2 ms·

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the

by yeukhon 13y ago

The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance, a chance to live behind the bar and be educated behind the bar. People who execute capital punishment order is violating the most basic rules of a human life, right? The prison didn't do anything to the executioner. So we should never kill Hilter even if we caught him alive. Absolutism says we must not kill anyone unless that person is doing some hostile to you (pointing a gun at you, and so you have the right to defend yourself). But if Hilter is just sitting at his desk, and you destroyed his army, will you kill him? One say he was being hostile, but that was his past. And he indeed COULD become a great man again. Who knows?

fit2rule 13y ago
Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  > Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer is wrong, then what is the purpose of protecting life? Life is precious. Why are we killing cows and chicken? I supposed you are animal rightist then. That's anti-animal as anti-human (but humans are animals!)
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    (Nice: You de-Godwin'ed yourself with an edit.) We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. With the tools and technologies we have available to us today, why is that purpose still to maim, murder, kill? Shouldn't the purposes have been aligned, by now, to make the trillion-dollar debt of the American people worth at least something to the rest of the human species? We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. Yes, I'm a 'peace-nik'. I'm human.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      > de-Godwin If we never take hard problem to a philosophical discussion, what can come out from the discussion? > We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. And why is war or violence created? Because we have desire, we as thinking things have thoughts and emotions. We become jealous and angry. We become depressed and sad. We harm others for these reasons. > We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. And we have schools. And we teach them to respect. The world you are describing does not exist. As long as there is freedom for someone to think, there is violence. Violence can be physical or verbal. You can kill someone by saying something very harsh and this person may go depressed for the rest of his life and ends up in a messy, unproductive life. I will respect you being a pacifist, but I urge you to think about other ethics theories as well.
  - hobs 13y ago
    The argument that society was built on foo can also be used for arguing for slavery, the oppression of women, child labor, etc. Just because we did do something in the past does not justify doing it in the future. The right to defend yourself is not the right to kill, especially on a mass scale. The places that these drones are being used are not places that have a credible military threat to the united states. (unless you count their governments having nukes)
    - yeukhon 13y ago
girvo 13y ago
Um, yes. Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting.
DominikR 13y ago
What would be the benefit of killing a person if he/she can be taken prisoner safely and tried for his/her crimes.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Are you asking me? I don't understand your question. I am arguing that if killing is absolutely not allowed at all, regardless of the cause, as he suggests, is wrong.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  People consume resources. Dead don't need food and shelter logistics. (disclaimer: I don't advocate killing people, but I do believe that those concerns were and are evaluated doing wartime, if letting someone go is not an option)
dreamfactory 13y ago
I think you intended this as a reductio ad absurdum but a lot of people take this view, quite possibly the majority of Europeans and Buddhists for example.

by yeukhon 13y ago

fit2rule 13y ago

Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.

yeukhon 13y ago
> Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer is wrong, then what is the purpose of protecting life? Life is precious. Why are we killing cows and chicken? I supposed you are animal rightist then. That's anti-animal as anti-human (but humans are animals!)
- fit2rule 13y ago
  (Nice: You de-Godwin'ed yourself with an edit.) We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. With the tools and technologies we have available to us today, why is that purpose still to maim, murder, kill? Shouldn't the purposes have been aligned, by now, to make the trillion-dollar debt of the American people worth at least something to the rest of the human species? We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. Yes, I'm a 'peace-nik'. I'm human.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    > de-Godwin If we never take hard problem to a philosophical discussion, what can come out from the discussion? > We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. And why is war or violence created? Because we have desire, we as thinking things have thoughts and emotions. We become jealous and angry. We become depressed and sad. We harm others for these reasons. > We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. And we have schools. And we teach them to respect. The world you are describing does not exist. As long as there is freedom for someone to think, there is violence. Violence can be physical or verbal. You can kill someone by saying something very harsh and this person may go depressed for the rest of his life and ends up in a messy, unproductive life. I will respect you being a pacifist, but I urge you to think about other ethics theories as well.
- hobs 13y ago
  The argument that society was built on foo can also be used for arguing for slavery, the oppression of women, child labor, etc. Just because we did do something in the past does not justify doing it in the future. The right to defend yourself is not the right to kill, especially on a mass scale. The places that these drones are being used are not places that have a credible military threat to the united states. (unless you count their governments having nukes)
  - yeukhon 13y ago

girvo 13y ago

Um, yes. Capital punishment is barbaric and disgusting.

DominikR 13y ago

What would be the benefit of killing a person if he/she can be taken prisoner safely and tried for his/her crimes.

yeukhon 13y ago
Are you asking me? I don't understand your question. I am arguing that if killing is absolutely not allowed at all, regardless of the cause, as he suggests, is wrong.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
People consume resources. Dead don't need food and shelter logistics. (disclaimer: I don't advocate killing people, but I do believe that those concerns were and are evaluated doing wartime, if letting someone go is not an option)

dreamfactory 13y ago

I think you intended this as a reductio ad absurdum but a lot of people take this view, quite possibly the majority of Europeans and Buddhists for example.