Why is homicide bad?

[Polgara]

Cognitive dissonance: Is a large demon when you're trying to dance with it.

 

[I Ratant]

New Thread: If Herbert Hoover could have inflated his neck like a bullfrog, how would history have changed? Discuss.

Satchmo!
"The damage to his embouchure from his high pressure approach to playing is acutely visible in many pictures of Louis from the mid-twenties."

 

[I Ratant]

Homicide is irrevocable.
Don't do it capriciously!

 

[gdnp]

I completely understand what you are saying, and I can agree with the logic (assuming the given constraints), but it SEEMS so wrong.

It seems wrong to me too. It seems like there should be some absolute moral code, handed down by God, applicable to all situations. It's probably good that a large portion of the population seems to think there is, and therefore doesn't go around killing people and stealing their stuff. I think it's important to remember, however, that if situations change morals may as well. Our nice peaceful German and Japanese allies 60 years ago were performing some pretty horrendous atrocities, and I have little doubt that average American citizens placed in a similar situation would have behaved much the same.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Homicide bad? I love homicide! I do it as often as I can.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Not true. From a species ` survival it may indeed be beneficial the removal of individuals who are handicapped or have deficits of any sort..

You know, I realize I was speaking in very general terms, but your response is based on an arbitrary form of judgment, of the kind you were condemning in your original post. It's a far greater stretch to speculate that handicapped individuals may be detrimental to society as a whole, especially to the point where murdering them would be for the greater good, than it is to say that premeditated unjustified killing (aka homicide) is bad.

Unfortunately survival is not addressed on a species basis but more limited to your local tribe or gene pool.

Yeah, I mistakenly said species when I was already talking about tribal groups. I interpreted homicide to mean the same as murder, which didn't include killings out of self-defense. I didn't elaborate enough in my last post, but I think gdnp and Lost Angeles covered anything else I wanted to say.

 

[triadboy]

Satchmo!
"The damage to his embouchure from his high pressure approach to playing is acutely visible in many pictures of Louis from the mid-twenties."

Understood. However, keep in mind, Herbert Hoover didn't blow - he sucked.

 

[I Ratant]

Understood. However, keep in mind, Herbert Hoover didn't blow - he sucked.

.
He's purity itself relative to Bush 43.

 

[bruto]

Understood. However, keep in mind, Herbert Hoover didn't blow - he sucked.

Hence the machine named in his honor.

 

[Richard Masters]

It seems wrong to me too. It seems like there should be some absolute moral code, handed down by God, applicable to all situations. It's probably good that a large portion of the population seems to think there is, and therefore doesn't go around killing people and stealing their stuff. I think it's important to remember, however, that if situations change morals may as well. Our nice peaceful German and Japanese allies 60 years ago were performing some pretty horrendous atrocities, and I have little doubt that average American citizens placed in a similar situation would have behaved much the same.

My current moral code is actually to do what is best for myself (positive consequentialism) and avoid what is bad for others (negative consequentialism). In that order and consistently when possible. Yet it feels arbitrary.

 

[Richard Masters]

From an evolutionary sense there is no "right" or "wrong". There is only "that which increases the probability that certain DNA sequences will survive and multiply in a given environment" and "that which decreases the probability that said sequences will survive and multiply." Thus morality changes as environments change. We in the Western world now live in a time of relative plenty, where killing people and taking their stuff is frowned upon. As shortages of land, food, and energy worsen, this morality may change. If we don't decide to invade the middle east and steal their oil, the Chinese or the Russians may. If they are successful, then their culture and morals may replace those of the West in the coming centuries. The universe doesn't care if we think this is moral or not.

Seems like a decent argument for strategic neoconservatism; however, how do we choose one alternative vs another? neoconservatism could be a solution to energy problems, but technological activism could be too. Seems like one could avoid more suffering by avoiding wars and killing, pragmatic as wars and killing might be.

 

[I Ratant]

Hence the machine named in his honor.

.
I've been told it's the position of the dirt bag that is difference between a vacuum cleaner and a Harley.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Why is homicide wrong? After all, death is death, and it makes no difference whether you die peacefully at a ripe old age in your sleep, or gurgling your last breath through the torrent of blood gushing from your throat where I happened to misplace my knife. Besides, we might have to euthanize handicapped people, so it helps to keep homicide as an available option.

Why is rape wrong? After all, sex is sex, and it makes no difference whether it's consentual, or violent and life threatening. Besides, if we ever find ourselves severely underpopulated, with rape you're virtually guaranteed to pass on your genes, therefore it would help to keep rape as an available option.

Why is stealing wrong? After all, the property remains within the same society where someone will at least find some good use for it, and it makes no difference whether it's the rightful owner or some greedy decadent individual. Besides, we live in desperate times where it's every man for himself, so it makes sense to acquire other people's belongings by whatever means necessary.


...Ah hell, this is too confusing. Let's just give the topic a rest and go eat some babies. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You tried to argue that because people die in the universe, and because you don't call the universe bad for this, people dying is not a bad thing and neither is homicide. I disagree. If there were a point to criticizing the universe, for example, if we could somehow change things about the universe and nature by majority vote, I'm sure that many people would want to get rid of natural death and homicide, because in general nobody wants to die.

OK.
You have a point on this.
However, the vast majority of people (as far as i can feel) associate the concept of "nature" and "universe" to something good and not bad.

Well, who are you to decide that person should die? What criteria are you using? What is your justification?[..]

Does Mother Nature have any justification for the deaths of innocent children?

 

[Matteo Martini]

It may or may not be beneficial. You'd need first of all to demonstrate that point and carry that argument on its own, before it is useful for deciding on the usefulness of homicide. [..]

Severely handicapped people hardly can reproduce or do any useful work for the society, while they require a lot of attention and resources (*).
(*) I am NOT advocating to kill handicapped people. This is just a philosophical discussion.

[..]
That said, my desire to continue living is strong enough (among the other issues involved with murder) that I'll certainly try to err on the side of believing that murder is bad until I can be shown otherwise. [..]

The desire of raping your schoolmate at the age of 16 can also be quite strong.
Does not make it "good", though..

On this basis I will always feel that things like murder, theft and rape are absolutely wrong.

What about stealing a dish of rice for your children who are starving from a rich person who is fat?

 

[Matteo Martini]

We can come up with whatever handwaving arguments we want, but since every human society I know of seems to have prohibitions against murdering members of the group, [..]

Not true in many cases.
Sacrifical killings in Africa.
Gays killed in Iran.
Euthanasia.
..

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
This is a stupid thread.
[..]

Why did you join a thread which you consider "stupid"?
Did anybody ask you to?

 

[Cactus Wren]

Severely handicapped people hardly can reproduce or do any useful work for the society, while they require a lot of attention and resources (*).

Fish in a barrel.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Fish in a barrel.

Professor Hawkins is NOT mentally hanicapped (yes, I did not specify which kind of handicap I was talking about).
Also, I do NOT in any way, endorse doing bad things to handicapped people, how much severely handicapped.
I love them.
Mine is purely a very hipothetical discussion.

 

[gdnp]

Not true in many cases.
Sacrifical killings in Africa.
Gays killed in Iran.
Euthanasia.
..

Many societies have rules where killing various individuals is condoned. Many allow the killing of undesirables: in the US this is murderers, in Iran gays and adulterers, and just about anywhere enemy combatants can be killed in wartime and lethal force can be used in self defense. A few societies may still allow human sacrifice, but this is still limited killing for the (perceived) good of the group.

I have not heard of a human society where there are no sanctions when one member kills another member of the group without just cause: ie, murder.