Death and taking life from a living creature

[Balthazzar]

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why? If not, would it ever be? From what I understand about life, death has always been part of it and taking life away from other creature's common practice. Typically, it's about food. Sometimes, it's about protective instincts and necessity. Other times, it seems very uncertain and seemingly unnecessary.

When is it ok to take a life? How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

 

[osgart]

In defense of life and a justice that creates peace, and virtue, when under threat of damage, harm, and death, it is justifiable to kill those that are committed to those actions.

How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

Under criminal influences, subject to evil, and with malicious, gainful intent people are expected to do murderous deeds.

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why

People make for themselves a chosen moral nature. Among those natures are innocence, and guilt. Guilt is malice for pleasure, and/or gain, of which there is no just cause for it. Innocence is of peaceful intent and commitments of heart.


The trouble with moral argument is that people don't often recognize the spiritual reality that humans have character traits of heart, mind, and will, that can oppose or support life and virtue. People can choose vanity over truth, power and control over truth. Or people can choose the love of virtues, others, and that which promotes well being for the good of life.

Another problem is that nature itself forces moral compromises with the issue of killing animals to survive, and other issues.

 

[Heyo]

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why? If not, would it ever be? From what I understand about life, death has always been part of it and taking life away from other creature's common practice. Typically, it's about food. Sometimes, it's about protective instincts and necessity. Other times, it seems very uncertain and seemingly unnecessary.

When is it ok to take a life? How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

We are heterotrophs. We necessarily need to eat living (or once living) things. We can't make our own nutrition from air and sunlight.
I.e., killing to eat is basically self-defence to us. We only have different standards of what kind of killing is allowed. For some, it is the own species, for others it is "smart" animals, or mammals, or all animals. Some, like the Jain, wouldn't even kill a plant, just eat the fruit - which is basically abortion at a very early stage.

So, the amorality of taking a life is relative.

 

[jameslu56]

Impressive sharing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why? If not, would it ever be? From what I understand about life, death has always been part of it and taking life away from other creature's common practice. Typically, it's about food. Sometimes, it's about protective instincts and necessity. Other times, it seems very uncertain and seemingly unnecessary.

When is it ok to take a life? How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

Taking a life can be justified under threat situations, plus like all of nature we have our omnivores and carnivores so taking a life for food while unpleasant, is an aspect of nature so it can be regarded as something out of necessity.

All of nature is designed to take life in some form or another so it's just plain unavoidable.

I don't think morality has really anything to do with it aside from conscious decisions to minimize it.

 

[Balthazzar]

In defense of life and a justice that creates peace, and virtue, when under threat of damage, harm, and death, it is justifiable to kill those that are committed to those actions.




Under criminal influences, subject to evil, and with malicious, gainful intent people are expected to do murderous deeds.



People make for themselves a chosen moral nature. Among those natures are innocence, and guilt. Guilt is malice for pleasure, and/or gain, of which there is no just cause for it. Innocence is of peaceful intent and commitments of heart.


The trouble with moral argument is that people don't often recognize the spiritual reality that humans have character traits of heart, mind, and will, that can oppose or support life and virtue. People can choose vanity over truth, power and control over truth. Or people can choose the love of virtues, others, and that which promotes well being for the good of life.

Another problem is that nature itself forces moral compromises with the issue of killing animals to survive, and other issues.

Moral compromises ... between a primal choice to eat and a choice made with a conscience. Seems very much part of the dynamic. The first (primal) basic and instinctual, the latter morally driven, and perhaps necessitated by our more communal type of lifestyles where cooperation is more so necessitated than warring, and through conscious and critical analysis or sense of duty ... wildlife management for example, and forestry in refence to land and trees and how these relate to food supply across the spectrum.

It is difficult to find value in murder and so we discern between that which constitutes innocence and guilt. Malice for pleasure and/or gain seems an appropriate quantifier as guilt. I have noticed that even in far greater moral virtue than that which quantifies guilt, that many still are labeled guilty for taking the life of a deer, with all appropriate license and tags, and in line with the laws set up for the management of a need for this type of wildlife management.

In today's world, making laws against such practices could very well jeopardize the entire ecosystem we've grown accustomed to living in. So, I must at least interpret morality to be a right truth and correctly applied as a truth and not just a whim of preference.

 

[osgart]

Moral compromises ... between a primal choice to eat and a choice made with a conscience. Seems very much part of the dynamic. The first (primal) basic and instinctual, the latter morally driven, and perhaps necessitated by our more communal type of lifestyles where cooperation is more so necessitated than warring, and through conscious and critical analysis or sense of duty ... wildlife management for example, and forestry in refence to land and trees and how these relate to food supply across the spectrum.

It is difficult to find value in murder and so we discern between that which constitutes innocence and guilt. Malice for pleasure and/or gain seems an appropriate quantifier as guilt. I have noticed that even in far greater moral virtue than that which quantifies guilt, that many still are labeled guilty for taking the life of a deer, with all appropriate license and tags, and in line with the laws set up for the management of a need for this type of wildlife management.

In today's world, making laws against such practices could very well jeopardize the entire ecosystem we've grown accustomed to living in. So, I must at least interpret morality to be a right truth and correctly applied as a truth and not just a whim of preference.

If we allowed murder there wouldn't be much of a civilization to live in. Since morality is about what is offensive, and rejectable vs. that which promotes peace, and is lovable, and tolerable, I think it goes beyond mere benefit, and preference. Morality is definitely not whim of preference.

Killing is only in defense of innocent life. If the eco system for life must be protected for innocent life then killing animals can be a dreadful necessity. So there are many dreadful necessities for the cause of life. Motive and intent, as well as damage, harm and torment are crucial morals to discern with.

I cannot justify humans taking other human lives for any reasons other than protecting innocent life from damage, harm, and torment. Humans should value other humans on solid moral grounds. If someone wants to murder for a benefit, or gain and is looking for good reasons to end other human life that undermines society and civilization.

Morals speak to the heartfelt emotions of people vs. merely doing an action for benefit/gain. Surely not all benefits and gains are morally right. It just stands to reason that morally right actions also have good benefits, and protections involved in them.

 

[Balthazzar]

If we allowed murder there wouldn't be much of a civilization to live in. Since morality is about what is offensive, and rejectable vs. that which promotes peace, and is lovable, and tolerable, I think it goes beyond mere benefit, and preference. Morality is definitely not whim of preference.

Killing is only in defense of innocent life. If the eco system for life must be protected for innocent life then killing animals can be a dreadful necessity. So there are many dreadful necessities for the cause of life. Motive and intent, as well as damage, harm and torment are crucial morals to discern with.

I cannot justify humans taking other human lives for any reasons other than protecting innocent life from damage, harm, and torment. Humans should value other humans on solid moral grounds. If someone wants to murder for a benefit, or gain and is looking for good reasons to end other human life that undermines society and civilization.

Morals speak to the heartfelt emotions of people vs. merely doing an action for benefit/gain. Surely not all benefits and gains are morally right. It just stands to reason that morally right actions also have good benefits, and protections involved in them.

I will agree with your 3rd paragraph and contend against the other three. What is morality? What is right and correct (true)? What is immorality? What is wrong and incorrect (untrue)? What a moral whim would represent is a moral value applied by broad brush, based on something untrue, incorrect, and/or wrong in any given territory, and this is based on environmental factors and need, which varies from one point to the many others around the globe.

 

[osgart]

I will agree with your 3rd paragraph and contend against the other three. What is morality?

Morality is heartfelt acceptability vs. heartfelt rejectable things. It's protecting life and the causes for life. To be moral is to be for life for others and self.

What is right and correct (true)?

Anything that promotes, and causes peace, and that which upholds virtue for the sake of love.

What is immorality?

That which denigrates, damages, harms, denies, torments innocent life.

What is wrong and incorrect (untrue)?

I take it to motive and intent. Anything gainful, or pleasured that cares not for innocent life.

What a moral whim would represent is a moral value applied by broad brush, based on something untrue, incorrect, and/or wrong in any given territory, and this is based on environmental factors and need, which varies from one point to the many others around the globe

A moral whim is a preference that is not necessarily cared about beyond simply liking something to be so, but oh well if it isn't so whereas that something is of moral importance.

 

[an anarchist]

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why? If not, would it ever be? From what I understand about life, death has always been part of it and taking life away from other creature's common practice. Typically, it's about food. Sometimes, it's about protective instincts and necessity. Other times, it seems very uncertain and seemingly unnecessary.

When is it ok to take a life? How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

Humans don’t have to kill to survive. We can be vegetarian. So it is wrong when it is not necessary and done out of gluttony/convenience/preference.

Doesn’t mean I don’t eat meat. I just know I’m evil for doing so.

 

[Secret Chief]

Humans don’t have to kill to survive. We can be vegetarian. So it is wrong when it is not necessary and done out of gluttony/convenience/preference.

Doesn’t mean I don’t eat meat. I just know I’m evil for doing so.

Well, vegetarians are responsible for the killing of plants so don't feel too bad!

 

[The Hammer]

Doesn’t mean I don’t eat meat. I just know I’m evil for doing so.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

You aren't "evil" for eating meat. Or for killing and eating plants.

 

[Balthazzar]

Morality is heartfelt acceptability vs. heartfelt rejectable things. It's protecting life and the causes for life. To be moral is to be for life for others and self.

If morality is correct, then it must be true. If it isn't correct, or if it based on a whim in error being established by mere compassion then it would be a wrongful moral value.

Anything that promotes, and causes peace, and that which upholds virtue for the sake of love.

For the sake of life, safety, and need would also apply. This is why laws are established and social programs implemented.

That which denigrates, damages, harms, denies, torments innocent life.

To denigrate means what? To damage means what? To harm means what? To deny means what? To torment means what? What, based on your position equates to innocent?

I take it to motive and intent. Anything gainful, or pleasured that cares not for innocent life.

Gainful means what? I'm a hunter from times past. I've bagged deer and placed food on the table...legally. My neighborhood cat is a great mouser and is fed daily by others in the neighborhood. Is the cat guilty for eating that which is its natural source of food? Again, laws and social programs are implemented among our kind for this reason. They are the 10 commandments of our modern societies.

A moral whim is a preference that is not necessarily cared about beyond simply liking something to be so, but oh well if it isn't so whereas that something is of moral importance.

Morals are correct and accurate when they represent something true for those who adhere to them. This seems broad and vague, I'm sure. They are truth oriented, and lack of morality equates to error oriented. My truth may not be your truth. Truth matters. The laws we establish help determine our moral societal structures, and these represent needs and are implemented in order to benefit the larger community in a meaningful, more secure manner. which helps determine our sense of wellbeing as a collective. The moral value of a thing would be more personal and based on a truth. This is why we implement laws. They help protect us.

 

[osgart]

If morality is correct, then it must be true. If it isn't correct, or if it based on a whim in error being established by mere compassion then it would be a wrongful moral value.

Do you have an example of such error? I find compassion to be faultless.

For the sake of life, safety, and need would also apply. This is why laws are established and social programs implemented.

Agreed.

To denigrate means what? To damage means what? To harm means what? To deny means what? To torment means what? What, based on your position equates to innocent?

It's not easy to find representative words that signify the abuses that can happen when someone is denigrated, damaged, harmed, and tormented. Innocent is to have proper care, and to be without malice toward life.

Gainful means what? I'm a hunter from times past. I've bagged deer and placed food on the table...legally. My neighborhood cat is a great mouser and is fed daily by others in the neighborhood. Is the cat guilty for eating that which is its natural source of food? Again, laws and social programs are implemented among our kind for this reason. They are the 10 commandments of our modern societies.

Well you would recognize that eating humans is morally wrong. I eat animals myself. Necessity is apart of morality but I don't want to be on the receiving end of a necessity that would only see me lose my life, or be in a state of damaging loss. Not all gainful benefits are moral.

Morals are correct and accurate when they represent something true for those who adhere to them. This seems broad and vague, I'm sure. They are truth oriented, and lack of morality equates to error oriented. My truth may not be your truth. Truth matters. The laws we establish help determine our moral societal structures, and these represent needs and are implemented in order to benefit the larger community in a meaningful, more secure manner. which helps determine our sense of wellbeing as a collective. The moral value of a thing would be more personal and based on a truth. This is why we implement laws. They help protect us.

Agreed. I just think that there are evils in the world that happen and are nowhere near necessary. Because there are virtues and contrary evils I think morality is what we talk about because it's necessary to understand the underlying motives and intentions of actions that are obviously good, or obviously evil.

A lot of moral arguments are lost in the unclear definitions of words involving morality. It's much easier to know the experiences of moral vs. immoral by seeing those things happen. By knowing or imagining an experience we can see there are obvious evils. A word like harm can be changed to mean an unpleasant pain that causes suffering but is needful for the sufferer. Yet harm actually means that unwarranted damage is done to the innocent.

 

[We Never Know]

Is taking a life immoral? If so, why? If not, would it ever be? From what I understand about life, death has always been part of it and taking life away from other creature's common practice. Typically, it's about food. Sometimes, it's about protective instincts and necessity. Other times, it seems very uncertain and seemingly unnecessary.

When is it ok to take a life? How can it not be ok and expected from time to time?

In short...
Everything we eat was once alive.
We eat to survive.

 

[McBell]

Humans don’t have to kill to survive. We can be vegetarian. So it is wrong when it is not necessary and done out of gluttony/convenience/preference.

Doesn’t mean I don’t eat meat. I just know I’m evil for doing so.

What vegetable is not killed when humans eat it?


What I find interesting is how thus far in this thread morality only arises when dealing with the animal kingdom.
The plant kingdom is not morally relevant?
And even in the animal kingdom there is a range, ants for example are never mentioned.


So the morality of killing has already been thoroughly demonstrated to be highly subjective.

 

[an anarchist]

What vegetable is not killed when humans eat it?


What I find interesting is how thus far in this thread morality only arises when dealing with the animal kingdom.
The plant kingdom is not morally relevant?
And even in the animal kingdom there is a range, ants for example are never mentioned.


So the morality of killing has already been thoroughly demonstrated to be highly subjective.

Well, I’d rather kill a bajillion carrots than a single chicken. Animal consciousness is a different ball park than vegetable consciousness.

I don’t deny it is subjective.

 

[McBell]

Well, I’d rather kill a bajillion carrots than a single chicken.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with that.
Merely pointing out that plants and insects do not rate very high up on the morality scale when it comes to killing.

Animal consciousness is a different ball park than vegetable consciousness.

Again, I agree.
BUt my understanding is the OP is about the morality of killing on general.
Thus far it appears this thread is a mixed bag of how moral it is/isn't to kill liked living things versus unliked/forgotten living thing and if there is any morality to killing "lesser life".

I don’t deny it is subjective.

I find the subjectivity of the morality of killing to be interesting.
Especially when learning about the different species that do not make the immoral to kill list.

 

[Balthazzar]

Do you have an example of such error? I find compassion to be faultless.

Agreed.

It's not easy to find representative words that signify the abuses that can happen when someone is denigrated, damaged, harmed, and tormented. Innocent is to have proper care, and to be without malice toward life.

Well you would recognize that eating humans is morally wrong. I eat animals myself. Necessity is apart of morality but I don't want to be on the receiving end of a necessity that would only see me lose my life, or be in a state of damaging loss. Not all gainful benefits are moral.

Agreed. I just think that there are evils in the world that happen and are nowhere near necessary. Because there are virtues and contrary evils I think morality is what we talk about because it's necessary to understand the underlying motives and intentions of actions that are obviously good, or obviously evil.

A lot of moral arguments are lost in the unclear definitions of words involving morality. It's much easier to know the experiences of moral vs. immoral by seeing those things happen. By knowing or imagining an experience we can see there are obvious evils. A word like harm can be changed to mean an unpleasant pain that causes suffering but is needful for the sufferer. Yet harm actually means that unwarranted damage is done to the innocent.

Life necessitates accountability, as do our laws. Compassion and accountability are not mutually inclusive, which is to suggest that too much compassion and there is too little accountability for that which you claim to be immoral. On the same premise, too much accountability or too severe a penalty and we end up with too little compassion. We are aiming for balance, and it is in balance that morality becomes true or untrue, a correct understanding or a wished upon whim of preference.

 

[Balthazzar]

In short...
Everything we eat was once alive.
We eat to survive.

Then it becomes part of us and that which is discarded by us becomes part of the earth, which then becomes part of other organisms belonging to it. I question whether matter is ever inactive.