Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    If you don't understand the question don't take part in the thread.

    It's really really simple. If you think killing someone is ok, justified, good (use whatever word you want) then the answer is "no". Just because it might depend on who that person is doesn't change your overall answer, a humans a human apparently.

    Andrew
    It is an idiotic question which actually doesnt deserve an answer to it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    ?

    Andrew
    What a bloody stupid question. [I know it's not strictly related, but you do your already dubious political ideology no favours by posting such idiocy.] Is killing a human being wrong? Well, if that human being is holding a classroom full of innocent children at gunpoint and an opportunity arises to kill that person and prevent them from shooting the children then no, it's not wrong. If two people are in a bar and one decides he doesn't like the way the other is looking at him and therefore kills him then yes, it is wrong. There are, as with most issues, a lot of grey areas. I would personally say that on the whole killing should be assumed to be wrong unless there are strong mitigating factors (as in the hostage/children situation I gave above). For example I don't think it is ever right to take the life of a criminal once they need no longer pose a threat to society (capital punishment).

    Let me ask a slightly different question and hopefully it'll show you why your initial question was so ridiculous. Is it wrong to pour water onto the ground? No, of course not. But what if there is someone before you dying of thirst and they need the water to survive - you then have a moral obligation not to pour that water on the ground but to help the person in need. If there can be such conflict between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable over an issue such as tipping water on the ground, you will see why people have ridiculed you for asking such a black and white question about a more complex issue still.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ^ Utilitarianism is a good approach to be taken here. ^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, yes. It is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would say according to Kant-yes regardless of consequences and according to Mill/Bentham in rule/act utilitarianism depends on whether you would be saving lives in the process or in some extreme cases improving the quality of many people's lives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it is wrong.
    Only justified to prevent that person from killing other people, in an active situation (i.e. not if it's just 'one day you might', but if it's 'you're holding a gun and pointing it at my head' that's justified)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Killing anything is wrong, lest of all a human being.
    Really? Do you take antobiotics when you're ill? Your immune sytem works by killing the microbes, bacteria etc that cause illnesses. What do you eat?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    ?
    As people have been debating when it is or is not right to kill other people for a very long time you are either very optimistic or have a much higher opinion of our collective intelligence or both if you expect a final answer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Killing anything is wrong, lest of all a human being.
    So you wouldn't exterminate a rat infestation in your house? Or take anti-biotics?

    edit: just realised some1 beat me to this point
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think killing another human is wrong as they are the same species and you dont turn on your own if u like. However killing pigs, chciken and cows is simply aprt of the food chain, In the same way many other animals could/would kil us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    because we're the same species doesn't mean we shouldn't kill each other. All predators (or a lot) kill each other but you wouldn't tell them not to.
    However I don't think it is wrong to kill someone, kind of a "tooth for a tooth" feeling - killing people who have already killed deserve the same. This leads onto another point about the death penalty and whether it is right because you can't be sure these criminals have done whatever they've been accused of - well my response to this is if you're certain enough to send them to prison for 25 years, taking the extra step and killing them is hardly much worse
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moomoo2k)
    because we're the same species doesn't mean we shouldn't kill each other. All predators (or a lot) kill each other but you wouldn't tell them not to.
    However I don't think it is wrong to kill someone, kind of a "tooth for a tooth" feeling - killing people who have already killed deserve the same. This leads onto another point about the death penalty and whether it is right because you can't be sure these criminals have done whatever they've been accused of - well my response to this is if you're certain enough to send them to prison for 25 years, taking the extra step and killing them is hardly much worse
    Which species were you thinking of that kills animals of the same species? Preferably a mammal if you want to draw some sort of meaningful conclusion.

    How does killing someone who has already killed make you any better than them? You can't have one moral rule for one person and another for another. Morality, by it's very nature, is equally applicable to everyone.

    With prison, if new evidence emerges 5 days later you can release them. With the death penalty, unless you know something I don't, you can't ever take it back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    Which species were you thinking of that kills animals of the same species? Preferably a mammal if you want to draw some sort of meaningful conclusion.
    Lions, tigers, dogs, cattle, horses, chimpanzees, bonobos.
    Just to be going along with.
    How does killing someone who has already killed make you any better than them? You can't have one moral rule for one person and another for another. Morality, by it's very nature, is equally applicable to everyone.
    Certainly. Someone who has killed someone else without a very good reason is a threat to everyone else and should be prevented from doing it again, either by imprisonment or by killing them. There are, under different circumstances, moral arguments for each measure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    To ask "is killing wrong?" cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no", the different types of killing will get completely different responses.
    Such as killing under duress and necessity, pretty severe cases of manslaughter, self-defence etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    Killing is killing, since you advocate some forms of it your answer has to be no.

    Andrew
    thats a very absolutist opinion that you have.

    killing isnt killing it depnds on the motive behind it people kill for a huge list of different reasons

    angry
    defence
    hatred
    relgion
    to make a point
    ect
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well some of you got it at least.

    For all the people who said "yes", killing is always wrong it has to be put forward that surely killing Mugabe if you had the opportunity would be right?

    For all the people who said "no", killing isn't always wrong where do you draw the line? It seems it can be drawn on a spectrum of moral extremes e.g. on the one extreme euthanasia, or compassionate killing. To the other extreme murder to prevent further suffering of larger numbers e.g. killing a dictator, killing a gunman holding hostages.

    All the "no" sayers I suggest would agree with the killing for these two extremes. However when moving a metaphorical slider in from both sides of the two opposite extremes where does killing again become wrong? And, more importantly if someone slides the slider past your point of acceptance would you say that other person feels less strongly that their position is morally right than you do? For instance what if someone doesn't even think euthanasia is right, however you strongly do - you've moved the slider further then they do however you both feel morally that your positions are correct - who/what has the right to decide therefore which of you has the "correct" slider position? The majority?

    The latter point was supposed to be the crux of my arguement, that's why I asked such a blanket black or white question in my first post - just play along next time guys please!

    Andrew
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly , most people see killing a human being as a horrible thing , but I don't think I'd have problems doing it for a very small percentage of the population.I'm not a killer or a psycho but I do think that some people do not deserve their lives as they take the lives of others and most of the times for stupid reasons such as religion or money.

    I know for example that if you sent me to Guantanamo you'd need a 1000 bodybag by the next morning because I do think that these people deserve to die and I think that killing them would be rendering a service to worldwide society.That goes also for child killers and anybody who kills someone on purpose with a will to do it.

    Of course I do think that we have to preserve human life and only kill people in extreme cases.But I think that if we kill someone we should do it in a way which won't make the person finish his life in agony such as the eletric chair or death row , I think it is more horrible than death itself.Everybody has a right to die with dignity by an injection which will put you to sleep and you'll never wake up.

    My 2 cents.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What a stupid question!
    Anyone who says "No, killing people is wrong" show basic signs of intellignece.
    Anyone who says "Yes, its OK to kill people", imagine it being done to you, your family or friends, then rethink your answer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi... I've thought about this too. Humans are essentially just animals. Animals have feelings and lives too... to what extent we don't know... but that is not the point. I think if an animal were to kill a human being, there would be nothing wrong with it because we kill animals - so its all fair. But then you could look at it from the view that very few animals kill their own species. It's not in their nature to do so. So maybe the same should be for us. One last view I have is that if a human kills another human just for pure pleasure, that is wrong... just as hunting animals as a sport is wrong. But if it's for survival, then it is ok... survival of the fittest and all. Sorry- thats rather a complicated answer... but it makes sense in my head :-) x x x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe it's wrong, yes. Every living thing on Earth has life, what right do we have to take away that life? Simple as that to me.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,937

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.