Killing is always bad

[idav]

Killing is always bad which would make it an objective morality. This is using the life good, death bad formula.

I do absolutely believe killing is always bad. Would I be a hypocrite if I feel it warranted or justified, like a childs life is in danger, sure maybe. That doesn't mean I thinking killing is a subjective morality but that I would make exceptions based on my own agenda and others including the system might even agree with the exception.

There was a story around here where a father "accidentally" killed a man that was in the act of molesting their kid. A lot of people would just say it was warranted and in fact the father was not charged after all. The danger of a child is definitely an exception and I'm sure many agree.

Can murder be viewed as an objectively wrong regardless of the exceptions people make?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Killing is always bad which would make it an objective morality. ... Can murder be viewed as an objectively wrong regardless of the exceptions people make?

Maybe you should defer a decision until such time as you can distinguish between killing and murder?

 

[dgirl1986]

We try to view these things in black and white, but we realise that there is a whole lot of grey.

If a man is murdering mass amounts of people and for some reason or another cannot be stopped, would it be wrong to kill him to save the lives of many?

 

[savagewind]

Murder and killing are different imo. Have you ever heard of people "killing themselves"? by smoking or, dangerous activity or unhealthy eating? It is not murder. In America there are degrees of causing death. If the cause is an accident it is called man slaughter. What kind of killing do you ask about?

 

[Me Myself]

We must kill to live.

If anything, at least kill plants.

If you believe killing is always bad, you would have to go with a diet mostly comprised of fruits and seeds, and milk and eggs... hummm actually I think that is posible.

Of course you would have problem if you get ill, as you would try to protect the flu viruses from your white blood cells... but then again your white blood cells would be getting killed by the virus...

It´s just always complicated.

 

[idav]

Maybe you should defer a decision until such time as you can distinguish between killing and murder?

I know the difference and noticed the wording. The last question asks about murder.

Killing is always bad regardless if the formula (life = good and death = bad) is to be correct.

 

[idav]

We must kill to live.

If anything, at least kill plants.

If you believe killing is always bad, you would have to go with a diet mostly comprised of fruits and seeds, and milk and eggs... hummm actually I think that is posible.

Of course you would have problem if you get ill, as you would try to protect the flu viruses from your white blood cells... but then again your white blood cells would be getting killed by the virus...

It´s just always complicated.

Yes agreed. We make so many exceptions for valuing life and much of it is necessary. I would purposely make an exception for having to kill a tapeworm even though the tapeworm may have just as much right to live as me. But you know I'm hypocritical like that. And I eat meat.

 

[PolyHedral]

...This is using the life good, death bad formula.

... That doesn't mean I thinking killing is a subjective morality...

So why is that justification (that life is good) objective?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Killing is always bad regardless if the formula (life = good and death = bad) is to be correct.

Killing is always bad if the formula is death is bad. Just brilliant! Thanks for sharing.

PS: killing is always puce if death is puce!​

:yes:

 

[idav]

So why is that justification (that life is good) objective?

In the sense that something is being created rather than destroyed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Killing is always bad which would make it an objective morality. This is using the life good, death bad formula.

I do absolutely believe killing is always bad. Would I be a hypocrite if I feel it warranted or justified, like a childs life is in danger, sure maybe. That doesn't mean I thinking killing is a subjective morality but that I would make exceptions based on my own agenda and others including the system might even agree with the exception.

There was a story around here where a father "accidentally" killed a man that was in the act of molesting their kid. A lot of people would just say it was warranted and in fact the father was not charged after all. The danger of a child is definitely an exception and I'm sure many agree.

Can murder be viewed as an objectively wrong regardless of the exceptions people make?

No. Objectively doesn't mean "in all cases" if it's coming from one person's mind. In fact, if it's coming from all people's minds, it's still subjective.

 

[PolyHedral]

In the sense that something is being created rather than destroyed.

But why is that objectively better than the reverse?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes agreed. We make so many exceptions for valuing life and much of it is necessary. I would purposely make an exception for having to kill a tapeworm even though the tapeworm may have just as much right to live as me. But you know I'm hypocritical like that. And I eat meat.

So you truly believe killing is always objectively bad?

Then would you say you are objectively bad because you support the killing so that you can eat?

I do so too though. I don´t eat meat, but I eat many things that were formerly alive.

Do you do any differentiation about types of life? if you do what would be your "objective" differentiation?

 

[Straw Dog]

We must kill to live.

^^This.

 

[ChristineES]

We kill plants to eat them. We kill flowers so we can put them in vases into our homes. We kill infections with antibiotics. If we find mice, roaches, rats, weevils, etc. in our homes, we either get out the raid or call an exterminator.

There is a difference between killing and murder.

 

[idav]

But why is that objectively better than the reverse?

Because something has inherent value for not being nothing. Same applies to life.

 

[Me Myself]

Because something has inherent value for not being nothing. Same applies to life.

Where have you found this "nothing" that you speak of?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because something has inherent value for not being nothing. Same applies to life.

Matter can't be created or destroyed except by nuclear reaction, and energy can't ever be created or destroyed. Therefore, the only judgement is what form the energy is in. Can you show an objective reason to prefer that the energy be arranged into "life," as opposed to "non-life?"

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Killing is always bad which would make it an objective morality. This is using the life good, death bad formula.

I do absolutely believe killing is always bad. Would I be a hypocrite if I feel it warranted or justified, like a childs life is in danger, sure maybe. That doesn't mean I thinking killing is a subjective morality but that I would make exceptions based on my own agenda and others including the system might even agree with the exception.

There was a story around here where a father "accidentally" killed a man that was in the act of molesting their kid. A lot of people would just say it was warranted and in fact the father was not charged after all. The danger of a child is definitely an exception and I'm sure many agree.

Can murder be viewed as an objectively wrong regardless of the exceptions people make?

For me, the difficulty is knowing what you mean by objective? This term has a fairly familiar meaning to me, however a brief search of morality will demonstrate that in the field of ethics this term is almost meaningless due to the numerous ways in which it is used. It seems like every theist, atheist, and philosopher wants to label their morality as objective. LOL had I been aware of this a the last few days I would have said a few things a bit differently.

You seem to mean "Killing is always wrong" is an objective morality because you view it as universal or absolute? I do not agree with this meaning of objective, but in that case, you can not call it an objective moral unless it is universal and absolute, no exceptions. Not even to protect a young child that is about to be brutally raped AND MURDERED. Not even if you only meant to restrain them, and accidentally killed them. Not even if you left a banana peel on the floor and he slipped and broke his neck as he left after completing the act. You caused his death, you are immoral. You say 'always bad,' and 'absolutely believe.' Is absolute what you mean by objective?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Killing is always bad which would make it an objective morality. This is using the life good, death bad formula.

"The life good, death bad formula" does not suggest that killing is always bad.

Sometimes life is best preserved by judicious killing. As the Japanese proverb goes, "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life."

If you can prevent the killing of two people by killing one person yourself, you have preserved more life (and therefore more good, by your "formula") by killing than you could have otherwise.