Philosophy Flexible morality.

I, personally, believe in the "survival of the fittest" motto. Killing without cause is a bad idea. And no, I do not mean to say that any cause is the right cause. Protection of one's self and other's is a good one. Robbing a bank because you need to buy that new pair of Jordan's is not. And I still think not killing because God said it's wrong is a pretty flimsy reason.

 

If someone breaks into my house to steal from me, then as far as I'm concerned he's not about to recieve a pleasant conselling session from me. He's going to be savagely attacked until he's unable to move, one way or another. If that means hitting him in the back of the head with a shovel because I can see he has a shotgun and I only have time for one attack, so be it. If said strike kills him, then thats too bad.

We have to kill to eat. In fact simply by existing you are killing things. Some of them are necessary for your survival; some of them are simply unfortunate byproducts of doing your daily routine (think, for example, the millions of microscopic creatures you have crushed while typing, or scalded while showering).

So if an ax murdering rapist was about to kill a loved one, you are across the room with a pistol in your hand, and you could take the shot and end his scum-sucking life, you wouldn't?

 

But, seeing how society is today you'll probably get sued for attacking him or her some way or another. I would call the police from the moment I hear some noise and I would start playing music on full blast and put on lights wherever I can to scare the person off. But, if I were at gun point.. which would be quite rare but still possible in Canada, I would try to defend myself but I would try not to kill my opponent. Or I would just wait a couple hours, having both guns pointed at each other and see who has the most endurance.

That may justify killing animals for food, and by accident. But, does it really justify killing another human? I think what Vicious meant was "no one has the right to take the life of a person".

Would it be necessary to take his, or her life? I think we need a situation where it would be required to kill the murdering rapist, rather than just incapacitating him or her.

 

Which is of course utter nonsense. "Oh no, he's defending himself!" This is why I hate society. When people get sued for defending themselves, or people sue because eating fast food made them fat, you know somethings wrong with the justice system.

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't always work.

Well, note that in my first hypothetical, I had a shovel, not a gun, but meh. If my strike simply knocks the bugger out, ok, fine, but if it happens to kill him, I won't be shedding any tears.

But isn't a life a life? Furthermore, if someone is trying to kill me, then why should I try to restrain my counterattacks? They certainly aren't showing me any courtesy by trying to kill me. If I can for sure incapacitate them, wonderful, but if in the course of trying to do so they end up dead, I won't exactly be filled with guilt.

Well the situation I gave doesn't give you much of a choice - take the shot or don't. An incapacitating shot may not work, especially if the nutbar was pumped up on adrenaline. Why respect the rights of someone who doesn't respect others rights? Take, for example, the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated. Would you not simply be a vessel for that rule to take effect? He is treating someone a certain way - hence he should be treated that way.

 

Wow..... I doubt that a hard hit with a shovel can kill a guy. Im not saying it doesnt because I know there is a chance but there is more of a chance that he just may be knocked out cold

Sorry about that....I shouldve said humans.

What do you mean about to kill a loved one? Like he was holding the person with a knife at the persons throat?

 

Oh, a good swift shovel hit can kill a person. Of course it isn't always the blow that kills when a kill happens; could very well be a result of something the shovel hit caused. But regardless, yes you can kill someone with a shovel.

Holding a knife to their throat; raising an ax in an attack strike position; whatever. Whatever he's doing its fairly obvious that said attack will most likely be fatal. Granted if your answer is to still not kill him, I can't understand why you'd risk a loved ones life like that.

 

Well lets look at the possiblities.

Knife at throat- I must have real good aim in order to get the guy. Chances are that the bullet might go through both of them.

Ax- A bullet in the leg should be enough for the other person to run off.


Who knows...maybe if i miss I might scare the person off. Do you think he would risk his life just to take out another?

There are alot of possibilities....

 

You realised I was referring to a profile view of them, right? So that a shot fired would NOT kill the loved one?

You hope. Granted if someone busted into your house intent on doing an ax murder odds are he's not exactly sane.

You know how psychotic people work, right? Yes, yes he would risk his life to kill someone, only now he'd probably start coming at you first since now you've made an obvious threat of yourself, you lousy shot, you.

Ah, so you feel you should be an optimist and let your loved ones stay at risk. I see. So now you've either let an ax murderer get away, HOPING the cops can get him at some point before he kills again, or just infuriated him more so that he'll kill you AND the loved one. Is that really a better choice than taking a shot that will really stop him, be it through excrutiating pain or death?


Edit: I've also gotta ask... why are only humans allowed your mercy?

 

For a loved one, I would take the shot. And in that shot I would hope that it would take hime down. If not, I have just killed a man. Sure maybe the emotion wont bear as much because I saved the life of a loved one but that doesnt still consider it justified killing. Sounds more like greediness, you take something away in order to keep something else you want.

 

It's greedy to prevent murder of the innocent and further, future murders?

 

What makes you think that person was innocent?

 

Why would I marry a bad person?

 

Wait, wait. What makes humans so much better than the animals we kill to feed ourselves? Absolutely nothing. You ever seen a gorilla threatening other gorillas with a nuclear war-head? No? I didn't think so. You make it very clear, Vicious, that you've never been in a life-threatening situation. Most humans do not think in such situations. They act. They do whatever they must to prevent harm to them or those close to them. There are those that would do whatever necessary to protect those that need it, not necessarily anyone close to them. Take policeman and fireman, for example.

Your very words condemn any thing you've said before about the "sanctity" of life. Now, you sound as though you're condemning the victim for any thing they might have done. Whatever happened to nothing being justified by killing another? Pick one or another, don't pick and choose which to go with when it's convenient. Granted, no one should be the judge of who should die and who should live, but when it comes down to survival, use common sense.

A murderer should be allowed to live? Why? They are a threat to themselves, and more importantly, a threat to others. Someone breaking into someone else's home has nothing other than ill-intent. The home-owner should not defend themselves if necessary? When you're protecting yourself, you don't think about it. You simply do it. It's them or you. Me? I damn well pick myself. To say any thing else is a lie. You would not sacrifice yourself (and possibly loved ones) so some marauding convict can live to kill again. :anger2:

 

To be fair, animals fight all the damn time. The only reason we have nukes is because our ingenuity and tool using skills are our evolutionary advantages. However some animals have shown an amusing capacity for man-like behavior. Apparently, terrorism was invented by chimps.

Elsewise, you're dead on. Yes, it's all well and good to not want to kill, but in the real world it never works out perfectly, and thinking elsewise is just a pipedream.

 

Animals don't fight all of the damned time. They usually have a reason to do so (whether we see it as a valid excuse or not). Territory, mating rights, food, etc. Things they require for survival. To be just as fair, humans fight all the time, too. But I guess it depends on what you consider to be "fighting". Verbally or physically? We also have more reasons to squabble with one another. Although our reasons seem with less sense than an animal, you could argue simply because an animal not only lacks our so-called intelligence, but also our material items.

Animals are not generally self-destructive. Humans are. Humans are one of the only species that will willingly torture, degrade, humiliate and kill others of the same species. But, I'm no human-hater. I myself am human. Humans have a few endearing qualities, too. I just dislike when someone pretends that humans are not animals, and which they are. By the way, I'm not vegetarian. I love my cow dead and on bread. :sweat2:

 

...And we don't?

Land rights.

Civilians.

Food and other resources.

For the purposes of this, I was referring to war.

Y'know I have two cats at my house. One is a kitten, the other is rather old. They fight all the time. Its not over territory. It's not over food. It's definitely not over mates. They just fight.

You know there are species that willingly cannibalize...

Ah. Well I'm just trying to prevent hearing that stupid "Animals have no war! War is a manmade invention!" and its annoying catchphrase, "You cant hug children with nuclear arms!" Of course you can. It's just a little awkward.

 

Actually animals in the wild tend to try and avoid fights by using intimidation first, and only fight as a last resort. You know, your cats could be playing?

Yes, some animals are willing to eat each other to survive, but they don't generally kill each other for the hell of it.

Personally, if I felt that I had a legitimate reason for killing another, such as defending the life of someone I love, I wouldn't care too much whether I go to hell(since I don't believe in it). It doesn't mean that I would do it if there was another obvious way though. If I had someone who had raped or attacked me at my mercy enough to kill them(knocked out or crippled), I don't think I would. I'd probably just call the cops, and let the guy have his sexual frustrations taken care of by his cellmates. Well, I might do some other things to before that, and call it self defense. :anime: I guess we can never be sure what we'd honestly do until we're in that type of situation.

I have accidentally killed a number of woodland animals though. :sad: I guess my nursing didn't help much, and is good evidence that I shouldn't try to mess with nature. To be honest though, I think I'd have more guilt over killing an innocent bunny than a human.

 

Much like people.

Which is exactly why they bloody each other and the elder tries to stay the hell away from the younger.

But there are some species of animals that kill rather blatently. Humans don't "generally" kill each other for the hell of it either.

Well yes. I don't think anybody with basic intelligence would disagree with you on that.

But when there's no clear and obvious answer, thats when the killer instinct comes out.

...So? It was accidental according to you, and while it's nothing to be happy over, you can't mourn too much for Sammy Squirrel and Robert Racoon.

You are a part of nature. Your interactions were simply failed experiments, much like how baby birds fall out of the nest the first few times before actually flying.

Why?! Because it's cute and cuddly? What if the bunny was the killer rabbit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

 

I would feel more guilty about that because the killer rabbit is so awesome! I mean, it would be like killing the greatest warrior in the world!

Anyhow, the thing about flexible morality is that it doesn't just apply to death and killing. What about when you find money on the street or things like that? If it's in a purse, and you can find the owner, you return it, right? But when it just falls out and is lying there, we keep it for ourselves, don't we? If we have an especially moral conscience, I guess we could donate the money to charity, but do we?

 

Of course we do. There's no way we can really trace a shiny nickle we find on the subway.