Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[Kerr]

That was a cute emotional appeal. However, I'm interested in logical discussion. I might, in the heat of an emotionally traumatic experience, say that we must classify actions as either evil or good.

However, when I am not being emotionally subdued by an experience, my logic and rationality tells me that we don't have to call an action evil to say that it is undesirable.

The reason I advocate teaching it as something other than evil is because you cannot prove to me that killing people is evil. All you can say is "Oh, you don't see killing people as evil? Well, something is wrong with you" and that's not an argument.

Now, maybe you'll be more inclined to logic than Autodidact and maybe you can answer me:

What is intrinsically evil about murder?

Just a quick question... what do you mean by murder? I need to know because I have this problem with words, lol. I may know what their definition is, however, words rarely mean their strict definition, so I have to ask.

Anyway, my general response would be this. You claim the right to decide over if someone lives or die when you do not have that right.

Other then that I must also point out that the experiences mentioned in the post you responded to can also act as eye openers. Experience can make so you understand on a level you can´t otherwise, and to claim it is compromising to ones judgement is a very inaccurate statement. Sure, it can be, but it can be the exact opposite. In this case, it is the exact opposite.

Yes, it is an emotional argument, but a valid one.

 

[TheKnight]

No, not my definition, one of the definitions from dictionary.com, and not just harming someone, but harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset and no, I do not make a practice of deliberately harming people.

So then tell me, is killing in war justifiable for you?

So, in the commonly accepted definitions, murder is evil. Can we agree on all that? (This is so tedious.)

I would be more inclined to say that murder is an action that our society will not tolerate.

Just a quick question... what do you mean by murder? I need to know because I have this problem with words, lol. I may know what their definition is, however, words rarely mean their strict definition, so I have to ask.

Taking a person's life=murder.

Anyway, my general response would be this. You claim the right to decide over if someone lives or die when you do not have that right.

When did I claim that right? Only God has the right to determine who lives or dies.

Other then that I must also point out that the experiences mentioned in the post you responded to can also act as eye openers. Experience can make so you understand on a level you can´t otherwise, and to claim it is compromising to ones judgement is a very inaccurate statement. Sure, it can be, but it can be the exact opposite. In this case, it is the exact opposite.

Yes, it is an emotional argument, but a valid one.

It may be an eye opener, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I need to classify the experiences as evil.

All in all, my point (in arguing with Auto) is that in my framework (and I would imagine in the framework of any religious person), you can't call an action of God evil because God defines evil.

As Auto said: "So your God commands you to do evil?"

My response to that is: "How do I know it is evil outside of God telling me it is evil?"

 

[Kerr]

Taking a person's life=murder.

Ok, then we look at it from two difference standpoints. Killing does not equal murder in my dictionary. Just saying, a lot of our argument here is because we have different definitions of the word.

 

[Kerr]

When did I claim that right? Only God has the right to determine who lives or dies.

Even if God orders you, you have the choice to do it or not. We have free will, after all. Anyway, in order to kill one must claim that right in one way or another. If you do not believe you have the right to do it, you do not do it.

It may be an eye opener, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I need to classify the experiences as evil.

It is not about need. It is hard to explain, will have to think about it.

All in all, my point (in arguing with Auto) is that in my framework (and I would imagine in the framework of any religious person), you can't call an action of God evil because God defines evil.

As Auto said: "So your God commands you to do evil?"

My response to that is: "How do I know it is evil outside of God telling me it is evil?"

Both Auto and I have a different framework, where even God can act immoral.

 

[TheKnight]

Ok, then we look at it from two difference standpoints. Killing does not equal murder in my dictionary. Just saying, a lot of our argument here is because we have different definitions of the word.

I agree with you that the reason for it changes the morality of it. However, taking a life is taking a life. Whether it's killing or murder, the person is dead.

Even if God orders you, you have the choice to do it or not. We have free will, after all. Anyway, in order to kill one must claim that right in one way or another. If you do not believe you have the right to do it, you do not do it.

I don't believe in rights. I believe in obligations and in choices. If God asks me to do something, I would do it. You're right, I do have the option of disobedience. However, I don't think that disobedience is an optimal state for reaching the goals I set out for when I started to follow God's commands.

It is not about need. It is hard to explain, will have to think about it.

Perfectly understandable.

Both Auto and I have a different framework, where even God can act immoral.

That's because "moral" isn't something defined by God in your framework. In mine, it is.

 

[Kerr]

I agree with you that the reason for it changes the morality of it. However, taking a life is taking a life. Whether it's killing or murder, the person is dead.

The consequense is not the only thing that matters. The reason for the consequense, the cause, is, depending on the conext, just as important. Maybe even more important. The reason for when someone is killed or not is what determines if it is murder or not.

I don't believe in rights. I believe in obligations and in choices. If God asks me to do something, I would do it. You're right, I do have the option of disobedience. However, I don't think that disobedience is an optimal state for reaching the goals I set out for when I started to follow God's commands.

I do. Just as I believe a mans ability to make the right choices is not bounded by divinity.

That's because "moral" isn't something defined by God in your framework. In mine, it is.

True. I do not agree with your framework, though, since it is based to much on autority for my taste. But that is my own, personal opinion, I respect your right to believe in what you believe.

 

[TheKnight]

The consequense is not the only thing that matters. The reason for the consequense, the cause, is, depending on the conext, just as important. Maybe even more important. The reason for when someone is killed or not is what determines if it is murder or not.

But what is the end result? The end result is that someone is dead. In Hasidism, a person ending up dead is a tragedy in all circumstances. Therefore, I make no distinction between murder and killing. For me it's just taking a life. There are circumstances where it is necessary to take a life, and circumstances where it is not.

True. I do not agree with your framework, though, since it is based to much on autority for my taste. But that is my own, personal opinion, I respect your right to believe in what you believe.

What's important is that we both behave in an ethical manner. What we believe in order to make us ethical isn't really important.

 

[Autodidact]

So then tell me, is killing in war justifiable for you?

Some killings in some wars; not all killings in all wars. Certainly never infanticide or genocide in any war.

I would be more inclined to say that murder is an action that our society will not tolerate.

And there I leave you to wallow in your moral relativism where not even murder can be condemned.

 

[Kerr]

But what is the end result? The end result is that someone is dead. In Hasidism, a person ending up dead is a tragedy in all circumstances. Therefore, I make no distinction between murder and killing. For me it's just taking a life. There are circumstances where it is necessary to take a life, and circumstances where it is not.

Maybe, but that does not man all killings has the same morality or nature. Which is why murder and killing is not the same, in my assessment.

Well, ok, there is a more basic reason for it as well. The actual definition of murder is unlawful killing, but we humans tend to use it in another way.

What's important is that we both behave in an ethical manner. What we believe in order to make us ethical isn't really important.

Agreed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In battle, yes. But not if you are a soldier, and decides to randomly kill a few kids for fun. Context matters.

A bomber pilot drops a bomb in wartime battle. The pilot knows that by bombing a legitimate target that there will be innocent people killed. Is that justifiable?

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact to Sandy:
Quote:

And what might that situation be? Not by others, Sandy, by you? When do you think it's morally justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword?

Quote:

You said that the people were ordered executed not because of who they were, but because of what they did. So what did the babies and children do that merited them being executed? Are you saying that children should be killed because of what their parents do? Come to think of it, could you cite the verse where it even says what their parents did exactly?

Quote:

How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy.

Again, when is it justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death? In your view?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is not systematic, no. Systematic means I have to put into system to murder them, I would not do that. I would defend my life and the life of the other ones in my tribe. That is not genocide, even if their entire people attacks. Besides, war does not mean equal genocide.

I would think that most practitioners of war would disagree that war is not sytematic. War tactic doctrines are what any organized army practices.

 

[Kerr]

I would think that most practitioners of war would disagree that war is not sytematic. War tactic doctrines are any organized army practices.

I never meant it like that, and it is not the same thing as genocide.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I never meant it like that, and it is not the same thing as genocide.

How did you mean it? And how does the definition mean it? Apparently the total destruction of the defined groupd of people is what qualifies as genocide.

Suppose there is only one member of a specific race, tribe, etc., left and I kill them in self-defense, or even by breaking into their home and killing them and robbing them, is that genocide?

Also, why is the killing of a large number of Amalekites, as described in I Samuel, genocide, if it was done in a war?

 

[Kerr]

How did you mean it? And how does the definition mean it? Apparently the total destruction of the defined groupd of people is what qualifies as genocide.

It is appearently more complicated then that, since your example is not an example of genocide.

Suppose there is only one member of a specific race, tribe, etc., left and I kill them in self-defense, or even by breaking into their home and killing them and robbing them, is that genocide?

Also, why is the killing of a large number of Amalekites, as described in I Samuel, genocide, if it was done in a war?

I never said war cannot involve a genocide, I said the example you told me does not qualify as genocide. Genocides are always wrong and can never be justified.

And no you are not talking about genocide about the self defence part.

 

[Autodidact]

How did you mean it? And how does the definition mean it? Apparently the total destruction of the defined groupd of people is what qualifies as genocide.

Suppose there is only one member of a specific race, tribe, etc., left and I kill them in self-defense, or even by breaking into their home and killing them and robbing them, is that genocide?

Also, why is the killing of a large number of Amalekites, as described in I Samuel, genocide, if it was done in a war?

It's not a large number, it's all of them. Read the passage:

Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

I suppose to pull that off would require war, if the Amalekites resist, but the commandment is not to make war, it's to commit genocide.

War does not create an exception to the definitions of genocide. Most genocides probably happened in the context of war.

Why talk about a situation where there is only one person left from the group, which has nothing to do with the example here?

The 1 Samuel example is square smack in the middle of the definition, not a questionable outlier. God said, "Go commit genocide. This will require infanticide. Be sure to do a thorough job of it." Was it moral to follow God's commandment to commit the most heinous acts known to humanity?

Although I don't know why I'm bothering to ask you questions, since you just ignore any that you find difficult.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is appearently more complicated then that, since your example is not an example of genocide.

Which example?

I never said war cannot involve a genocide, I said the example you told me does not qualify as genocide. Genocides are always wrong and can never be justified.

And no you are not talking about genocide about the self defence part.

I guess I'm back to asking what you define as "sytematic" or what is the meaning of "sytematic" in the definition.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact to Sandy:


And what might that situation be? Not by others, Sandy, by you? When do you think it's morally justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword?


You said that the people were ordered executed not because of who they were, but because of what they did. So what did the babies and children do that merited them being executed? Are you saying that children should be killed because of what their parents do? Come to think of it, could you cite the verse where it even says what their parents did exactly?


How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy.

Again, when is it justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death? In your view?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's not a large number, it's all of them. Read the passage...

Yet all of the Amalekites were not killed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Autodidact to Sandy:


And what might that situation be? Not by others, Sandy, by you? When do you think it's morally justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword?


You said that the people were ordered executed not because of who they were, but because of what they did. So what did the babies and children do that merited them being executed? Are you saying that children should be killed because of what their parents do? Come to think of it, could you cite the verse where it even says what their parents did exactly?


How about you tell us your definition of genocide, Sandy.

Again, when is it justified for a soldier to stab a baby to death? In your view?

You are persistant. Repetitive as well. Impatient also. The red for empasis is a nice touch.