Why is killing wrong?

[scorpia]

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?

[arayhay]

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?

The commandment says; tho shall not MURDER, not kill. they are not the same thing.

[olivergringold]

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?

Because, from a biological standpoint, anything short of liberty is counter-productive. In totalitarian states or feudal systems people are more or less limited to the jobs of their parents. This stifles creativity and slows down the creative progress that fuels our species. It only takes one anomalous "rags-to-riches" tale for this to be true. On the books, there are multitudes upon multitudes. Therefore, this point can go more or less undisputed. Liberty = Good.

When a person is dead, their liberty is severely restricted. They lack the ability to perform bodily functions that permit them to be productive members of society, such as thinking and moving. They lack emotional input/output which would permit them to interact with other individuals. They lack the immune system to prevent their body from being slowly devoured by grubs. They lack the ability to produce offspring which would be able to contribute to society after they passed from natural causes. Being dead, therefore, is probably a bad thing.

But what of the liberty of the killer to kill? Easy: If a train is about to hit a whole bunch of civilians, but pushing a fat guy in front of it will stop the train in time to save the civilians, you DON'T push the fat guy onto the tracks. Why? Because it was none of the fat guy's business. If you enjoy killing people, that's fine. But you don't have the right to involve other people into that business that don't want to be. Move to Europe and start an Assisted Suicide Clinic. Join the military. Buy an ant farm and a magnifying glass. Who cares? But liberty's only limit is when it interferes with another individual's liberty. Since liberty is good, and death is an impediment, secular murder is still bad.

[scorpia]

Because, from a biological standpoint, anything short of liberty is counter-productive.

But then what if it came down to a choice between libery and killing? What if there was a guy out there that wouldn't harm a hair on anyone's head, but got people to do whatever he wanted?

[olivergringold]

Then he would be interfering with the liberty of others, and thus was evil. The liberty of average people takes precedence over the liberty of those who would exploit the freedom of others.

[scorpia]

Then he would be interfering with the liberty of others, and thus was evil. The liberty of average people takes precedence over the liberty of those who would exploit the freedom of others.

Then he would be interfering with the liberty of others, and thus was evil. The liberty of average people takes precedence over the liberty of those who would exploit the freedom of others.

What's an average person?

An insane person is an average person.

Psychiatrists lock up many insane people.

Are they doing wrong?

[olivergringold]

Insane people are labeled as such because they are continually and compulsively acting as a threat to the liberty of themselves and others. They are locked up for the same reasons that people are placed into prisons, excepting that with the insane it is based only on the duration of their disease, and during the sentence they are (usually) treated with the utmost kindness and care.

[scorpia]

Insane people are labeled as such because they are continually and compulsively acting as a threat to the liberty of themselves and others

This is not my definition of an insane person.

A person with a mental illness does not necessarily pose a threat to himself or others.

A person can believe they are a chicken and it doesn't harm anyone or pose a threat to anyone's liberty.

But they'd still be locked up.

[olivergringold]

People who believe in UFOs or most Magic Men generally aren't sent to asylums.

And the people who are sent to asylums are only schooled in a new reality because their existing one isn't congruent with one that would allow them to interact with others efficiently.

[AClockWorkOrange]

People are commited when their perception of reality renders them incapable of functioning in society. Psychosis is not insermountable (in terms of dealing with society.) I myself have been diagnosed with paranoid schitzophrenia, and my family has had a long history of mental illness, and for a few exceptions, we cope quite well.

[scorpia]

People who believe in UFOs or most Magic Men generally aren't sent to asylums.

And the people who are sent to asylums are only schooled in a new reality because their existing one isn't congruent with one that would allow them to interact with others efficiently.

Aright you got me.

Mostly because of that little word; generally. I was ready to toss in an example where it wasn't the case but now I am reminded that I shouldn't nitpick over minorities