Why is killing wrong?

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:47 pm

Well? Why is it, outside of religion? It is according to the law of my country, mostly, outside of debates such as euthenasia or self-defence. But then there's other countries, where it's legal say for a woman who caught her husband cheating to kill him. It's fine for them to do so in a jealous rage. Why not elsewhere? Becase it's appallling? What about the other emotions involved? How about how the jealous wife feels?

Greatest I Am · Post by **Greatest I Am** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:00 am

Do unto others is one of the founding tenants of morality.

Killing seems to go against this rule.

Kill him. It will teach him a lesson.

Regards
DL

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:34 am

Do unto others is one of the founding tenants of morality.

Do unto others as you would want done unto you?

What about those Japanese soldiers that beheaded their captives? They felt that doing so would ne the right thing and saving their captives from the dishonour of being kept alive.

People prefer death to a lot of things others would not agree to as distasteful. So they wouldn't mind dying in such circumstances.

I might rather die than go out with person X; he's a horrible creep. Should I kill those who decide they want to be his boyfriend?

Kill him. It will teach him a lesson.

Lesson? He's dead, and dead people don't learn anything.

I might as well give my reasons so no-one throws a spaz, and that's why; to please certain peoples who I like so I do as they say. Not much original thought, but it's what I figure

Greatest I Am · Post by **Greatest I Am** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:52 am

scorpia wrote:
Do unto others is one of the founding tenants of morality.
Do unto others as you would want done unto you?

Of cource.

What about those Japanese soldiers that beheaded their captives? They felt that doing so would ne the right thing and saving their captives from the dishonour of being kept alive.

People prefer death to a lot of things others would not agree to as distasteful. So they wouldn't mind dying in such circumstances.

I might rather die than go out with person X; he's a horrible creep. Should I kill those who decide they want to be his boyfriend?

Death is death. I don't know what you are after here or explaining here.

Kill him. It will teach him a lesson.
Lesson? He's dead, and dead people don't learn anything.

Exactly. Now do you remember the fable.

I might as well give my reasons so no-one throws a spaz, and that's why; to please certain peoples who I like so I do as they say. Not much original thought, but it's what I figure

Few countries now admit to having laws on the books that allow murder.
Few countries are without murder. All should recognize the sanctity of life.

Regards
DL

Ncik666 · Post by **Ncik666** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:08 pm

Unfortunately there are countries that don't even recognize certain groups as human. There will always be murder thats a fact. We just haven't found the proper punishment for it. I believe in the death penalty for murderers but that doesn't agree with a lot of people.

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:18 pm

All should recognize the sanctity of life.

Should. Always that magic word; should.

Why?

Creation is a wonderful thing, and when a lot of effort and work goes into creating something such as life it's like a cake too good looking to eat.

But then there's other life like the fly in my room, and I just go ahead and kill it. Why? Flies are required in the environment, they help to decompose dead matter. But all I cared about was that it was annoying and disgusting me.

All in all, it's rather hard to value life when said life ticks you off.

ManBearPig · Post by **ManBearPig** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:31 pm

If I understand the question correctly, killing is wrong because society has defined it to be wrong by consensus. That's my opinion anyway. Frankly, I don't like it much, but I still think it's true

.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:35 am

Good question. I can only answer in regards to my own limitations. First, let me state that I don't believe that religion (Christianity to be specific) does value life. I regard many of the teachings of Christ as saying life isn't valuable, that one shouldn't strive to live a long life, but a worthy one. So it isn't how long you live, but what you do in that time that matters to Christ. He warns against gaining earthly treasures because your ultimate "life" doesn't begin until after death and entrance to "eternal life".

Now, back to why killing is wrong. Because I don't see anything as greater than life. To kill another is regarding their life as worthless. It is a statement saying that this person no longer has any importance in mankind and devalues the overall worth of that person. It is one thing if you are respecting the wishes of the person in question by not going to extraordinary measures to save them if they are suffering (regardless of what their "suffering" is). But to actively kill one against their wishes is basically saying that their life isn't worth yours. How much more can you devalue one if you say they aren't worth wasting oxygen on?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:11 am

Confused wrote:Good question. I can only answer in regards to my own limitations. First, let me state that I don't believe that religion (Christianity to be specific) does value life. I regard many of the teachings of Christ as saying life isn't valuable, that one shouldn't strive to live a long life, but a worthy one. So it isn't how long you live, but what you do in that time that matters to Christ. He warns against gaining earthly treasures because your ultimate "life" doesn't begin until after death and entrance to "eternal life".

Now, back to why killing is wrong. Because I don't see anything as greater than life. To kill another is regarding their life as worthless. It is a statement saying that this person no longer has any importance in mankind and devalues the overall worth of that person. It is one thing if you are respecting the wishes of the person in question by not going to extraordinary measures to save them if they are suffering (regardless of what their "suffering" is). But to actively kill one against their wishes is basically saying that their life isn't worth yours. How much more can you devalue one if you say they aren't worth wasting oxygen on?

My intention is not to drag this off topic but I must ask if nothing is greater than life does this include quality of life?

Jesus came so we could "have life more abundently", to have a higher quality of life through interaction with God. You refered to this with this statement

"I regard many of the teachings of Christ as saying life isn't valuable, that one shouldn't strive to live a long life, but a worthy one. "

Now if Life itself is more precious than quality of life, how does this translate for you to your line of work? I know you work in the ER and you probably have seen some really interesting things. Hypothetically if someone came in and was going to be a vegetable (Terry for example), wouldn't it be more humane of us to allow said person to die? In this case wouldn't quality of life and amount of suffering be of more value than the actual life itself?

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:49 am

achilles12604 wrote:
Confused wrote:Good question. I can only answer in regards to my own limitations. First, let me state that I don't believe that religion (Christianity to be specific) does value life. I regard many of the teachings of Christ as saying life isn't valuable, that one shouldn't strive to live a long life, but a worthy one. So it isn't how long you live, but what you do in that time that matters to Christ. He warns against gaining earthly treasures because your ultimate "life" doesn't begin until after death and entrance to "eternal life".

Now, back to why killing is wrong. Because I don't see anything as greater than life. To kill another is regarding their life as worthless. It is a statement saying that this person no longer has any importance in mankind and devalues the overall worth of that person. It is one thing if you are respecting the wishes of the person in question by not going to extraordinary measures to save them if they are suffering (regardless of what their "suffering" is). But to actively kill one against their wishes is basically saying that their life isn't worth yours. How much more can you devalue one if you say they aren't worth wasting oxygen on?
My intention is not to drag this off topic but I must ask if nothing is greater than life does this include quality of life?

Jesus came so we could "have life more abundently", to have a higher quality of life through interaction with God. You refered to this with this statement
"I regard many of the teachings of Christ as saying life isn't valuable, that one shouldn't strive to live a long life, but a worthy one. "
Now if Life itself is more precious than quality of life, how does this translate for you to your line of work? I know you work in the ER and you probably have seen some really interesting things. Hypothetically if someone came in and was going to be a vegetable (Terry for example), wouldn't it be more humane of us to allow said person to die? In this case wouldn't quality of life and amount of suffering be of more value than the actual life itself?

Quality of life is a very relevant factor. Life is complex, not something that is only distinctive to length. Once you deem life as no longer important, you have that right to choose to end it by refusing life sustaining procedures, etc... However, this is your choice, not anothers. We have living wills, power of attorneys, etc.. to hypothetically (since it isn't always respected) ensure your wishes are carried out. Either way, no one is taking your life.

Yes, quality of life is an issue. But I think I addressed it pretty well above. I should have clarified my post a little better. When I say life is the most important thing, I can only define it in terms of my own interpretations. Yes, life is the most important. That encompasses all its parameters. Life is lived to its greatest extent at which point it must be determined by each individual when it is no longer a life but instead a suffering existence. The overwhelming emphasis is placed on choice. If you choose, as a stranger or even one who knows me but not respecting my choices as laid out in my living will, to end my life or continue it despite my directions, then you are no longer respecting my life. You are placing my life in your parameters. You devalue my life by doing so.

One could argue that your interpretation of the value of life is addressed via quality of life in your above statement. But I can't seem to grab that. Instead, I see few passages in which Christ actually stressed abundance of life in regards to length or quality as opposed to stressing how this material life shouldn't be valued, rather tolerated and lived in meekness to prove our worthiness of this ultimate "eternal life". I can't think of one passage that actually encourages the poor and the meek to strive for equality and advancement of ones position or class. Perhaps you can help me here????