First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
Is homicide wrong?
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
killing another man in honorable combat is the only way to Valhalla and eternal life until the end of time! "homocide" is a necassary part of the world. Odin does not honor those who do not fight for their glory on the battlefield.
31116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Clow Country
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08

CerridwenStorms wrote:

I think that you have to look at the difference between killing and murder:

Killing is simply ending the life of something. Most of the killing that goes from species to species is a matter of survival, individual or for the social grouping or species. We kill other species for food, as many animals do. Pack males will kill each other to show the whole pack who is stronger and more cunning and therefore more qualified to lead (queen bees and other matriarchal species do this as well--lions will actually kill the cubs first, because of mating "rules". Killing is also not necessary for many species; wolves typically will just lower the loosing male's "rank"). Mothers bearing an over populated liter will eat her own young so that she can either reduce the number or make her capable of having a smaller, stronger litter that is more capable of surviving for the good of the species. Even in fights for a mate, killing tends to be accidental (the fight is over when one is injured or runs away). The only non-instinctive intra-species killings are found to be because the killer went crazy (like in Tarzan).

This is normal in the animal kingdom, and we only look down upon the majority of it because it isn't necessary for our species. We may be overpopulated, but our instinct will most likely not kick in to kill our children, because we do not normally give birth to large "litters", and we most certainly will not eat them. We do not need to kill for leadership, or mates. There is no psychological instinct that says we need to kill one another.

We kill because we can, because we want to just kill, and there are only two species that actually do this (frighteningly the two that we classify as the most intelligent on this earth): humans and dolphins. Sure, when we kill, we try to justify it; we say that, even if we don't condone the action, there was a purpose to the death, be it revenge or "population control". This doesn't make it something other than murder, because it still wasn't instinctively necessary. The only time it is instinctively necessary to kill another human is for self-defense, and the only other time in which it can be even possibly forgivable is if you go legitimately crazy.

Edit: Since I was going back through more of the older posts, I just needed to say this: I hate the argument that killing other lifeforms is ok because they don't have souls and humans do. I hate it, because that's only a handful of religions say that, and I need real proof (i.e. not scripture or other sorted religious doctrine) that this statement is true in order to swallow it. My religion says that all life is sacred, and all life got the divine breath of life that gives us souls, so bite me on your baseless reasoning.


You win. I more or less agree with everything there. However, I disagree that humanity as a whole doesn't have the instinctive need to kill people for reasons other than self-defense. I think that culture has definitely stifled that, and removed the need for those other instincts to trigger, but they are certainly there. Culture and civilization has allowed humans to go beyond scenarios that would actually require those instincts. However, there are still times where it gets triggered. Think of the scenario in Lord of the Flies. The good English boys killed each other for many reasons aside from self-defense. Were the boys in this novel killing each other because they could? Were there reasons false? I think the better explanation was more similar to that of wolves and other grouping creatures. They killed for self-preservation, certainly, but they also did it for leadership. They did it because they were hungry, because they felt that they were being led to their deaths. Our self-preservation instincts (not just immediate self-defense, but of general survival) are strong enough to kill our own species. We just very rarely need those instincts to that extent. I would agree that in society, the incentive to kill is generally not an instinctual need, but a whim, or a need justified by dementia. It's just not always that way.
4659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / over the hills an...
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
in my opinion killing another human is good as long as you have a reason to

examples:
Self defence
Revenge
Survival
Mercy killings

but every situation must be carefully thought through and given at least 3 separate opinions by 3 totally different types of people, sleep on it balance out then decide, unless of course you have to do it there and then ... if thats the case throw emotion out of the window and take the most logical course of action
4892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / LI, NY
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08

winsomemastix wrote:

I disagree that humanity as a whole doesn't have the instinctive need to kill people for reasons other than self-defense. I think that culture has definitely stifled that, and removed the need for those other instincts to trigger, but they are certainly there. Culture and civilization has allowed humans to go beyond scenarios that would actually require those instincts. However, there are still times where it gets triggered. Think of the scenario in Lord of the Flies. The good English boys killed each other for many reasons aside from self-defense. Were the boys in this novel killing each other because they could? Were there reasons false? I think the better explanation was more similar to that of wolves and other grouping creatures. They killed for self-preservation, certainly, but they also did it for leadership. They did it because they were hungry, because they felt that they were being led to their deaths. Our self-preservation instincts (not just immediate self-defense, but of general survival) are strong enough to kill our own species. We just very rarely need those instincts to that extent. I would agree that in society, the incentive to kill is generally not an instinctual need, but a whim, or a need justified by dementia. It's just not always that way.


Well, the leadership thing goes back to primal instinct. We don't need it now because of society, but strip down society like Golding did, and we'll go back to gorilla-like choices to choose an alpha. Besides, while I haven't read Lord of the Flies in six years, I only remember two or three deaths, and only two were caused by the other boys definitely; that little innocent kid that was mistaken for the Beast (which would be self defense, in a sense) and Piggy, who I remember was killed mostly accidentally in a power struggle (back to the alpha thing).

Though, now this is reminding me about that literature tarot deck I wanted to design...

360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
Homicide is not wrong as long as you're wearing condoms or any types of protection. God would've wanted it that way.
68 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / K
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08

Pure-King wrote:

Homicide is not wrong as long as you're wearing condoms or any types of protection. God would've wanted it that way.


Huh? Are you talking about unprotected sex?

Anyways, homicide is only wrong if you think its wrong. It just so happens that the majority of people have come to the conclusion that killing fellow humans is wrong. You'll also note that some animals, like humans, don't kill each other.

2164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / What are we talki...
Offline
Posted 3/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
Its Okay if you are Saving Your Loved one or From your Family
360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

dahomies wrote:


Pure-King wrote:

Homicide is not wrong as long as you're wearing condoms or any types of protection. God would've wanted it that way.


Huh? Are you talking about unprotected sex?

Anyways, homicide is only wrong if you think its wrong. It just so happens that the majority of people have come to the conclusion that killing fellow humans is wrong. You'll also note that some animals, like humans, don't kill each other.



Don't unprotected sex and homicide fall under the same category? They're both stupid and sinful.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 3/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
Dahomies: if you do not consider homicide wrong, you will not think of it as wrong. But that does not mean that other people won't think of it as wrong. Right and wrong is all subjective anyways. Other people has as much right to make moral evalutions as you have. What matters pragmatically speaking, is sanctions.
cerridwen: which is why I hate the movie. The book seems to be better, but I couldn't be bothered to read it. Anyways, in the movie (the new colour version, told the black and white is better) the children are almost automatically devolving into beasts. It takes one dude to pervert them all. Since they are children, ok, I can see the point. But if they had been adults, I don't see it happening that way. There are examples of government and society not functioning without people becoming beast-like, nor craving any leader.
467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / Malaysia
Offline
Posted 3/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
is it wrong if i kill your mom and dad?

think about it
3187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 3/10/08 , edited 4/21/08

o0James0o wrote:

we kill everyday in order to survive, be it plant or animal, its all life.
therefore, is it really a wrong thing to kill a person?..


ps.... i just noticed... its homi not homo... -.- (thx to the mod for the fix)

pps... i mean sin as in something really really wrong.... non connected to religion... (never really knew that sin is that much connected to religion...i guess i need to study my words next time)

ppps..... remember the fact that we use animals as experiments (thats not eating to survive)



We kill Animals to survive (and plants) ^^

ppps..... remember the fact that we use animals as experiments (thats not eating to survive)

yes, i do not agree to animal experiments, but we do what we need to do to get medicine and other necessaries.

To kill a person is never right, we don't eat them, we don't do experiments or anything, to just kill one in cold blooded murder is wrong!
There are cases where u have to kill som1, but still it doesn't make it right.
Posted 3/10/08 , edited 4/21/08
Yeah, for me its wrong. Like, if I suddenly go on a rampage and kill someone you love.
And no one cares, because (lol) it's okay to kill people.

Even for the most reasonable reason, don't think so.
Unless, that particular person killed someone else, than he should be killed.
Not killed by human, no, but I don't know, hanged to death or something.

I think killing is just wrong.
Although I think killing animals for food is ok.
I mean, we do got to eat right?

But I guess that's the use for vegetables.
LOL I don't know (:
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 3/10/08 , edited 4/21/08
If I eat a vegetable, it will not survive. So you will have to kill to survive. Some say "intelligent life" is excluded, but that is just a consideration. If we say life, plants are alive too. Also I once heard that broccoli has an iq of 10. Personally, I would have ran away when it started filling out the first question. I ahve no idea how they measured it. Anyway just to be alive something will have to have intelligence. Some talk of pain, however death can be very quick, and painless. But I know vegetarians and get along with them. But I hate people that want to spare some species because they're "cute". That's not idealistic, not a philosophy, that's just estchetics. So between two people, the least esthetically challenged should survive, if only one could? Ridicolous.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/10/08 , edited 4/21/08

CruelIchigo wrote:

To kill a person is never right, we don't eat them, we don't do experiments or anything, to just kill one in cold blooded murder is wrong!
There are cases where u have to kill som1, but still it doesn't make it right.


we do use humans for experiments.... :O... remmeber world war II?
604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/08 , edited 4/21/08
every last fucker for one reason or another deserves it whether you know it or not. if someone provokes you, kill them and save anyone else that would come after you. their life is worth the possible thousands of people. everyone dies anyway. its just a matter of when and how.
First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.