First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Philosophically, why is killing/murder wrong?
21202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Unova Region
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
I don't understand why we find murder to be a huge crime when we murder other living organisms constantly. Human or not, we're all living organisms, we're not any different.
10313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

DrOshawott wrote:

I don't understand why we find murder to be a huge crime when we murder other living organisms constantly. Human or not, we're all living organisms, we're not any different.


Because humans are capable of complex thought and emotion. We value that above simply living.

I agree that we should not kill other organisms for no reason.... but food, protection, etc. Sure.
43743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 1/3/16

DrOshawott wrote:

I don't understand why we find murder to be a huge crime when we murder other living organisms constantly. Human or not, we're all living organisms, we're not any different.


Not so sure.
35302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

VaughanDS wrote:



I believe that society has allowed human progression in the way that it wants. Truly, the thought of an anarchic life sounds harsh but that is because if the current humans reach it, we will not be able to have true free will because we have been conditioned by society to accept the way things are and mindlessly follow it, so our lives would still be subconsciously made into right and wrong.


No, the reason it sounds harsh is because it is harsh. Humans reached it ages ago and used their free will to get the hell away from it, because it was terrible.

Society was formed by individuals through the use of their free will. Anarchy was rejected; if humans desired to live in anarchy, that would be the norm. It is not - because people instead chose freely to make compromises to escape the hell that is anarchy.


VaughanDS wrote:
The act of changing a whole societies norms has been greatly under appreciated here, the most influence comes from the media as a whole and it is laughable to think a single human could hope to change it.


Any movement for change starts with a single person. If you are unwilling to use your free will to obtain what you want, I guess that makes you weak-willed. Plenty of other people are finding ways to change things to how they want. If influence comes from the media, then find a way to influence the media.

Anyway, what's really going to drive you mad is that your desire to avoid being conditioned by society was given to you by society's conditioning.
10313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

ahatestory wrote:


Anyway, what's really going to drive you mad is that your desire to avoid being conditioned by society was given to you by society's conditioning.


Truth.
1086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16


Anyway, what's really going to drive you mad is that your desire to avoid being conditioned by society was given to you by society's conditioning.


Yeah my personality is completely created by genetics and the environment. I hate it but it is true. I am society's creation.
My main point with the anarchy statement was originally to show that we don't have true free will, however I still believe that humans are not worth keeping alive and the structure we have created is very flawed.

We have a structure based on Utilitarianism which wholly supports the majority who (forgive me for any offence) are idiots. Even if I took a stand against this and tried to change things for the better as you suggested I really can't think of any way to fix humanity short of culling and brainwashing every generation until I can create a mindless race until I reach a situation like that of the novel 1984. People are too flawed to co-exist and act with logic. Therefore one can only allow endless anarchy until such a race dies out.
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16
It's wrong because it is usually a crime. The crime is considered a crime because it breaks our morals. It's been against our morals for probably a very, very long time in human history because it affects someone in what they feel is a negative way.

Everything that goes against our morals is something that affects someone in what they feel is a negative way. Nothing is wrong with murder, stealing, or anything. Nothing is wrong. But people or groups who have power have decided that certain things affect them in a way they don't like, and probably affect everyone in a way they don't like. So they made it a crime with a penalty or just considered it a mean thing to do. These ideas are passed along with each new generation until they become morals that an overwhelming majority believe in.

43743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 1/3/16

Stay_Night wrote:

It's wrong because it is usually a crime. The crime is considered a crime because it breaks our morals. It's been against our morals for probably a very, very long time in human history because it affects someone in what they feel is a negative way.

Everything that goes against our morals is something that affects someone in what they feel is a negative way. Nothing is wrong with murder, stealing, or anything. Nothing is wrong. But people or groups who have power have decided that certain things affect them in a way they don't like, and probably affect everyone in a way they don't like. So they made it a crime with a penalty or just considered it a mean thing to do. These ideas are passed along with each new generation until they become morals.



Imagine if we didn't have morals.
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

qualeshia3 wrote:


Stay_Night wrote:

It's wrong because it is usually a crime. The crime is considered a crime because it breaks our morals. It's been against our morals for probably a very, very long time in human history because it affects someone in what they feel is a negative way.

Everything that goes against our morals is something that affects someone in what they feel is a negative way. Nothing is wrong with murder, stealing, or anything. Nothing is wrong. But people or groups who have power have decided that certain things affect them in a way they don't like, and probably affect everyone in a way they don't like. So they made it a crime with a penalty or just considered it a mean thing to do. These ideas are passed along with each new generation until they become morals.



Imagine if we didn't have morals.


We would need much more intelligent individuals who can negotiate with one another so that we can have the society we have today. Morality is something the overwhelming majority of people on the planet can understand because we can be taught what is considered right and wrong. If we didn't have it, we would have to come to the conclusion that murder overall has a negative impact on us, so let us agree to not do it. Basically everybody would need to see the bigger picture, and even if the agreement about murder keeps me from killing someone and taking his stuff, it theoretically stops those people from doing the same thing to me. Society would be a bunch of contracts and agreements, which is what at some point society was until those laws and agreements progressed to become morals as well.

So anyways, it would be wild.
35302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

VaughanDS wrote:



Anyway, what's really going to drive you mad is that your desire to avoid being conditioned by society was given to you by society's conditioning.


Yeah my personality is completely created by genetics and the environment. I hate it but it is true. I am society's creation.
My main point with the anarchy statement was originally to show that we don't have true free will, however I still believe that humans are not worth keeping alive and the structure we have created is very flawed.

We have a structure based on Utilitarianism which wholly supports the majority who (forgive me for any offence) are idiots. Even if I took a stand against this and tried to change things for the better as you suggested I really can't think of any way to fix humanity short of culling and brainwashing every generation until I can create a mindless race until I reach a situation like that of the novel 1984. People are too flawed to co-exist and act with logic. Therefore one can only allow endless anarchy until such a race dies out.


The idea that humans are not worth keeping alive is a bit silly, isn't it? What does it hurt to leave them alive?

Also, the majority really should be considered average. Idiots are below the average. I agree that average people may often appear to be idiots to those that are above average, but still, give them their due.

Consider also, that the most intelligent human of, say, 500 years ago would seem foolish compared to an average person today. Their knowledge of the world, of different peoples, of science, etc., would be dwarfed in comparison.

With that in mind, humanity can improve itself by building upon the efforts of other humans, until we reach a state worth aspiring to. This has been going on for ages, so there's fortunately no need for you to go all 1984 on us.

In a few decades, we'll be enhancing our brains with cybernetics or bioengineering or something. We'll gain the ability to simply transfer knowledge like we copy files on computers today. At that point, the smartest person today will seem an idiot to the average person of that time.

Also, your argument that people are too flawed to co-exist and act with logic is somewhat flawed because people do this the majority of the time. Do they sometimes have issues doing so? Yes, particularly with the logic part - but they aren't as bad as you make them sound.
1086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16


If the co-existence truly worked then there would be no war or famine due to superiority of hierarchies. The fact that existence in the end is pointless shows that anything we do in the end has no meaning. To that extent I will agree there is no point in hastening death when all things end anyway so destruction is inevitable.

I stand to the fact that it is not worth keeping humans alive but I accept that there is no point in killing. However to go back to OP's question that does not mean to kill them would be wrong in any way, due to the subjectivity of morality.


35302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

VaughanDS wrote:



If the co-existence truly worked then there would be no war or famine due to superiority of hierarchies. The fact that existence in the end is pointless shows that anything we do in the end has no meaning. To that extent I will agree there is no point in hastening death when all things end anyway so destruction is inevitable.

I stand to the fact that it is not worth keeping humans alive but I accept that there is no point in killing. However to go back to OP's question that does not mean to kill them would be wrong in any way, due to the subjectivity of morality.




You are ignoring that there is a much greater proportion of people not suffering from war or famine today than, say, 1000 years ago. Things are improving; in general life today is far better than it was in centuries past.

Also, how is it a fact that existence is pointless? Who decides that?

What makes you so certain all things will end, for that matter? Humanity today is capable of so much more than it was even 100 years ago; in billions or trillions of years, we may very well be able to extend even the existence of the universe itself. Maybe not, but we won't know until we get there. Why give up, other than that it is easy to do so?
17711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

ahatestory wrote:


You are ignoring that there is a much greater proportion of people not suffering from war or famine today than, say, 1000 years ago. Things are improving; in general life today is far better than it was in centuries past.

Also, how is it a fact that existence is pointless? Who decides that?

What makes you so certain all things will end, for that matter? Humanity today is capable of so much more than it was even 100 years ago; in billions or trillions of years, we may very well be able to extend even the existence of the universe itself. Maybe not, but we won't know until we get there. Why give up, other than that it is easy to do so?


You might really want to redo all of your math..all of it. In the last 200 years alone more people have died as a direct result of warfare and famine then all the rest of human history put together.
1086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

ahatestory wrote:


VaughanDS wrote:



If the co-existence truly worked then there would be no war or famine due to superiority of hierarchies. The fact that existence in the end is pointless shows that anything we do in the end has no meaning. To that extent I will agree there is no point in hastening death when all things end anyway so destruction is inevitable.

I stand to the fact that it is not worth keeping humans alive but I accept that there is no point in killing. However to go back to OP's question that does not mean to kill them would be wrong in any way, due to the subjectivity of morality.




You are ignoring that there is a much greater proportion of people not suffering from war or famine today than, say, 1000 years ago. Things are improving; in general life today is far better than it was in centuries past.

Also, how is it a fact that existence is pointless? Who decides that?

What makes you so certain all things will end, for that matter? Humanity today is capable of so much more than it was even 100 years ago; in billions or trillions of years, we may very well be able to extend even the existence of the universe itself. Maybe not, but we won't know until we get there. Why give up, other than that it is easy to do so?


Death itself is why existence has no meaning. This is the end result that philosophy shows, life is pointless although existentialism tries to hide this fact, even by making ones own purpose death is still the final result. When all things come to an inevitable end it doesn't matter what you do in your life, it will eventually end. As will the lives of all those around you and those to come. Nothing lasts so why bother existing.
10313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Ranwolf wrote:


ahatestory wrote:


You are ignoring that there is a much greater proportion of people not suffering from war or famine today than, say, 1000 years ago. Things are improving; in general life today is far better than it was in centuries past.

Also, how is it a fact that existence is pointless? Who decides that?

What makes you so certain all things will end, for that matter? Humanity today is capable of so much more than it was even 100 years ago; in billions or trillions of years, we may very well be able to extend even the existence of the universe itself. Maybe not, but we won't know until we get there. Why give up, other than that it is easy to do so?


You might really want to redo all of your math..all of it. In the last 200 years alone more people have died as a direct result of warfare and famine then all the rest of human history put together.


Not by percentage.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.