Re: The morality of killing - Response to moslim

[Tank]

moslim

You have wondered where an atheist would derive there moral world view from. In particular why I would not kill you. The simple answer is I have no need to kill you. Specifically because you offer no imminent lethal threat to me.

My personal view of killing is that it is only justifiable to kill in defence. That can be directly in defence of one's self, one's family or indirectly to defend another from attack or  in time of war, one's nation.  But all of these circumstances relate to being attacked first or when one is about to be attacked.

It is wrong to kill another person who is no direct to one or anybody else. Killing for personal gain, gratification or revenge is unacceptable to me. How do I come to these conclusions? I simply would not like to live in a world where theses precept did not apply. They are in effect selfish and self serving. But all human morality is, I think, ultimately selfish and self serving.

If you were an imminent lethal threat to me and I had the means to reliably stop you by non-lethal means I would use those means. If you were an imminent lethal threat to me and the only means I had at my disposal  to save my own life were to kill you, I would without hesitation. And if the situation were reversed I would expect you to do the same to me. I would also follow the same logic if you were a threat to any one of my family.

The situation becomes a little more complex if somebody were attacking somebody outside my family. I would not put my life at as much risk if I saw a person being attacked in the street.

I do not agree with the death penalty. Primarily because you can't apologise to a corpse or return a father/brother/son to a family once they are dead. Humans are fallible and the processes they create are fallible. We have seen too many innocent people executed. Once a murderer is in prison then they no longer  represent an imminent lethal threat and can be left in prison. Judicial killing is premeditated killing and in my view simply rationalised murder.

[Kylyssa]

The situation becomes a little more complex if somebody were attacking somebody outside my family. I would not put my life at as much risk if I saw a person being attacked in the street.

You might be surprised.  I was.  I would have sworn that was the way things were with me, too.  But in the situation, being a none-too-healthy woman with a cane and, at the time, seriously underweight, I still waded into a dangerous situation to rescue a stranger.  

A big man with something shiny in his hand (I later learned it was a knife) was holding a woman by her hair and punching her in the face with the hand holding the shiny thing.  I froze and my mind was temporarily unable to process what I was seeing.  Then the woman made a sound, something like a cross between a cry, a groan, and choking.  I could do nothing but help her then, despite my own profound terror.  He was too distracted to pay attention to my approach.  I held my cane with both hands, like a baseball bat, and hit him across the face with the handle.  To make a long story short I clubbed him with my cane, not fatally but probably in excess of what was necessary.  At the time I interpreted his attempts to get back up (he fell down when hit in the throat) as aggression.  In hindsight, he was probably just trying to get up and flee.  Then again, if he had got his hands on me things would have gone far differently.  

My interference was normal human behavior.  I would bet that the majority of people, if faced with the same situation, would interfere.  Species survival benefits from being able to protect each other despite fear and despite mortal danger.  If everyone else ran away when a large predator menaced a single tribe member the animal would just pick off the tribe one by one until every member was eaten.  

Species survival also benefits from not killing each other.  People do kill each other but it is deviant behavior, not the norm.  If killing each other were the norm, we would not last long as a species.

[elliebean]

Absolute heroism

I need to get myself a cane!  

[Cecilie]

I do not agree with the death penalty. Primarily because you can't apologise to a corpse or return a father/brother/son to a family once they are dead. Humans are fallible and the processes they create are fallible. We have seen too many innocent people executed. Once a murderer is in prison then they no longer  represent an imminent lethal threat and can be left in prison. Judicial killing is premeditated killing and in my view simply rationalised murder.

I agree completely.

[Kylyssa]

Absolute heroism

I need to get myself a cane!  

That's just the thing - it isn't heroism, it is a normal human response to the situation.  Almost any human being will rise to the occasion of helping another person in distress despite any dangers.  I've seen it too many times to think it is not the norm.

[philosoraptor]

Absolute heroism

I need to get myself a cane!  

That's just the thing - it isn't heroism, it is a normal human response to the situation.  Almost any human being will rise to the occasion of helping another person in distress despite any dangers.  I've seen it too many times to think it is not the norm.

I think Kitty Genovese would disagree.  37 people stood by and watched her be murdered and not a one of them did a thing.  I don't think it's the norm to endangers one's self for a complete stranger.  I think you're a better person for having done what you did, but it's certainly not normal.  Most people don't want to be bothered or get involved.  Maybe they'll call the police, but they won't intervene.

[McQ]

I think Kitty Genovese would disagree.  37 people stood by and watched her be murdered and not a one of them did a thing.  I don't think it's the norm to endangers one's self for a complete stranger.  I think you're a better person for having done what you did, but it's certainly not normal.  Most people don't want to be bothered or get involved.  Maybe they'll call the police, but they won't intervene.

Interesting you bring her up. I read some of Richard Wiseman's thoughts on this (if I remember where I read it I'll post the reference..brain farts right now). It seems, according to some serious psychological research done since then (and somewhat because of this) that her case had more to do with the number of witnesses than any other factor. It appears that the large number of people  who saw or heard her being attacked was the primary factor in no one actually acting to help her. A bit counter-intuitive at first, until you dig in.

It seems you're more likely to get help in a crisis if there are fewer people around to actually help you.

I know someone has the updated reference on this, and as I said, I'll look for it too.

EDITED: Found it!

1. Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
2. Soloman, L.Z, Solomon, H., & Stone, R. (1978). Helping as a function of number of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 318-321.

[EssejSllim]

I do not agree with the death penalty. Primarily because you can't apologise to a corpse or return a father/brother/son to a family once they are dead. Humans are fallible and the processes they create are fallible. We have seen too many innocent people executed. Once a murderer is in prison then they no longer  represent an imminent lethal threat and can be left in prison. Judicial killing is premeditated killing and in my view simply rationalised murder.

I agree completely.

I also agree. Not only because it's terrible to know that our judicial system ends innocent lives, but also because I fail to see how execution is our ultimate punishment. I don't think torture should be used because that is a very slippery slope (also, torturing innocent people isn't exactly better than killing them). I think re-instituting slavery for criminals is a much more appropriate (not to mention cost-effective) punishment.

I think killing is justified when a person poses a threat (either a lethal one or one along a more abstract (i.e. societal) line) or when a person has built up enough evil that even though they don't necessarily pose a direct threat to anyone, they have been, and potentially still are, detrimental to society. For example, I would see no harm in someone killing Sarah Palin. However, that is just my selfish, narrow sense of morality speaking.

[Ultima22689]

I do not agree with the death penalty. Primarily because you can't apologise to a corpse or return a father/brother/son to a family once they are dead. Humans are fallible and the processes they create are fallible. We have seen too many innocent people executed. Once a murderer is in prison then they no longer  represent an imminent lethal threat and can be left in prison. Judicial killing is premeditated killing and in my view simply rationalised murder.

I agree completely.

I also agree. Not only because it's terrible to know that our judicial system ends innocent lives, but also because I fail to see how execution is our ultimate punishment. I don't think torture should be used because that is a very slippery slope (also, torturing innocent people isn't exactly better than killing them). I think re-instituting slavery for criminals is a much more appropriate (not to mention cost-effective) punishment.

I think killing is justified when a person poses a threat (either a lethal one or one along a more abstract (i.e. societal) line) or when a person has built up enough evil that even though they don't necessarily pose a direct threat to anyone, they have been, and potentially still are, detrimental to society. For example, I would see no harm in someone killing Sarah Palin. However, that is just my selfish, narrow sense of morality speaking.

Remember kids, slavery is bad, mmmkay?