-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Morality of Life and Death
- Thread starter Alex_G
- Start date
Eye of Ra
Member
My religion has a wide interpretation of rather or not it would be wrong to take life or not. The ancients definitely believed it was wrong to murder, but not necessarily kill with a cause. I pretty much take the view that killing is not wrong with good reason, but I could never personally do it. Personal understanding, it would be immoral to murder.
Senebty
Senebty
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
What sort of reason(s) might qualify as good?
And what is it that would inhibit yourself from being able to follow through, even in the face of 'good reason'?
Does that mean that 'good reason' is a legitimate justification for some, but clearly on a personal level, not for others such as yourself?
Can 'good reason' justification for such an act be valid whilst so variable between people?
p.s. what is your religion out of interest?
p.p.s. thanks for posting
It's difficult to define an exhaustive set of scenarios where it is morally permissible to take the life of another human being. The short answer is that I find it morally permissible when, in a given situation, I reason that it is the most appropriate action to take.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
-Protecting an innocent from an attacker (including the defense of the self, if the self is attempting to be non-violent).
-Ending unbearable suffering of a person if you believe or are told that it is something they would want.
outhouse
Atheistically
When a stranger opens up my front door without knocking, he's going to have about 1 second to explain and explain well. Well atleast until he's inside.
I was told by LA pd that if someone comes in your house that you should kill them and aim to kill, if you miss finish the job. That and dont pull a gun out unless you plan to use it. I found this good advise and I hope I dont ever have to use it.
I used to carry, a great friend and I were talking and I said I like guns to help in case of animals. he said that will be the last thing youll need a gun for, its the two legged animals you have to watch for. He is right.
I can say that a gun has %100 saved my life as well as the ole finger in my jacket from two legged vermon. Another friend wasnt so lucky
chinu
chinu
Not Humanbeings, only Viruses.
Using very simple formula: Do with others as do you aspect for yourself.
_/\_Chinu.
Eye of Ra
Member
What sort of reason(s) might qualify as good?
And what is it that would inhibit yourself from being able to follow through, even in the face of 'good reason'?
Does that mean that 'good reason' is a legitimate justification for some, but clearly on a personal level, not for others such as yourself?
Can 'good reason' justification for such an act be valid whilst so variable between people?
p.s. what is your religion out of interest?
p.p.s. thanks for posting
Greetings Alex,
I would say that a time killing might be permissable, not sure I'd ever call it good, is if it was in defense or to free a mass of people from an oppressor. I wouldn't do it because I choose personally to hold to the ideal of pacifism. However, pacifism is not traditionally a Kemetic value, and the reason I've been given for that is because at times pacifism allows for something bad to go on while good people remain indifferent. My religion is Kemetic, Egyptian Paganism, good sir.
Senebty
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would say mortal defense would be the only time where taking a life may become nessessary.
There wouldn't be principles in my view. I wouldn't plan or govern such things as such a defence would be spontaneous and reactive. If someone was coming at me with a bat I might run, and if cornered, a conflict would be inevitable and I would try to survive the encounter.
I don't personally like the term permissible as this implies your relying on favorable opinions of others in taking of a life.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
In my personal view it is never "right" to take the life of another, that is to say, it's never good. One can call it many things, but they cannot call it good. That being said, there are times that it may be beneficial to the whole, like to use an example: Would one say it would have been evil to kill Hitler to prevent the things he was doing to damage humanity as a whole?
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Killing is always wrong. Don't give me none of your trolley nonsense; I can't believe people speak causality out of one corner of their mouth, and trolley problems out of the other. Yes. It would be wrong to kill Hitler before he killed all them people for the simple fact that he's only "Hitler" because he killed all them people. Get it? Jeez.
The truth is, sometimes morality just goes out the window. What outhouse says is spot on. Some fool enter your domain, you must dominate; or you're just a victim. It is unfortunate that such "law of the jungle" still applies, but hey; ever see what happens when the "law" tries to prosecute these obvious criminals? It's a mess.
From personal experience, I don't know if I would defend my life to the point of causing another's death. It's a case-by-case determination. But I do know, nobody better try and take my Gwynnies from me. That gets ugly, quick.
The truth is, sometimes morality just goes out the window. What outhouse says is spot on. Some fool enter your domain, you must dominate; or you're just a victim. It is unfortunate that such "law of the jungle" still applies, but hey; ever see what happens when the "law" tries to prosecute these obvious criminals? It's a mess.
From personal experience, I don't know if I would defend my life to the point of causing another's death. It's a case-by-case determination. But I do know, nobody better try and take my Gwynnies from me. That gets ugly, quick.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Black belt here!
Having studied....killing is not as easy as one might think.
Sure the flesh is weak...and a sharp blow where it counts will work.
But from a moral point of view?
Angels carry swords...so I hear.
Will this discussion go that far?
As for this life...we've been killing each other...from the beginning.
It won't stop.
Self defense is all fine and good....if you are able....takes practice.
Guns work well....takes practice.
Deciding at the last second which way to go?...good luck.
As for morality....
God gave my fellow man life.
It's not really mine to take away.
It should be likewise in return.
Yet, some people already believe, I am not worthy the breath I possess.
I suppose, if pressed upon....I will survive the poor judgment of my fellow man.
Having studied....killing is not as easy as one might think.
Sure the flesh is weak...and a sharp blow where it counts will work.
But from a moral point of view?
Angels carry swords...so I hear.
Will this discussion go that far?
As for this life...we've been killing each other...from the beginning.
It won't stop.
Self defense is all fine and good....if you are able....takes practice.
Guns work well....takes practice.
Deciding at the last second which way to go?...good luck.
As for morality....
God gave my fellow man life.
It's not really mine to take away.
It should be likewise in return.
Yet, some people already believe, I am not worthy the breath I possess.
I suppose, if pressed upon....I will survive the poor judgment of my fellow man.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Killing is always wrong. Don't give me none of your trolley nonsense; I can't believe people speak causality out of one corner of their mouth, and trolley problems out of the other. Yes. It would be wrong to kill Hitler before he killed all them people for the simple fact that he's only "Hitler" because he killed all them people. Get it? Jeez.
The truth is, sometimes morality just goes out the window. What outhouse says is spot on. Some fool enter your domain, you must dominate; or you're just a victim. It is unfortunate that such "law of the jungle" still applies, but hey; ever see what happens when the "law" tries to prosecute these obvious criminals? It's a mess.
From personal experience, I don't know if I would defend my life to the point of causing another's death. It's a case-by-case determination. But I do know, nobody better try and take my Gwynnies from me. That gets ugly, quick.
I did not say kill Hitler before he killed all those people. Of course that would be wrong, because he may never have done it, but once he had made that decision to go down that road, what would be worse? Kill Hitler to free a mass of millions from oppression, or let Hitler live and keep oppressing?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Yes utilitarian ethics is very attractive, but even considering 'greatest good for the greatest number', is there more to it that makes such an act wrong?
Scernario 1:
A trolley car you are on is hurdling down the tracks out of control. Up ahead the tracks diverge, on one path there are 5 workers, and on the other only 1. You are currently on track to hit the 5. A collision will result in the death of those in the way. You have the power to flip a switch to change tracks if you so wish. What do you do?
Scenario 2:
A trolley car hurdles down the tracks towards five unsuspecting workers. This time you are on the bridge overhead. You notice a large gentleman leaning precariously over the side of the bridge. You know that if you pushed him over, he would derail the trolley car, and save the 5, at the expense of his life. What do you do?
Now for the pertinent question. What is difference about these 2 scenarios with respects to ethics and morality?
(others are very welcome and encouraged to comment on these scenarios
).
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
'If someone comes into your house, you should kill them and aim to kill, if you miss, finish the job'?? Pardon the pun, but isn't that overkill? That's the psychopath manifesto!
Just to clarify your position, do you have no qualms regarding the taking of another human beings life?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Yeah i think you've touched on an important point, the concept of governance, and the state of mind of the individual at the time.
There seems to be a big difference between the taking of another humans life, whilst in a 'fight or flight' situation, and that of a planned calculated kill. I think in the heat of battle, or an attack, one relies less on the conscious part of your brain, and acts and reacts with more guidance from the unconscious part. Instinct if you will, for want of a better word.
Morality seems more intrinsic to our consciousness, and acts that reside in that realm, relying on our rationalilty and reason are necessarily of more moral significance to the individual.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Killing is always wrong. Don't give me none of your trolley nonsense; I can't believe people speak causality out of one corner of their mouth, and trolley problems out of the other. Yes. It would be wrong to kill Hitler before he killed all them people for the simple fact that he's only "Hitler" because he killed all them people. Get it? Jeez.
The truth is, sometimes morality just goes out the window. What outhouse says is spot on. Some fool enter your domain, you must dominate; or you're just a victim. It is unfortunate that such "law of the jungle" still applies, but hey; ever see what happens when the "law" tries to prosecute these obvious criminals? It's a mess.
From personal experience, I don't know if I would defend my life to the point of causing another's death. It's a case-by-case determination. But I do know, nobody better try and take my Gwynnies from me. That gets ugly, quick.
Thanks for posting, bit off topic, but what are these 'gwynnies'...? Gwyneth Paltrow right..? Are you a big fan?
slowbreath
Member
i would think discovering what is moral would give you an answer.