CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why is it wrong to kill?
Why can a solider kill, but if someone attacks me (physically or through manipulating my situation), it is wrong for me to kill them? I understand why it is wrong to kill a person on an impulse or desire (like serial killers). But what if you are trying to solve a problem and have tried all other alternatives?
An example would be a child who gets beaten every night without reason killing the kids who beat him, or a woman/man who is being stalked killing her stalker (who might one day become a rapist if the issue isn't addressed early)? Or a shop owner killing a person who is robbing their store?
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
Rules against killing, whether legal or religious in origin, are simply a cornerstone of what it means to be a society. If everyone has to defend themselves from killing constantly, and if it were normal to kill to get whatever you want, then society itself breaks down.
The Old Testament has a commandment against killing because they needed a cohesive society. But note they didn't hesitate to kill other tribes in the name of God. Because that latter type of killing was a promotion of their own society over the rival society.
These are all reasons why when contemporary people quote the Bible as reason to never ever kill anybody anywhere for any reason they've lost the original context. Societies do indeed allow killing, even Judeo Christian societies, if by doing that killing it promotes the fabric of that particular society. This is why quoting the Bible against capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, etc, really doesn't cut it. The people who wrote those verses were trying to promote their own societies by discouraging destructive behavior from within. Arguably all the examples I just gave are instead constructive behaviors meant to help people in societies get ahead overall.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
Whenever killing is regarded as being "wrong" it is merely a matter of opinion, generally of the populist variety as influenced by prevailing powers. So, it is wrong if and only if people regard it as wrong; nothing more nor less.
This reminds me, you never exactly got back to me on this very argument about a year ago. I still completely disagree for the book of reason I presented back then.
Your answer here does not indicate the reasons why people form these opinions (popular or otherwise), which I would contend is not merely on a whim or unpredictable.
I had to leave the forum for a while, and left a number of exchanges up in the air. You will have to refresh me. And at any rate, I am not claiming these opinions are whimsical or unpredictable. Nor are the reasons for the existence of such opinions particularly relevant to my point that morality is a matter of opinion.
That seems obvious; codifying in some form when it is and is not okay to kill is necessary for social order. The error in your line of reasoning is in treating this as a homogeneous practice; in reality, what constitutes "innocence" may very greatly between and even within cultures.
So the codification of killing as wrong is necessary for a society. In this way it is homogenous. Yes the definition of innocent varies from society to society but there are some common themes in how they define who should not be killed. But even if the selection of who is innocent were completely arbitrary the prohibition on the killing of innocent is a necessary for social order beyond it being just opinion.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
Codification of impermissibility has a necessary relationship with society. This is not the same as a codification of wrongness. While value based language is frequently employed in permissibility politics, it is not actually necessary to have morality in order to establish impressibility. I do not think that permissibility is arbitrary, but I do think it lacks any objective origin outside of human preference (and therefore opinion). If you have an alternative theory, please feel free to actually provide it. Establishing necessity is hardly adequate to that end, given that all you will have demonstrated is that having an opinion of some sort on the matter is necessary (rather than that something beyond opinion exists).
Cultures that practiced human sacrifice didn't "praise killing the innocent", they certainly didn't go about indiscriminately killing innocent people nor did they condone such behavior, ritually killing an innocent person as a sacrifice to the divine was acceptable only under a very narrow set of circumstances. Consider what it means for something or someone to be a "sacrifice" in this context. It was viewed as a necessity to ensure the survival of the rest of the society. To portray this as "praise killing the innocent" is a reckless mischaracterization.
The praise was for the sacrifice (an act which necessitated killing), not the killing itself - as Bohemian pointed out - otherwise they would have killed more indiscriminately.
guilty by association
Though this was not a required justification - they could have just thought, sure, they are innocent now, but they will grow up to be my enemy and try to kill me or others of my tribe, etc.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
The wrongness of killing comes in degrees and is determined within the context in which the event occurred. Our sense of justice requires that one must not kill another without sufficient reason. Typically that reason must be the preservation of life. That is to say, an aggressor puts their life on the line when they physically threaten the life of another and if they loose their life in said aggression, it is not wrong. Put another way, killing is wrong to the extent that one should not do to others what they do not want done to themselves. This rule of thumb is a moral imperative in civil society (without which there is no preponderance of opinion).
That is all well and vague. Saying it is "contextual" and a matter of "sufficient reason" places the issue squarely in the field of popular opinion and/or authoritarian control. What passes as sufficient reason varies from social order to social order, across time and geography. The golden rule has not prevailed universally, and it therefore cannot be claimed as an imperative for civil society.
Saying it is "contextual" and a matter of "sufficient reason" places the issue squarely in the field of popular opinion and/or authoritarian control
Not at all. Saying it is contextual is merely an acknowledgment of complex behavioral patterns in a complex world. Saying that one must have sufficient reason is not an opinion. Whether a given reason is sufficient may be a disputed matter of opinion, but the requirement to have one is not.
The golden rule has not prevailed universally, and it therefore cannot be claimed as an imperative for civil society
Mine was a reference to the silver rule. It does prevail universally to the extent that people adhere to it within the confines of their moral/civil circle. That is to say that not all civil societies are civil to other societies. The silver rule would still be maintained within the given group.
Our previous debates lead us to basically agree on a number of the facts around moral development and behavior but to disagree entirely on the final analysis of the facts. If you search any of the morality arguments from about a year ago, we had a number of threads at various times.
Saying it is contextual is merely an acknowledgment of complex behavioral patterns in a complex world.
That complexity of context is precisely what makes any moral or legal position a matter of opinion of whomever is accountable for setting moral paradigms. Even setting aside the origins of moral opinion, this complexity means that no uniform standard can exist because every instance varies and therefore requires some adjudicator. Be this adjudicator a member of the body popular (e.g. jury) or a formal authority (e.g. judge), the decision nevertheless falls to individual perspective. Your burden is to demonstrate how, having acknowledge context complexity, moral perspective on killing can be anything but a matter of individual opinion.
Saying that one must have sufficient reason is not an opinion. Whether a given reason is sufficient may be a disputed matter of opinion, but the requirement to have one is not.
I was not contesting whether sufficient reason must be required (though you have hardly proven that it is). My point, again, is that what fulfills the standard is a matter of opinion (as you yourself have conceded may be the case). This means that the reasoning behind what makes killing right or wrong is a matter of opinion, because the reasoning is subjective.
Mine was a reference to the silver rule. It does prevail universally to the extent that people adhere to it within the confines of their moral/civil circle. That is to say that not all civil societies are civil to other societies. The silver rule would still be maintained within the given group.
Silver or gold, it makes no difference; you have misunderstood my point. When I say it does not prevail universally I mean that this rule has not existed within all given groups. This means your original claim that it is necessary to social order is empirically false.
Our previous debates lead us to basically agree on a number of the facts around moral development and behavior but to disagree entirely on the final analysis of the facts. If you search any of the morality arguments from about a year ago, we had a number of threads at various times.
To be frank, I am not interested in digging through old discussions to guess what you are alluding to (in part because my philosophy has adapted over the past year). My impression from your early comment was that there may have been some clear point of contention you wanted to revive; I may have been mistaken, but if not I think it makes most sense for you to just briefly identify what the disagreement was and we can go from there?
That complexity of context is precisely what makes any moral or legal position a matter of opinion
By this reasoning, one can explain why the weatherman is so often wrong. Weather is complex, so this guy just gives an opinion.
this complexity means that no uniform standard can exist
No concrete standard can exist, but this doesn't rule out standards as such, it necessitates them. I'll explain below.
I am not interested in digging through old discussions to guess what you are alluding to
Then I may reference worn out analogies to explain my position.
Living things must live. It's the axiom upon which I build my position. You can explain it through the selfish gene theory or some other theory, but the nature of living things is such that they perpetuate. Environment causes the specific nature of living things to change over time. The nature of the environment and of humans is such that a moral sense provides an evolutionary advantage. It helps us survive. Some moral inclinations serve this function better than others. Some moral inclinations are thus more morally correct than others. The standard is a principle of survival and flourishing (surviving well). Thus, the expression of this standard will be different in different situations or contexts. That's contextual but not subjective.
You may argue that it's not the case that living things should keep living. That's true inasmuch as it is true that it's not the case that rocks should be hard. As long as living things live, it is their nature to continue the process of life. This means that the "wrong" morality is just as good as the "right" morality given survival is not a priority for living things...But it is.
The worn out analogy I will use is shelter. We make it to keep out the elements. The are some shelters that are better at this than others. The best shelter in the desert is different from the best shelter in the tundra, though the standard is the same. As we get better at building shelters, we add in things that are unnecessary to meet the fundamental standard, such as ascetics. But the standard doesn't go away. No one want's a beautiful home that can't serve its primary function.
The other analogy I'll use is health. Health is a fuzzy notion and people have different opinions about what is and is not healthy. Nonetheless, scientist can study behavior and results to determine things to be healthy or unhealthy. The standard for medicine is health. Similarly, well-being (surviving well, flourishing etc) is the standard for morality. Having a subjective experience of health and medicine does not change the objective standard. The fact that what is healthy varies from person to person does not make the standard a matter of subjective opinion, but a matter of contextual application.
By this reasoning, one can explain why the weatherman is so often wrong. Weather is complex, so this guy just gives an opinion.
My reasoning was that unique complexity makes the ascription of uniform standards to dynamic situations fundamentally inaccurate. I am not sure the inaccuracy of the weatherman is actually owing to that particular shortcoming, but I ultimately do agree that the meteorologist is just giving their opinion. What is your point?
No concrete standard can exist, but this doesn't rule out standards as such, it necessitates them. I'll explain below.
I never claimed that it did. My point is that such standards are not objective or universal. I'll address in detail below.
Living things must live. It's the axiom upon which I build my position. [...] That's contextual but not subjective. [...] No one want's a beautiful home that can't serve its primary function. [...]
Your axiom is too simplistic. Living things do not have to keep living. Lethal altruism is also biologically conditioned, particularly towards close relations but even extending beyond that. I do not deny, though, that a moral disposition is evolved. This demonstrates that the disposition has an objective basis, though, and not that the substance of morality itself is objective. Part of the advantage of the moral disposition is in its adaptability to context, and if it were actually a universal then that adaptability would be lost. It is also an evidenced fact that not all members of the human species share a moral disposition, and they can and do function within human society; so it cannot be claimed that the disposition itself is universal either (as may be the case with, say, shelter).
(I am going to avoid going down the health road, because I think we are going to get lost on that one. I have fairly uncommon views on health itself, insofar as I do not wholly regard it as existing in the first place. And that seems too tangential to get into, unless you really want to press it.)
The weatherman giving his professional opinion based on scientific observation does not render weather subjective.
Your axiom is too simplistic. Living things do not have to keep living
"Living things live" is the starting point. How they persist in living is determined by their nature. For some that means sacrificing for the good of another or the whole. Dying at in a given circumstance is how that particular thing lives.
This demonstrates that the disposition has an objective basis, though, and not that the substance of morality itself is objective
Any trait that persists through time in the evolutionary process does so because it serves a purpose for the species. It helps the species survive. The degree to which a trait helps a species survive is the measure of it's value to that species. The standard for morality is the degree to which morality serves the purpose for which it evolved, surviving well. This, I believe was the original crux of our disagreement.
It is also an evidenced fact that not all members of the human species share a moral disposition
There are all kinds of ailments that specific people occasionally get. This does not mean the ailment is no worse for the person (or others) than any given level of health.
I am going to avoid going down the health road, because I think we are going to get lost on that one. I have fairly uncommon views on health itself, insofar as I do not wholly regard it as existing in the first place
This shouldn't have surprised me as much as it did. The analogy of health works very well for morality. Most people don't doubt the existence of health or its varying degrees, regardless of what they think of morality. If you don't believe in the existence of health, I'm not sure the gap of communication can be effectively bridged as they are so analogous.
Maybe if you tell me how it is that health does not exist, I can determine a different, similar analogy. Or determine if it is time to quit.
The weatherman giving his professional opinion based on scientific observation does not render weather subjective.
Why not? Even science must assume the reliability of its methods, and has never actually proven its own foundations. Certainly, science and its foundations seem reliable but that seemingness is not the same thing as objective certainty. We may say that we value the scientific method, but that value does not make it objective and it does not make it less a matter of subjective opinion.
Any trait that persists through time in the evolutionary process does so because it serves a purpose for the species. [...] The standard for morality is the degree to which morality serves the purpose for which it evolved, surviving well. [...]
You have completely neglected the substance of my point. I already explicitly agreed that morality serves an evolutionary function. However, my contention is that identifying an objective basis for the existence of a moral disposition is not the same as identifying an objective morality. The former explains why moral thought exists, whereas the latter addresses whether that moral thought reflects an external and independent reality. Your reasoning is akin to saying that because religious disposition is evolved then God must be objectively real. It does not follow.
There are all kinds of ailments that specific people occasionally get. This does not mean the ailment is no worse for the person (or others) than any given level of health.
You have taken my comment out of context. As I already pointed out, people lacking moral disposition can and do function just fine in human society. Some of these people are actually more well suited to certain positions in society (e.g. surgeon) than their morally disposed counterparts. There is simply no basis for your claim that it is an "ailment" rather than part of natural diversity, and the tendency to view it as an ailment is a consequence of moral bias rather than of reason.
This shouldn't have surprised me as much as it did.
Ha. XD
[...] Maybe if you tell me how it is that health does not exist, I can determine a different, similar analogy. Or determine if it is time to quit.
I think the idea of health exists. But what constitutes that idea of health is so individualized and subjective as to make the idea of health meaningless in a general and philosophical sense. My point here is not dissimilar from my point with morality. Analogy is probably not the way to go since we are dealing with a fundamental difference in philosophy that will most likely cause us to differ in the same manner on each instance. This does not mean we must "quit" the effort, as analogy is hardly the only means of conveying ideas, but if you are so inclined then feel free to do so.
Weather itself is not a matter of subjective opinion. Weather is independent of opinion. I hope you didn't mean to say otherwise.
I wasn't neglecting the substance of your point, I was trying to re-word my own point, which opposes your own. You said that the objective evolutionary function does not lead to an objective standard against which to measure morality. I explained how it does. This is the part where we break down to "nuh-uh" verses "uh-huh".
Our differences in views on health may help to illustrate the fundamental differences we hold in general. Also, there may be a break in communication. I take a single principle to be applicable to a wide range of complex situations. I consider these different situations to be a matter of context. You seem to take them to be indicative of subjectivity. Individual humans all differ from each other in countless ways making considerations of health unique for each person. I see context here. Correct me if you don't see subjectivity here.
Weather itself is not a matter of subjective opinion. Weather is independent of opinion. I hope you didn't mean to say otherwise.
If there is an actual, independent phenomenon of weather then that does exist regardless of subjective opinion. The contrary was not my contention at all. Rather, that our perception of such a phenomenon and its particulars is not certain proof of its general or particular existence.
I wasn't neglecting the substance of your point [...] the part where we break down to "nuh-uh" verses "uh-huh".
Serving an objective, adaptive function does not necessarily make any thing actually objective itself. A subjective concept may exist independent of a corresponding objective object and still have objective effects. That morality as a cause induces an objectively identifiable effect (adaptation) speaks to the objective nature of its effects, not to the nature of the cause. You are conflating morality for its effects, but morality is its substance and not its effects which are unto themselves. Unless you can speak to an objective basis for specific morals which constitute the substance of morality, then you are not getting at the nature of morality itself. I do not see that you have done that, then or now.
Our differences in views on health [...] if you don't see subjectivity here.
Although we are wont to apply general standards to diverse contexts, I would contend that the variation we introduce to that standard in the process of adapting it to each context renders it in actually as unique a standard as the context it is applied to. Additionally, I think it is impossible for any process involving human perception to not involve subjectivity. Given that standards require individuals not only to conceive of them but also to apply them, the grounds for subjectivity are twofold and unavoidable. The context may be a collection of objective truths, but any human engagement with those truths and opinions formed therefrom is necessarily subjective.
That morality as a cause induces an objectively identifiable effect (adaptation) speaks to the objective nature of its effects, not to the nature of the cause
You have agreed earlier that morality is an evolved trait thus it has an objective cause. Now you are saying that it produces objective effects. That we experience morality subjectively (as with anything experience) is not in dispute. This being the case, what exactly are you disagreeing with?
Unless you can speak to an objective basis for specific morals which constitute the substance of morality, then you are not getting at the nature of morality itself
I have done this. Let's back up and talk about definitions. Morality concerns right and wrong consciousness and action. By consciousness I mean intention, emotion, content of thought etc. That we have a sense of morality is an evolved feature. We developed it because it helps us survive. That is to say that having a sense that certain actions and conscious states are better than others for ones well-being or survivability has helped us survive. This could only be the case if some actions and conscious states actually are better than others at helping us survive. It could also only be the case if our aforementioned sense was correct to a sufficient degree.
Your disagreement with this still just comes back to your "nuh-uh" versus my "uh-huh"
I would contend that the variation we introduce to that standard in the process of adapting it to each context renders it in actually as unique a standard as the context it is applied to
We don't introduce variation to the standard by applying it to context, rather the same standard is applied in as many different ways as there are contexts for application. This doesn't change the standard nor does it render is a matter of opinion.
Additionally, I think it is impossible for any process involving human perception to not involve subjectivity. The context may be a collection of objective truths, but any human engagement with those truths and opinions formed therefrom is necessarily subjective
There is no such thing as an objective experience. I have never argued that there was. Some people see better than others, but eyesight is a subjective experience. Some deeds are better than others, but the doing of the deed is subjective as well as how we feel about it.
Morality is neither its cause nor its effect, but whatever attributes it possesses unto itself. My point is not just that we experience morality subjectively, but that you have not identified that it exists beyond that subjective experience (i.e. if we ceased to exist that it would still exist... as with, say, the rain). Speaking to its cause and effect does not demonstrate that it has an objective existence beyond our conception of it.
The sheer diversity of morality suggests the fallacy in your reasoning. If certain actions and conscious states actually were better than others, we would not only expect an empirically absent moral homogeneity but morality itself would not be necessary as such manners of being would be selected for just as all other manners of being are.
I have already provided an analysis as to why application of a standard actually constitutes a revision of that standard. Asserting the opposite without bothering to critique my specific line of reasoning or to provide any elaboration on your view is not productive.
I never said you claimed hat objective experience exists. My point was not that experience is inherently subjective, but that that inherent subjectivity means that whenever we interpret circumstance and apply ideas we bring that subjectivity to those processes which precludes the possibility of an actual universal standard. The universal standard, like morality, is an idea that lacks an objective counterpart in reality.
My point is not just that we experience morality subjectively, but that you have not identified that it exists beyond that subjective experience (i.e. if we ceased to exist that it would still exist... as with, say, the rain)
I have explained it's existence beyond our experience of it twice. I won't do it again just for you to say again "nuh uh" which seems to be the sum of your argument here.
A human trait will cease to exist if humans cease to exist. This does not make the trait a matter of opinion. Human DNA would cease to exist if humans ceased to exist.
The sheer diversity of morality suggests the fallacy in your reasoning
This is a lazy argument. We live in a dynamic world. Even if everyone did everything in a morally correct manner, we would have massive moral diversity. If everyone lived as healthy as they could, they would do different things. If every house was perfectly functional, they would look different.
I have already provided an analysis as to why application of a standard actually constitutes a revision of that standard
I have demonstrated that the application of a principle to different situations will alter its expression depending on the context of the various situations. This does not alter the principle applied. I then explained twice how the evolutionary foundation of morality factors into my conclusion that moral opinions can actually be incorrect. Your opposition has been merely to assert that I have not done so rather than address what I actually said.
whenever we interpret circumstance and apply ideas we bring that subjectivity to those processes which precludes the possibility of an actual universal standard. The universal standard, like morality, is an idea that lacks an objective counterpart in reality
Herein lies the disconnect. You seem to believe that a thing must exist independent of humanity for it to be objective. This is incorrect. A thing need not exist "out there" for it to have objective existence. All the things with an existence dependent on the existence of humanity still exist even if they would cease when we cease.
When humans apply anything to anything we do it subjectively. When we draw a straight line we always fail to actually draw a straight line. But we still manage to build structures and complete surgery based on straight line principles. This is because our subjective application of a standard doesn't cause us to draw circles, name them straight lines, and then claim it's all a matter of opinion. Correct me if this misrepresents what the moral subjectivist would claim for morality.
No, you have explained the existence of the non-universal disposition towards morality to which I have agreed. Never have you spoken to its substance, nor once addressed the differentiation I have repeatedly made in response to your conflation of that attributive substance of moraliy with its causes and effects. I have not been "nuh-uh-ing" your position, but your disingenuous insistence that this is what I am doing is clearly preventing you from actually giving my analysis due consideration. Talk about actually lazy argumentation. If you are not willing to give me the benefit of sincere deliberation, which you have repeatedly indicated through statements like this, then I am not interested in continuing the exchange.
Perhaps I don't think in terms of the "substance" of morality. Mind explaining what you mean by that?
I have also explained how the objective cause of morality presents the objective standard by which different morality can be judged. Saying I haven't when I have is another reason I keep saying you have a "nuh-uh" argument style.
is clearly preventing you from actually giving my analysis due consideration
When your analysis goes beyond telling me that my analysis is invalid, I address it.
I have already provided an analysis as to why application of a standard actually constitutes a revision of that standard
Copy and paste it here. If I have missed it I will address it. But I believe I did already when I explained the changing application of a constant principle.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest
A justice system makes the species more fit for survival than does rampant murder.
There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless.
Since we all deserve to burn in hell anyway, it would make sense if you really believed this.
Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought
If you ever have a free thought in your life, you should thank whomever helped you have it. Even if it's an atheist you can be sure they are God-sent. But don't hold your breath.
you again? Why don't you quit being a liar and do what you said you were going to do and be done with me? If you don't care that you are on your way to Hell, why should I care for you?
Oddly, that makes a lot of sense. The government and religion tell you whether it is wrong or right. Consequently, you can argue that killers that do it without permission, are really independent thinkers or revolutionaries. One day, the government could say that doctors killing sick people is alright, then it is okay. etc ...
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
Killing can be simultaneous wrong and not wrong. All that is required for it to be wrong is that one person regard at as being such. Punishment is merely an expression of whatever is either the popular or authoritarian understanding of "wrongness".
Answer to me what "Good" is to you and I can give you a reason why killing is not good. however, it is not "Wrong" in all contexts by all understandings of "Good".
---
If you hold that humans have rights, Death, particularly Death before the end of one's natural life, is a total denial of those rights. and it should stand that since rights are privileges that apply to all people, any denial of rights is unfair, death is in total, unfair.
You can hold that humans have rights without also believing that a violation of those rights is unfair, or that premature death in particular is unfair. For instance, if rights are merely an expression of power then they exist only insofar as there is a power to enforce them and there is no "loss" and fairness is moot. Or, under determinism a person cannot die in any other way or at any other time then previous events dictate they will... so there is no such thing as a premature death, and so also no deprivation.
It's really not wrong because natural selection chooses the survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as right or wrong, life is meaningless, you are worthless. Thank your local atheistic evolutionist for this freedom of thought.
You could believe that those rights humans have are fair and taking away those rights would be unfair unless they took away other peoples rights which would be eye for eye to take away their rights for taking away other peoples rights. Premature death would be dieing younger than expected.
You could believe that those rights humans have are fair and taking away those rights would be unfair unless they took away other peoples rights which would be eye for eye to take away their rights for taking away other peoples rights.
Those are your beliefs. Why should I share them?
Premature death would be dieing younger than expected.
You could define it that way, but it is not what is typically meant nor was that what was meant in the statement to which I responded. I also see no reason why the baseless expectations some people attach to non-existent potential should be regarded as having any value.
its wrong to kill an innocent person. killing an evil person prevents them from doing evil which is different then killing an innocent person for no reason.
What is an "innocent" person? What is an "evil" person? How can one know that killing said "evil" person will actually prevent them from doing an "evil"? Does it matter that the latter may be a lesser "evil" than killing them? What if they were going to steal... still okay to kill them? And who decides who is innocent or evil?
But when is it murder and when is it okay? What is criminal and what is not? You have not answered my questions, merely displaced the answer to another set of equally subjective and vague concepts.
I give you credit "Why is it wrong to kill?" It is a very good question. I personally cannot give you a definitive answer to that question only my perspective.
If I approached the question from the biblical Christian point of view God does not want his people to take another's life even at the expense of their own (why is an answer only God can answer). God is the giver and taker of life as he has stated in the Bible "Vengeance is mine." The next statement may be a little hard for some people to accept but mankind cannot create life they can only help it along so then if man cannot create life man should not be taking life.
The biggest problem is we have created a whole world a society that no longer values life and maybe that was part of the reasoning in the Bible why mankind should not be taking life for we are not aware as human beings the value of human life. We of course can fix a number to a human life as for example what we would pay for a fallen soldier in combat but that doesn't in and of itself say that that amount is accurate. Who but God knows what the value of a human life is worth? It matters little today however because we have created a society where death and violence is a common everyday affair. No one ever thinks that it doesn't have to be this way but apparently creating a society where trust is more important than distrust is basically what one would call in our society Mission Impossible!
I beg to differ. Why is it that some doctors make over a million dollars a year in salary paid by the average person's taxes? Precisely because we value life so much, that no one has the balls to challenge the person that oversees life seeing procedures, EVEN IF, they dont really care about your life.
Brief me on what your primary values are and I will tell you why the kind of "reasoned killing" you describe will not serve them. Ie why you should consider that kind of killing wrong