an enemy combatant on the battlefield or execution by the state (depending on the region) are also examples of lawful killings and are not considered "murder". To use the word to describe any killing in any circumstance is to misuse the word.

As for the question in the OP, in your hypothetical situation where a happy afterlife was proven I think death would be much easier to deal with for everyone involved. However, I'm sure taking someone's life at your own accord wouldn't be accepted even in this situation.
 
How about everything is wrong until it's right. Okay so people don't like going hungry our solution for today is wrong. Entirely ineffective, counter-productive, and overall detrimental. People don't like slaughtering each other, people don't like being deceived, etc. I kind of agree with Sam Harris that observationally we can see what is "wrong" through data. More generally though we can obtain morality through speech, like, "does murder come naturally or through the device of hammering ideology into the skulls of the fragile? Well I'd refer to Hitchen's when he said, "If humanity needed the ten commandments they would have never made it to Mount Sinai". I'd go further and say that true murder came with civilization so it's a symptom of hierarchy it's mere description conjures imagery of 'wrongness'. Societal norms both give raise to and commit wrong doing through which it uses to spontaneously justify or negate. Until societal norms lose this ability it will never be "right" and it will never "evolve" if anything civilization will lose its morality and murder itself back (to the future) to the stone age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top