Why is Killing Wrong?

[निताइ dasa]

Sorry for the clickbait title.

Okay, so I was contemplating yesterday night about the nature of rights(by which I mean moral rights), and came to the following conclusion (or at least definition):

From what I understand, we human beings have 2 categories of rights, rights that nourish life, and rights that nourish rationality (or consent). I will give a brief description of what I mean by these two terms below:

Rights that nourish life

It is generally the moral understanding that life (generally understood as human life, but can extend to other forms) is intrinsically precious in of itself, and therefore there exists a moral obligation to protect it. That is why human beings naturally have a right to things like food, water and shelter, because these rights preserve something which is intrinsically valuable (life). This is pretty clear to understand, and is generally accepted.

Rights that nourish consent

This is a little harder to grasp, but philosopher Kant puts these rights as follows "One should not treat a rational agent (an agent who is able or may in the future perform moral actions), as a mere means to an end" (paraphrasing here)

What this essentially means is that as rational agents, human beings have a right not be used as mere tools (i.e their body, words, actions, thoughts, or things that 'belong' to a human being) to achieve an end. "mere tools" means here that we have to respect a person's ability to choose (and consent) and we cannot force them (or their property) against their will.

Rights under this heading include rights of ownership (hence why theft is wrong), rights of autonomy(hence why actions like genital mutation is wrong), rights of copyright (my ideas are mine, you cannot use them as a tool for your gains unless I consent).

Now this starts to get vague (and controversial), when you start saying things like one has a right "not to be offended". For example, if I use horrible hate speech against a minority (who does not want to hear it, causes her great pain) then does that means I am violating her rights?


Now my first question is: Which of these two categories override the other? Does the right to life, override the rights of consent? Are they equal? In many cases, our moral intuitions conflict with each other on this issue. Can you make an argument for your position without the use of moral intuition?

Kant for example argues that the rights of life overrides the rights of consent because the rights of consent arise from and are dependent, on the rights of consent (if I wasn't alive, I would not be able to choose in the first place, therefore it more morally urgent to preserve the former at the expense of the latter). Actually many of the ethical/moral dilemmas (especially in the field of bioethics) can be explained due to the contracting beliefs about these two rights.


Now we get to my actual point:

Is the act of killing* wrong, because it ends my life, or because it forces my body into a state which I do not consent too? Which of the above two rights does the act of killing violate?

*Note, I don't really want to get into the guilty vs non-guilty killing debate here. Assume that you are killing something or someone that is innocent, by moral standards.

Simply put in terms of an analogy:

If I killed a person who was morally neutral about the act itself(she did not want to live, or die), then was my act wrong? If the person wanted to die, and I killed her, is the act wrong? What if the person in question was a elderly person? What if the person was a child? Does it even matter?

The question has been killing me (pardon the pun) all night. I personally take the Kantian perceptive (that right to life always trumps right of consent), but I can see the intuitive appeal in other position.

Let me know what you think
Nitaibol!

 

[jeager106]

I was raised with Christian values and was taught that taking a life of an offender
to protect one's own life or the life of an innocent victim was excusable.

"And if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8

"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." Exodus 22:2

"A righteous man who falters before the wicked is as a murky spring and a polluted well." Proverbs 25:26

There are more verses. ALL subjective of course.
I'd not hesitate to blow away a creep harming my loved ones or myself.
Fact is I'm well trained in firearms and unarmed defense and WILL use those
skills if need be.
I pray it is never, ever, needed.
I'll take my chances with God's mercy and would rather be judged by 12 than
CARRIED BY 6.

 

[idav]

There is another way to look at it as in the ramifications death has on immediate family friends and society as a whole. Getting to a point of killing someone because they have a fatal illness is not ideal, the ideal is to get rid of the fatal illness.

There is also a correct way for organisms to function. Organisms could be looked at as working machines that need to be maintained at a certain state in which illness and death are both an automatic no-go.

 

[निताइ dasa]

There is another way to look at it as in the ramifications death has on immediate family friends and society as a whole. Getting to a point of killing someone because they have a fatal illness is not ideal, the ideal is to get rid of the fatal illness.

One can take that approach, but I fear it implies that the value of life is not determined intrinsically, but by circumstance. I mean it is a valid position, but I feel If we judge the morality of a killing based upon its consequences on society then it may lead to some morally dubious acts (i.e killing people with no families etc).

 

[Deidre]

Killing someone, unless in self defense which is often instinctive, is wrong because it robs us all of our humanity. No one takes one person's life, without affecting his own, and those who are alive, around him. It is like throwing a stone into the water, and watching the ripple effect. There will always be a ripple effect, when it comes to killing.

 

[psychoslice]

Killing is wrong because I don't want to be killed.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Hahah, so we have two opposing views here (all right,that totally fine). Let me now play the devil's advocate:

Killing someone, unless in self defense which is often instinctive, is wrong because it robs us all of our humanity. No one takes one person's life, without affecting his own, and those who are alive, around him. It is like throwing a stone into the water, and watching the ripple effect. There will always be a ripple effect, when it comes to killing.

Okay, so it is wrong because it "robs us of our humanity. Cool, I generally agree with your sentiment. A problem however...when does (if ever) someone's life tip the balance of pain and pleasure. If someone is suffering immensely, would it be morally wrong to put her out of her misery even though it curtails ending a life?

Killing is wrong because I don't want to be killed.

On the other hand, if a child or someone with severe depression is about to kill themselves (they want to die), and we stop them from doing so, would that act (by your definition) be morally wrong? It is possible our intuitions or feelings may be deluded, and thus we ourselves may not understand the value of life.

 

[Deidre]

Hahah, so we have two opposing views here (all right,that totally fine). Let me now play the devil's advocate:




Okay, so it is wrong because it "robs us of our humanity. Cool, I generally agree with your sentiment. A problem however...when does (if ever) someone's life tip the balance of pain and pleasure. If someone is suffering immensely, would it be morally wrong to put her out of her misery even though it curtails ending a life?


.

I can see this argument having merit, but then it becomes a slippery slope. Suppose someone is having a stressful week emotionally, and feels like taking their life, and asks you do help with it. What would you say? If you say no, well...how do you know that you're preventing the person from being removed from their misery? Maybe you'd be doing a good thing. But, then the week could pass, and the person grows and emerges from that past stressful week, a stronger and happier person. This is why it's a risky argument because it creates a slippery slope.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I can see this argument having merit, but then it becomes a slippery slope. Suppose someone is having a stressful week emotionally, and feels like taking their life, and asks you do help with it. What would you say? If you say no, well...how do you know that you're preventing the person from being removed from their misery? Maybe you'd be doing a good thing. But, then the week could pass, and the person grows and emerges from that past stressful week, a stronger and happier person. This is why it's a risky argument because it creates a slippery slope.

Yes it essentially can be taken as a slippery slope, (because it is really hard to determine where that pleasure/pain vs value of life trade off happens, if it happens at all). This whole situation confuses our intuitions because as humans, we empathize with the pain of others, but at the same time we see that life is also valuable in the potential it holds (i.e you may be miserable now, but it is possible for you to be happy in the future!). These two intuitions often conflict, and viola we have a moral dilemma!!

 

[Deidre]

Yes it essentially can be taken as a slippery slope, (because it is really hard to determine where that pleasure/pain vs value of life trade off happens, if it happens at all). This whole situation confuses our intuitions because as humans, we empathize with the pain of others, but at the same time we see that life is also valuable in the potential it holds (i.e you may be miserable now, but it is possible for you to be happy in the future!). These two intuitions often conflict, and viola we have a moral dilemma!!

Then it also becomes a question of is life only worth living if I'm not in pain? Life is the sum total of all emotions, all experiences. I would have offed myself a long time ago, if life is supposed to be solely about happiness, pleasure and painlessness.

 

[psychoslice]

Hahah, so we have two opposing views here (all right,that totally fine). Let me now play the devil's advocate:




Okay, so it is wrong because it "robs us of our humanity. Cool, I generally agree with your sentiment. A problem however...when does (if ever) someone's life tip the balance of pain and pleasure. If someone is suffering immensely, would it be morally wrong to put her out of her misery even though it curtails ending a life?




On the other hand, if a child or someone with severe depression is about to kill themselves (they want to die), and we stop them from doing so, would that act (by your definition) be morally wrong? It is possible our intuitions or feelings may be deluded, and thus we ourselves may not understand the value of life.

Yes killing is wrong to me personally, I cannot force that onto others, and I also don't believe in morals, everything is what is, and I only try to get through all of it without me being harmed, or harming others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are no rights outside of the ones that humans create and struggle to establish and uphold. "Rights" are a human construct. As a nihilist, I don't believe that intrinsic right or wrong, or good or evil, exists. To argue that they do requires introducing abstractions as justifications, such as the alleged laws of deities and conceptions of moral/ethical orders that are viewed to exist in nature outside of and above humans. I view those as human constructs, as well.

So, in my view, other things have to be the deciding factor. You have to take in mind the individual's wishes and also whatever personal and social ramifications that may result. A mercy killing or euthanasia of someone who is severely ill and wishes for the pain to end can hardly be "wrong" in my mind, as I believe in self-ownership and all should able to decide how and when to end their life, for whatever reason. As for something like killing someone to rob them or for the sheer pleasure you may derive from it, that's when you need to consider the other person's wishes and the consequences of it. Committing murder is likely to lead you to legal trouble and to prison, with the possibility of the death penalty. If you have any level of a functioning conscience, you will have to deal with the guilt and sorrow that may come from it (obviously, psychopaths and people with severe ASPD don't have that issue). Most people don't want to go to jail or prison, as that's obviously a diminishment of personal freedom. So you'd need to ask yourself if it's really worth it. (As an aside, such a method of reflection or persuasion seems to work somewhat well with psychopaths, who are really only concerned with their own personal well-being.)

 

[idav]

One can take that approach, but I fear it implies that the value of life is not determined intrinsically, but by circumstance. I mean it is a valid position, but I feel If we judge the morality of a killing based upon its consequences on society then it may lead to some morally dubious acts (i.e killing people with no families etc).

More so that, as I implied, that life is of value on its own because the ideal is to rid of sickness, which is beneficial for everyone whether they have family or not. So to say that society is worse off when we have to even ask a question about exterminating a terminally ill person. Nobody benefits from having to give up on fighting a disease but everyone benefits when we win against it and can rid suffering without resorting to euthanasia.

 

[Whateverist]

Killing is wrong if we can agree on that. I'm certainly on board. I'm not in charge of deciding what is true regardless of what others believe. Respect for others not only entails not killing them (as far as I'm concerned). It also includes allowing them to say what their own truth may be.

 

[Aštra’el]

Killing is not "wrong", because "right" and "wrong" in this case are completely subjective.

 

[jeager106]

Well it depend upon one's definition of wrong and your values and/or religious values
if any.
I believe in deadly force ONLY of saving one's own life or the life of another
IF there is no other means to stop the aggression of the harmful actor.

This is wrong:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

See the pic.^^
ISLAM DOES NOT TEACH THIS!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sorry for the clickbait title.

Okay, so I was contemplating yesterday night about the nature of rights(by which I mean moral rights), and came to the following conclusion (or at least definition):

From what I understand, we human beings have 2 categories of rights, rights that nourish life, and rights that nourish rationality (or consent). I will give a brief description of what I mean by these two terms below:

Rights that nourish life

It is generally the moral understanding that life (generally understood as human life, but can extend to other forms) is intrinsically precious in of itself, and therefore there exists a moral obligation to protect it. That is why human beings naturally have a right to things like food, water and shelter, because these rights preserve something which is intrinsically valuable (life). This is pretty clear to understand, and is generally accepted.

Rights that nourish consent

This is a little harder to grasp, but philosopher Kant puts these rights as follows "One should not treat a rational agent (an agent who is able or may in the future perform moral actions), as a mere means to an end" (paraphrasing here)

What this essentially means is that as rational agents, human beings have a right not be used as mere tools (i.e their body, words, actions, thoughts, or things that 'belong' to a human being) to achieve an end. "mere tools" means here that we have to respect a person's ability to choose (and consent) and we cannot force them (or their property) against their will.

Rights under this heading include rights of ownership (hence why theft is wrong), rights of autonomy(hence why actions like genital mutation is wrong), rights of copyright (my ideas are mine, you cannot use them as a tool for your gains unless I consent).

Now this starts to get vague (and controversial), when you start saying things like one has a right "not to be offended". For example, if I use horrible hate speech against a minority (who does not want to hear it, causes her great pain) then does that means I am violating her rights?


Now my first question is: Which of these two categories override the other? Does the right to life, override the rights of consent? Are they equal? In many cases, our moral intuitions conflict with each other on this issue. Can you make an argument for your position without the use of moral intuition?

Kant for example argues that the rights of life overrides the rights of consent because the rights of consent arise from and are dependent, on the rights of consent (if I wasn't alive, I would not be able to choose in the first place, therefore it more morally urgent to preserve the former at the expense of the latter). Actually many of the ethical/moral dilemmas (especially in the field of bioethics) can be explained due to the contracting beliefs about these two rights.


Now we get to my actual point:

Is the act of killing* wrong, because it ends my life, or because it forces my body into a state which I do not consent too? Which of the above two rights does the act of killing violate?

*Note, I don't really want to get into the guilty vs non-guilty killing debate here. Assume that you are killing something or someone that is innocent, by moral standards.

Simply put in terms of an analogy:

If I killed a person who was morally neutral about the act itself(she did not want to live, or die), then was my act wrong? If the person wanted to die, and I killed her, is the act wrong? What if the person in question was a elderly person? What if the person was a child? Does it even matter?

The question has been killing me (pardon the pun) all night. I personally take the Kantian perceptive (that right to life always trumps right of consent), but I can see the intuitive appeal in other position.

Let me know what you think
Nitaibol!

You focus on Kant, who was working to develop a rational rule-based system for making ethical decisions, and you are absolutely correct about his approach. But, a lot of people believe in other rules (eg, 10 commandments, the Golden Rules, etc.). different sets of rules can be quite different, and have very different understanding of whether and when killing might be right.

However, there are other approaches to making ethical decisions, including virtue-based and consequence-based systems (which there are many of each). Rule-based systems are about whether or not you follow the rules; virtue-based are about whether or not you are virtuous, that is, are you honest? are you fair? are you charitable? etc., when you make your decisions--that is, are you a good person: if you are, you will tend to make good decisions. In some cases, one would never allow killing, but sometimes it would be more virtuous to kill than to not. Virtue ethics isn't concerned much with rules, or with the outcomes.

Finally, some ethical systems are primarily/only concerned about whether or not one achieves ethical outcomes--whether or not you are virtuous/good as a person, and whether or not you follow the rules may be irrelevant. The question is are the outcomes of your action the right ones. Are the consequences of killing someone greater than not doing so? This is sort of a cost-benefit analysis--do the positives of killing outweigh the negatives?

The reality as far as I've seen with my students (and others) is that most people use some combination of all three--notions of goodness, some set of rules, and some concern for consequences. Which means that answering the question: why is killing wrong is complicated.

For me, killing is not necessarily wrong, but questions like Kant's imperatives and concerns about the consequences for others do enter into the decision. For me, though, I can't give an answer without specifics. For me, if one death means that hundreds, thousands, or millions might live, then killing might be justified...part of the problem is knowing for certain what the consequences will be.

Killing (as with all actions) also entails responsibilities: if one kills, one is responsible for doing so, and there likely should be consequences as well, because taking the life of another should never be done lightly.

 

[Smart_Guy]

But killing (full stop) is not really wrong in itself. Perhaps you mean murder?

 

[निताइ dasa]

You focus on Kant, who was working to develop a rational rule-based system for making ethical decisions, and you are absolutely correct about his approach. But, a lot of people believe in other rules (eg, 10 commandments, the Golden Rules, etc.). different sets of rules can be quite different, and have very different understanding of whether and when killing might be right.

However, there are other approaches to making ethical decisions, including virtue-based and consequence-based systems (which there are many of each). Rule-based systems are about whether or not you follow the rules; virtue-based are about whether or not you are virtuous, that is, are you honest? are you fair? are you charitable? etc., when you make your decisions--that is, are you a good person: if you are, you will tend to make good decisions. In some cases, one would never allow killing, but sometimes it would be more virtuous to kill than to not. Virtue ethics isn't concerned much with rules, or with the outcomes.

Finally, some ethical systems are primarily/only concerned about whether or not one achieves ethical outcomes--whether or not you are virtuous/good as a person, and whether or not you follow the rules may be irrelevant. The question is are the outcomes of your action the right ones. Are the consequences of killing someone greater than not doing so? This is sort of a cost-benefit analysis--do the positives of killing outweigh the negatives?

The reality as far as I've seen with my students (and others) is that most people use some combination of all three--notions of goodness, some set of rules, and some concern for consequences. Which means that answering the question: why is killing wrong is complicated.

For me, killing is not necessarily wrong, but questions like Kant's imperatives and concerns about the consequences for others do enter into the decision. For me, though, I can't give an answer without specifics. For me, if one death means that hundreds, thousands, or millions might live, then killing might be justified...part of the problem is knowing for certain what the consequences will be.

Killing (as with all actions) also entails responsibilities: if one kills, one is responsible for doing so, and there likely should be consequences as well, because taking the life of another should never be done lightly.

Thank you for this well thought out response. I've studied both consequentialist and Kantian perceptives to this issue, and with many moral dilemmas, they have quite different stances. However I haven't concidered the virtue ethicist perspective. I do agree, all three theories provide unique perceptives, and one can really argue for any. All have their pros and cons. It is complex I agree.

 

[निताइ dasa]

But killing (full stop) is not really wrong in itself. Perhaps you mean murder?

Murder is 'wrongful killing', so we must first enter into a discussion on what constitutes "wrongfulness" first I guess.