The Ethics of Killing

[DreadFish]

So, lately, I have been grappling with the ethics of killing, in general.

I am currently at the point where I can no longer accept the idea that killing is absolutely bad or objectively unethical/immoral in all situations. Death happens, that is a fact, however harsh. Accidents, both natural and human-initiated, kill people all the time. Animals kill for various reasons, some animals kill for purposes other than food. Nature is a tough place yet, I feel everything is fair in nature and would personally feel comparatively at ease with the idea of dying in a situation in the wild (even including animal attack); it's just the cycle of nature, nothing is good or bad in nature.

This is different, however, than killing on purpose, yet this also includes the many ethical exercises that pose certain situations and question whether killing a certain person would be an acceptable way to deal with the situation.

I have yet to establish a full idea of what I believe regarding killing and I am curious what others think. Im not looking for citations from religious teachings or cultural standards. I am looking for ideas that come from reflection and contemplation, personal insights and feelings, and why these personal feelings are held to be true. If your personal feelings are in fact influenced by certain teachings, feel free to cite them and explain why you believe them in this context.

Specifically, there are a few points I want to cover, but the discussion should by no means be limited to them:

• Animals hunt and kill (though we know little about their cognitive processes and ability to form an idea about what they are doing), humans also hunt and kill. What sets humans apart from animals in this context? Why should a human behave any differently and what responsibility, if any, does a human have in regards to killing, as a result of his greater awareness of the way his actions affect others and the reality of death?

• What sets humans apart from animals when it involves killing other humans? What makes it worse to kill a human than anything else? To take this further:

• What sets any form of life apart from any other in regards to the different morality that applies to killing it? Eg. killing a bug as opposed to killing a plant as opposed to killing a deer as opposed to killing a human.

• What defines the nature of killing in a given context? Is it the intention that matters? Eg. Chose to kill someone to positively affect the outcome of a situation. Or the result that matters? Eg. Didnt mean to kill someone, but it happened anyway. Then what, exactly, do you think makes killing bad?

Your answers and discussion are greatly appreciated. I will be out of town for a few days so, starting tomorrow, I will not be able to post till Sunday but, I wanted to go ahead and post this to see what people's opinions were.

Thanks!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

• Animals hunt and kill (though we know little about their cognitive processes and ability to form an idea about what they are doing), humans also hunt and kill. What sets humans apart from animals in this context? Why should a human behave any differently and what responsibility, if any, does a human have in regards to killing, as a result of his greater awareness of the way his actions affect others and the reality of death?

Animals also eat their young, abandon their young, crap all over themselves, and do all sorts of things we as humans would not want to mimic. What makes animal behavior relevant to morality? Who said animals should be ethical role-models? And this also sounds sort of like you're creeping into naturalistic fallacy territory- just because X occurs in nature does not mean X is good.

• What sets humans apart from animals when it involves killing other humans? What makes it worse to kill a human than anything else?

Well, self-consciousness and agency, to name a couple obvious things.

• What defines the nature of killing in a given context? Is it the intention that matters? Eg. Chose to kill someone to positively affect the outcome of a situation. Or the result that matters? Eg. Didnt mean to kill someone, but it happened anyway. Then what, exactly, do you think makes killing bad?

That depends on what ones ethical criteria happens to be; if one is a deontologist, the answer may be different than if one is a consequentialist. But the intentional killing of another human being, barring certain exceptions (like self-defense), is almost universally regarded as immoral. And if we're inclined to accept the evolutionary story (and there is no reason not to) , then morality is about mutually beneficial cooperative strategies- and its hard to think of anything more mutually beneficial than not killing one another.

 

[DreadFish]

Animals also eat their young, abandon their young, crap all over themselves, and do all sorts of things we as humans would not want to mimic.

And yet there are so many humans who have done these things without even the idea of mimicking an animal.

What makes animal behavior relevant to morality? Who said animals should be ethical role-models? And this also sounds sort of like you're creeping into naturalistic fallacy territory- just because X occurs in nature does not mean X is good.

Well, as much as many people would deny it, we are animals too.

And, whether something in nature is good or bad is purely subjective, as far as I can tell. Where in reality is there an objective measure of what is good or bad? If we are a product of nature (and by nature im referring to everything that has naturally occurred in the cosmos) how are we to decide that nature is bad in certain ways? Who is to be flawed here, nature, or it's product, humans? The reason why I bring animals into the picture is (a) they are other complex organisms that live on this planet and (b) they exist in a non-contrived way, i.e. they dont apparently synthesize a "reality" like humans do.

Well, self-consciousness and agency, to name a couple obvious things.

This is more in the direction I was wanting to go but, obvious answer is obvious. Care to expand on this statement?

As far as those two answers, im pretty sure a number of animals have self consciousness and agency to higher degrees than many animals. Mainly, im thinking chimps (including bonobos) and orangutans. Orangutans make tool kits with various tools for different uses. They've also demonstrated calculated reciprocity. As far as chimps, there's an interesting story about a bonobo named Kanzi who had been taught to communicate with researchers. One day, a female researcher whom he favored was having an argument with a colleague and the chimp didnt like it. The chimp told the director that, as the alpha male, he needed to go bite the man's hand to discipline him. The director tried to explain to him that he couldn't do that . The chimp threatened the director that if he wouldn't go do it, then he would bite his hand. Of course, the director didnt do anything. The next day, the chimp bit his hand.

Point being, animals other than humans do exhibit agency and self-consciousness. Sure, they are mainly our close relatives. I imagine that dolphins also fit into this category, though.

That depends on what ones ethical criteria happens to be; if one is a deontologist, the answer may be different than if one is a consequentialist. But the intentional killing of another human being, barring certain exceptions (like self-defense), is almost universally regarded as immoral.

There are and have been many different cultures in the world with widely varying morals. Some societies did not and do not see killing of other humans in such a negative light in many circumstances. Morality is subjective based on the culture. Im trying to go underneath the obvious current and get to the heart of the matter; existentially, I guess you could say.

Not looking for a textbook answer, I want your living opinion.

And if we're inclined to accept the evolutionary story (and there is no reason not to) , then morality is about mutually beneficial cooperative strategies- and its hard to think of anything more mutually beneficial than not killing one another.

It makes sense that not killing one another is mutually beneficial in most circumstances but, in other circumstances, killing some other humans could be proven to be quite beneficial to your group of people. Whether necessary or not, a group of people could easily benefit from getting rid of another group of people or sacking and pillaging their home. History is full of examples where a group of people apparently "benefited" from expanding into and getting rid of another group of people. Benefit is a roughly subjective term, IMO.

Anyway, im not advocating killing, im just playing devil's advocate. Im trying to pick this apart.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The questioning becomes superfluous in light of the manner in regards to how we happen to interact with life and death each and every moment. Only when instances where one become aware of themselves as being the harbinger of death to other living things, the tendency to wrestle with the nuances arises. The perfect and direct answers involving killing manifest during those times where such thought is simply not there at that moment in time completely untainted by post reflection of such an event.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think violence is wrong. I think that killing is the most extreme violence we are capable of. To kill another human being is a truly terrible act. I try my best to avoid killing anything because it is, I believe, bad for me. I don't swat flies, I put them out. Same with other insects. I don't eat meat or fish. Unavoidably I sometimes kill things, I never feel good about it.
I think that all life is precious and should be revered.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And yet there are so many humans who have done these things without even the idea of mimicking an animal.

I hope "so many humans" have never eaten their young, although as infants, all of us are prone to pooping on ourselves from time to time. Nevertheless, the point is that animals are hardly paragons of ideal conduct.

Well, as much as many people would deny it, we are animals too.

That's certainly true, but two things here- first, that ethics is one of the things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, i.e. our ability to evaluate and contemplate proper conduct. So looking to the animal kingdom for cues on how to go about doing this is clearly a mistake. And secondly, it is more or less universal, and is arguably the essence of morality, that morality consists in overcoming our "animal nature" (this is Nietzsche's generic definition of morality)- the overcoming of animalistic drives and desires.

And, whether something in nature is good or bad is purely subjective, as far as I can tell. Where in reality is there an objective measure of what is good or bad?

I don't know... The Bible? This depends on ones meta-ethical view; is one a moral realist? For my part, I am not, and I don't think there is any such thing as an "objective measure of what is good or bad"- in other word, there are no such things as objectively true, subject-invariant moral truths or facts.

The reason why I bring animals into the picture is (a) they are other complex organisms that live on this planet and (b) they exist in a non-contrived way, i.e. they dont apparently synthesize a "reality" like humans do.

But why are these facts pertinent to ethics? Why should this make animals ethical role-models?

This is more in the direction I was wanting to go but, obvious answer is obvious. Care to expand on this statement?

Well, one reason that is typically given for why killing humans is on a different order than killing animals is that killing humans interferes with our natural ability for conscious self-determination; our ability to be aware of goals and ends, to make choices, to be agents or persons. If this is a relevant to one's ethical criteria, as it usually is, this distinguishes the killing of persons from non-persons on ethical grounds (of course, it raises other sticky issues such as killing humans who seem to be non-persons, such as infants/fetuses, people in persistent vegetative states, and so on)

As far as those two answers, im pretty sure a number of animals have self consciousness and agency to higher degrees than many animals. Mainly, im thinking chimps (including bonobos) and orangutans. Orangutans make tool kits with various tools for different uses. They've also demonstrated calculated reciprocity.

I'm not sure that any of this constitutes agency in the relevant sense, but few people would disagree that killing higher primates is more problematic than killing, say, an insect, and specifically because of their more human-like cognitive capacities.

There are and have been many different cultures in the world with widely varying morals. Some societies did not and do not see killing of other humans in such a negative light in many circumstances.

Well of course there is a spectrum- but there are virtually no socities I'm aware of that have no prohibitions against the killing of other humans whatsoever.

It makes sense that not killing one another is mutually beneficial in most circumstances but, in other circumstances, killing some other humans could be proven to be quite beneficial to your group of people.

Sure- the most obvious example is in self-defense, or in defense of ones kin/social group or even vital resources. This probably explains our strong intuition that killing in defense of one's self (or loved ones), or even one's property, is morally justifiable.

Whether necessary or not, a group of people could easily benefit from getting rid of another group of people or sacking and pillaging their home. History is full of examples where a group of people apparently "benefited" from expanding into and getting rid of another group of people. Benefit is a roughly subjective term, IMO.

Not so much in biology- beneficial is that which contributes to reproductive success.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I can no longer accept the idea that killing is absolutely bad or objectively unethical/immoral in all situations.

What qualifies something as objectively ethical?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Certainly, killing isn't wrong in all cases. Killing can be done out of mercy, for self-defense, or for survival. I'm pretty sure that's why we distinguish murder as a particular type of killing.

 

[Quintessence]

Keep in mind I'm a moral nihilist when looking at my responses. I find reality to be fundamentally amoral, and it is humans who make judgmental projections of "this good" and "that bad" onto this amoral reality. My ethics are grounded in assessments of honor (aka, character and virtue). Whether or not any act is honorable or not depends entirely on what kind of character and virtues you wish to cultivate. In other words, I don't presume to think that my own standards of honor ought to be imposed on ever other being on the planet. I find such notions pretty arrogant and dishonorable, actually.

Animals hunt and kill (though we know little about their cognitive processes and ability to form an idea about what they are doing), humans also hunt and kill. What sets humans apart from animals in this context?

To me? Absolutely nothing. All animals - and humans are animals - are consumers. They must kill other living organisms to sustain their biological processes. Humans might be categorically different from producers (i.e., plants), not other consumers. And even then, producers must destroy to live, so the categorical differences are perhaps not as categorical as it might seem. I see creation/destruction as synonymous processes; all changes involve transformations of gain and loss. All creation destroys something; all destruction creates something.

Why should a human behave any differently and what responsibility, if any, does a human have in regards to killing, as a result of his greater awareness of the way his actions affect others and the reality of death?

Humans are social animals. Like any social animal, their "responsibilities" are governed by expectations placed upon them by the group. And like any social animal, the individual can choose to self-regulate (or self-inhibit depending on the spin you want to put on this) their behavior... or not. Behaving or not behaving as is deemed proper by the social consensus, however, will have consequences. These consequences may or may not adversely affect the survival and flourishing of that individual.

What sets humans apart from animals when it involves killing other humans?

Again, nothing. But see above. The agreed upon social consensus, or social contracts we impose on ourselves to inhibit our own behaviors, are pretty much the relevant distinction. We decide to tell ourselves "don't do that" and behave accordingly.

What makes it worse to kill a human than anything else? What sets any form of life apart from any other in regards to the different morality that applies to killing it? Eg. killing a bug as opposed to killing a plant as opposed to killing a deer as opposed to killing a human.

See above. But I also want to add that this anthropocentric attitude kind of drives me up the wall. I really dislike how my culture's social consensus puts human life on a pedestal - typically at the expense of the non-human world. No, dislike isn't a strong enough word. I despise it. It sickens me. And I find it ethically bankrupt.

What defines the nature of killing in a given context? Is it the intention that matters? Eg. Chose to kill someone to positively affect the outcome of a situation. Or the result that matters? Eg. Didnt mean to kill someone, but it happened anyway. Then what, exactly, do you think makes killing bad?

Intention only holds meaning to me insofar as it reflects that person's honor and character. It has no relevance to determining "rightness" and "wrongness" which as a moral nihilist, I don't believe in anyway. The extent to which someone else's sense of honor matches up with my own is important for how I navigate relationships with said person. An example:

1. Motorist hits pedestrian, unintentionally. Motorist doesn't care and offers no reparations. Indicates a sense of honor that lacks courtesy and consideration for other beings. Deal with this person carefully; be on guard.
2. Motorist hits pedestrian, unintentionally. Motorist cares and offers reparations. Indicates a sense of honor that includes courtesy and consideration for other beings. No need for caution when dealing with this person.
3. Motorist hits pedestrian, intentionally. Potential motivations complex; may indicate several scenarios in terms of sense of honor. Could indicate a passionate, driven and decisive character; could indicate emotional instability or neuroticism of a transitory nature; could indicate a lack of courtesy and consideration for other beings; other hypotheses pending. Deal with this person carefully; reassess as more data become available.

 

[DreadFish]

I think violence is wrong. I think that killing is the most extreme violence we are capable of. To kill another human being is a truly terrible act. I try my best to avoid killing anything because it is, I believe, bad for me. I don't swat flies, I put them out. Same with other insects. I don't eat meat or fish. Unavoidably I sometimes kill things, I never feel good about it.
I think that all life is precious and should be revered.

So, why do you believe it's bad?

I can relate, I can't kill and insect on purpose or anything like that. I feel guilty if I accidentally kill something but I had the power to avoid it. I dont know what causes it.

 

[DreadFish]

I hope "so many humans" have never eaten their young, although as infants, all of us are prone to pooping on ourselves from time to time. Nevertheless, the point is that animals are hardly paragons of ideal conduct.

That's certainly true, but two things here- first, that ethics is one of the things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, i.e. our ability to evaluate and contemplate proper conduct. So looking to the animal kingdom for cues on how to go about doing this is clearly a mistake. And secondly, it is more or less universal, and is arguably the essence of morality, that morality consists in overcoming our "animal nature" (this is Nietzsche's generic definition of morality)- the overcoming of animalistic drives and desires.

Maybe I just have a lesser opinion of humans than you do. I basically see humans as more complex animals. I think that a great many people dont really even use their power of agency in an every day routine. Most people respond to stimuli in automatic, programmed ways (albiet, programmed by their own conscious choices).

So I guess, admittedly, though many humans dont actively use their capacity for agency, the point is, humans have it.

But why are these facts pertinent to ethics? Why should this make animals ethical role-models?

Im not trying to make animals ethical roll-models. Since you also see no objective measure for morality, then I assume you would agree that ethics are an entirely human construct; artificial in regards to reality. What I am saying is that no process in nature demonstrates any form of ethics. Animals are other complex organisms, a closer parallel to us than using some form of fungus to make a comparison.

I think we might just be living in our imagination when it comes to defining the world and the nature of things.

Well, one reason that is typically given for why killing humans is on a different order than killing animals is that killing humans interferes with our natural ability for conscious self-determination; our ability to be aware of goals and ends, to make choices, to be agents or persons. If this is a relevant to one's ethical criteria, as it usually is, this distinguishes the killing of persons from non-persons on ethical grounds (of course, it raises other sticky issues such as killing humans who seem to be non-persons, such as infants/fetuses, people in persistent vegetative states, and so on)

How does killing a human interfere with our ability for conscious self-determination? I think im confused by what you mean here.

Well of course there is a spectrum- but there are virtually no socities I'm aware of that have no prohibitions against the killing of other humans whatsoever.

Of course, because there are rules in societies to keep them functioning. It's not necessarily morality that makes this happen, its practicality.

Sure- the most obvious example is in self-defense, or in defense of ones kin/social group or even vital resources. This probably explains our strong intuition that killing in defense of one's self (or loved ones), or even one's property, is morally justifiable.

But other examples that have taken place in history would be a group of people wiping out another group of people because their land has better resources. The first group has apparently benefited from killing other humans because of the circumstances surrounding it. It's not as simple as the act of killing, it's the circumstances that surround the act.

So, why are certain circumstances excusable and others aren't?

Not so much in biology- beneficial is that which contributes to reproductive success.

And in biology, there is no such thing as ethics so, by that reasoning, killing a guy and raping his wife could bring benefit to your genetic line. That's why forced copulation is a viable mating strategy in the animal kingdom.

 

[DreadFish]

What qualifies something as objectively ethical?

Objectivity as defined by wiki

Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject)

So, im saying I can't find evidence that killing has an objective moral standing in reality. It all comes down to opinions and feelings based on circumstances.

 

[Caladan]

• Animals hunt and kill (though we know little about their cognitive processes and ability to form an idea about what they are doing), humans also hunt and kill. What sets humans apart from animals in this context? Why should a human behave any differently and what responsibility, if any, does a human have in regards to killing, as a result of his greater awareness of the way his actions affect others and the reality of death?

Specifically concerning hunting, I don't have big reservations about it. There are people who hunt wild boars further north from here, and they consume them. It is not hunting for sports per say, although technically most hunting also involves the thrill of the hunt and bonding. Also, while in most cases I try to avoid killing animals, for example removing spiders and other insects from my home instead of killing them, if I feel that I'm dealing with pests invasion I'll do my best to track the source and kill them. It's a pretty straightforward philosophy: If they do not pose a hazard or major harassment I'll normally simply remove them, if they do pose a hazard, a potential hazard, or excessive harassment I may certainly intentionally kill them. Although I certainly value the fact of life, my worldview frowns on dogmatic avoidance of taking life under any circumstances. I don't find that there is a necessarily pure spiritual POV behind it, but rather a misguided ego.

• What sets humans apart from animals when it involves killing other humans? What makes it worse to kill a human than anything else? To take this further:

I make a distinction between murder and killing here. Murdering a human being does seem as an anathema to me, perhaps because of the fact that I am one. As a human being I recognize other people to be thinking, feeling creatures with a background of their own, a world of their own. I may even extend that feeling to certain animals I consider smart or empathic.

• What sets any form of life apart from any other in regards to the different morality that applies to killing it? Eg. killing a bug as opposed to killing a plant as opposed to killing a deer as opposed to killing a human.

I don't think about it THAT much. It's a wholesome, instinctual understanding. While all life are technically equal. All part of an ecosystem. All life are also not equal as far as I'm concerned. There are dogs, which are loyal. There are venomous reptiles and insects that I may have to kill without reservation during filed work. There are parasites. There are parasites removers. And there are animals which fall on more neutral ground... not necessarily beneficial, but pleasant, or beautiful and which pose no reason to target them but instead invoke appreciation.

• What defines the nature of killing in a given context? Is it the intention that matters? Eg. Chose to kill someone to positively affect the outcome of a situation. Or the result that matters? Eg. Didnt mean to kill someone, but it happened anyway. Then what, exactly, do you think makes killing bad?

Making killing bad, I mean truly bad, Is when we are talking about murder. The intentional killing of another person for unjustified causes, in unjustified circumstances.

 

[DreadFish]

Keep in mind I'm a moral nihilist when looking at my responses. I find reality to be fundamentally amoral, and it is humans who make judgmental projections of "this good" and "that bad" onto this amoral reality. My ethics are grounded in assessments of honor (aka, character and virtue). Whether or not any act is honorable or not depends entirely on what kind of character and virtues you wish to cultivate. In other words, I don't presume to think that my own standards of honor ought to be imposed on ever other being on the planet. I find such notions pretty arrogant and dishonorable, actually.

I think we are on the same page here.

I think that my "morality" comes down to simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Sure the morality of a certain action might not exist in reality but, would I really want someone to do that to me?

 

[esmith]

To start with I am not considering the question of executions.

It is my contention that there is built into the genetic code the "fight or flee" decision matrix, which is modified under certain circumstances. Take for instance the protect the young switch that overrides the "flee" command in mothers, in most but not all circumstances. The "flee" command seems to be the most dominate of the two. But we all, or most of us, are aware of situations where a trapped life form will revert to the "fight" mode even if the situation is hopeless. Humans, as far as we know, have always been hunters and scavengers, consuming anything that will sustain life. This "command" is present in all life forms. Over time humans have evolved in intelligence that has allowed them to domesticate, grow, and become more efficient at "hunting". Some have suppressed one mode that rejects eating certain living organisms. These people are vegetarians and vegans. However, that genetic code for survival is still present and would probably override the vegetarian and vegan decision if survival demands it. Now to the ethic of killing. It has been expressed in this thread that there are those that try to not kill anything, thus they have suppressed the "fight" factor in the "fight or flee" matrix. But again this matrix is deeply imbedded into our genetic code. Is this to say that everyone will revert to the "fight" mode? It is hard to believe they wouldn't, but again each person is unique.. You might say the "fight" mode does not invoke the "kill" switch in the survival mode, but that decision may or may not be a option that is available. However, there are situations where the possibility of "fighting" is no longer possible or viable and the human mind has accepted this fact and basically given up; executions are a prime example. So, is killing ethical? I think that is an individual decision that would have to be made at the time the decision is needed and the circumstances that requires the decision.

 

[sandandfoam]

So, why do you believe it's bad?

I cannot say. I just know it in my bones.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't get angry at animals when they kill.People? It depends.

I feel guilty if I accidentally kill something but I had the power to avoid it.

Animals don't have guilt.

 

[DallasApple]

I feel guilty when I kill an animal..even a worm..because Im human.

Ya know I used to LOVE to fish..no kidding all the time since I was about 7..Catch an release mostly...As I aged..I was not too happy...Im not a bad fisherman..but a hook in the eyes socket..a hook swallowed..mmmmmmNAH no fun anymore...splitting the worms in half (or in 1/4's) with my thumb nail because my husbands and sons wouldn't?The blood and poop squirting out...

I would love to fish again sometime..but only to catch a big fish..a keeper..to eat..I lost my desire to fish for sport...

Sorry..

 

[Me Myself]

Animals also kill for pleasure and rape at will.

If a human thinks its okay to do this, then of course he can. Hopefully, he would be stopped before he could make it and put on a jail where he belongs.

About humans killing other animals, well, I do place us above non human animals, and .i admit it is rather arbitrary. Because I do this, I expect highwr stanrds. On these gher standards it is included that I expect humans o not kill for mere easure and at least limit themselves to kill other species when it is necessary for survival.

I admit I make myself ample leeway with mosquitoes and other similar pests

 

[DallasApple]

animals also kill for pleasure and rape at will.

lol!!!