The act of killing is the act of depriving someone of their life. I know there are controversies about the point that someone is alive, but for all intended purposes will side with the type of killing after someone is born. Killing someone is only ok in my opinion (Because I can only state opinion for this section) is if it is in self defence where you feel your own life is in danger of being deprived, or if you are a soldier in combat whose obligation is to be prepared to kill if need be. Which is pretty much the same as the first reason, but with more reason behind it.
It is only "wrong" because we are social animals. It is not beneficial for a society to kill its own (there are exceptions, of course). We do not want to be killed, so we get together with people who agree not to kill us in exchange for the same courtesy. As far as I can see, all human "morals" come from us being social creatures.
a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause
b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another
(Merriam Webster definition of wrong)
It's important to note that 'wrong' is a human word, and is therefore subject to our bias and perspective. If you ask the question, 'Why is killing bad for individuals and society,' the answer is extremely easy to come up with.
Why, you ask? Why is killing another human considered a horrific thing? Something to be frowned upon? The answer is simple.
We are each given our own life. Our own life to do with as we choose. Identifying yourself as a person with the right to take someone's life away from them is not right.
Now, I sense that many people are already mustering within their own minds: "Who does this person think she is? Deciding and confirming that killing is wrong. How does she know that her answer is the 'right' answer out of the thousands of people who have answered?"
I cannot confirm, as it would not be fair or just, that my particular feelings and/or answer to this person's question is the "right" belief. However, my personal common sense and morals tell me that letting yourself be the person to decide whether someone else lives or dies is essentially wrong. I am a believer in free will and the right that we are given as human beings to make our own choices, especially when the matter is life or death. Who are you to decide whether another person, whom you only know by their outward appearances and tendencies and the few personal things they may have chosen to share with you, should continue on living or die? With my collective experience and knowledge, I have a firm and unwavering belief that people must and should always be able to choose whether or not to continue on living for themselves.
Another person's life is not something that you get to decide.
Think about it. When you kill someone, who did you kill? You killed someone's father, someone's mother, someone's lover, someone's sister, someone's brother, someone's most treasured companion. You are taking the life of someone who means the world to someone else. What did they do to you? Not only did you kill someone, but even a few more lives. The future of that person, whether it be to have many children or not, will never happen. Think about all you have done in that context if not religiously
ReasonableRobotFeatured By OwnerJan 12, 2013Professional Traditional Artist
not technically wrong in a morally subjective sense... however! it is dangerous to the structural integrity of a working social environment. you cant very well go for a walk in the park with the worries that someones going to shoot you in the back, now can you?
Everyone alive is alive because they are on a personal journey to self discovery and happiness, even if I think they are going about it in a crazy or stupid way. How is it my right to snuff out someone else's life? We are all just working toward the same goal, seems pretty useless to me. Unless they are trying to kill me or my family, of course... then it's go time.
Right or wrong is a human thing which isn't even natural. That's also quite questionable, something is right according to one religion or one man, and the very same thing might be wrong in the eyes of another. Animals for example kill to survive with no any hard feelings. People kill for revenge, they kill in the name of "peace" and things like that.
If there were no wars and no weak people to die, there would be like 30 billion people and no place to breathe on the earth.
Most people don't want to get killed. That's why we invented laws to protect them and ourselves. Within a civilization we tend to try to make life as comfortable as possible. Not getting your right violated is a pretty big part of that.
Religions differentiate killing and murder. Murder is killing without a legitimizing reason. Note that Abraham would sacrifice his son to God without hesitation, and that the Jews used to commit genocide by God's will.
Mayans ritually sacrificed a thousand people to Kukulkán each year. When the conquistadors started spreading Christianity, the remains of their people sometimes held ritual crucifictions out of misunderstanding, because they attempted to re-live the tradition in the a way they were used to doing it, and they found it completely legitimate.
Trivial views will be the only thing you find, as chemicals stimulates the emotions on a driven deep training of punishment and reward system. In short, it is bad to people as there is the threat of going to prison and a lost of freedoms for them or potential of it happening to them. Pretty shallow reasons why not to kill a person, but hey that is the atheist society for you.
Anyone that goes by the "Do onto others that you would want onto yourself!" clearly has not met a masochist who enjoys pain or a guy desiring death.
I quote my earlier post from the morality forum: 'Morality is an instinct that evolved back when our ape-like ancestors began forming societies. The societies consisting of selfish people died out, leaving only the societies in which this selflessness, called 'morality' prevailed and immoral people were reprimanded. And so, morality.' Now imagine a society where people killed other people for personal gain, and nobody gave two f***s about it. That would be one of those selfish societies that died out quickly, right? The only societies left are those without that carefree mentality about murder, and they eventually become modern society, and we still to this day say that murder is wrong.
Because it is detrimental to the survival of our species. As I am assuming you are referring to humans killing other humans. To that point, killing is not always wrong when one kills a cow for meat it helps us survive. haha.
I've always looked at a life as a path of near infinite possibilities, capable of great accomplishments as well as great tragedies. Ending said life would cut off all possible contributions to the world, to society, or to other individuals that the person could have contributed. In some cases, I see this as necessary, but in others I would say I see it as wrong.
Also, we can't give life, so why should we take it?
Because otherwise we would all kill people that pissed us off! Cut me up at the junction...Bam!..Out of my way! Say something mean?...Bam!...Shut up! But then there was natural justice when the friends and relatives would lynch you. Job done
As shown by the way we are born, we have ownership over our own lives. It is our right to have it, because that literally makes a us what we are. Doing something that is morally wrong is to do something that intentionally causes something to happen that directly diminishes someone else's quality of life without their consent. To destroy something is one way to reduce something's quality, therefore destroying someone's life without their consent is wrong.
Because we were born with the right to control our actions and what we can do with our lives, taking control over someone else's life is saying "I am taking away your right to use your life" when one does not have the power or authority to do so, as all human beings have equal human potential.
Because you can't build a stable, functioning society if people go around killing each other all willy-nilly. Every lasting civilization has had some prohibition against murder, because otherwise, they wouldn't have formed a civilization. I think we can all agree, civilization is nice. We don't have to worry about where to get food or water, and our science and technology have been able to advance to the point where we can have philosophical discussions between people on two different sides of the world. If that means we have to curb our natural agression to enjoy them, so be it.
How about tribal subsistence? Do you think that was nice? Do you think that the aversion of our prehistoric ancestors to wantonly slaughtering one another was the result of them having the prescience to promote the survival of our species so that it could go on to give rise to civilization? I don't think so and, as such, I don't think that killing is seen as wrong because this view promotes a stable, functioning society. I think our current advanced state can be attributed to the fact that, as a species, we're not prone to self-annihilation. Quite the opposite in fact.
Do you think primitive tribesmen had any qualms against killing people? They wouldn't have killed others within their own tribe (because, like a civilization, the tribe would not survive), but they were all more than willing to kill the members of other tribes. It happened quite a lot, back then, and that's why you don't see any Midianites, Amorites, or Canaanites walking around the Middle East these days. While humans are not prone to self-annihilation, it all depends on what you consider "self."
I think you'd find that an aversion to self-annihilation is a pretty common amongst species that have survived long enough for speciation to have taken place, leading back to the most distant of our evolutionary ancestors. Point being, this behavioral trait precedes the existence of tribes and sophisticated societies.
Intertribal conflicts may have taken place but this makes sense given that the xenophobic tendencies that would have begot them would also have lead groups to avoid outsiders. This would have been beneficial in that it would have reduced exposure to pathogens adapted to human hosts to which the members of a group did not already possess antibodies.
In American terms, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". (Most countries have their own version of this). Kill someone and you deny them these "unalienable rights". (Although this is different when that someone is trying to kill you).