• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is killing a human always a bad thing?

Is killing a human always a bad thing?


  • Total voters
    68
Maybe some people need a god to know that. Just like some may need a god to understand that killing humans is always a bad thing.


I'm using 'god' as a concept. In this case someone who believes they have ultimate knowledge to know what is good and evil.
 
How can you not say it was good if it was necessary? Like for example killing an intruder, stopping an attempted murderer or rapist or killing a serial killer? By eliminating those people you ensure that they will not harm anyone again.
Those may be necessary, although wounding them may serve the same purpose.

Necessary, however, does not equal good.

If one of your close siblings or best friend - in other words, someone who you hold dear - for some reason broke into your house and tried to kill you, and you killed them in self-defense...Would you consider it to have been a good incident?

Or a bad, but necessary one?
 
Those may be necessary, although wounding them may serve the same purpose.

Necessary, however, does not equal good.

If one of your close siblings or best friend - in other words, someone who you hold dear - for some reason broke into your house and tried to kill you, and you killed them in self-defense...Would you consider it to have been a good incident?

Or a bad, but necessary one?

Since I know the individual I would be upset.Then I would be severely pissed by the obvious act of betrayal by that close sibling or friend. Then I would most likely consider it a good thing to have taken his life since that individual betrayed me by breaking into my home and attempting to take my life.
 
I am saying that things are not as simple as good/evil in the main. I would say it was 'evil' to take another person's life except in self defence if I was to use your terminology - which I don't. Hence the concept of good/evil is not really as simple as you seem to believe.

Equally thankfully though not every child molested becomes a child molester, child molesters are invariably people who were molested as children. The victim has become the persecutor. Do you see the victim underneath the persecutor. No, you just judge the one action you see.



You can permanently stop someone by putting them in jail and/or healing them - though that is a lot harder and expensive.

I absolutely believe society has a responsibility to protect itself from dangerous people, I just do not believe I am god and have the right to choose when someone lives or dies.

As for killing burglars - we send people who do things like shoot fleeing burglars in the back to jail.


Some acts are obvious that it is evil, you do not need to be a god to figure that out.Nor do you need to be a god to permanently eliminate a threat. A bad child hood does not excuse any evil acts of evil you committed,nor does being victimized in the past give you a free pass for victimizing others.
 
Since I know the individual I would be upset.Then I would be severely pissed by the obvious act of betrayal by that close sibling or friend. Then I would most likely consider it a good thing to have taken his life since that individual betrayed me by breaking into my home and attempting to take my life.
You wouldn't consider it bad in any way?
Having to kill your best friend or sibling?
 
You wouldn't consider it bad in any way?
Having to kill your best friend or sibling?

I would consider it bad that I was betrayed and that one of the people I trust attempted to take my life.
 
I would consider it bad that I was betrayed and that one of the people I trust attempted to take my life.
Thus: Bad, but necessary.

Some persons consider ANY killing of another human to be bad. Thus, ANY killing of another human is bad, but in some cases it is necessary.

The results of killing another human may even, in some cases, be positive for a great many people.

In those cases, there is, indeed, some good in the incident.

But, I still consider it bad, overall.

But still necessary.
 
Thus: Bad, but necessary.

Some persons consider ANY killing of another human to be bad. Thus, ANY killing of another human is bad, but in some cases it is necessary.

The results of killing another human may even, in some cases, be positive for a great many people.

In those cases, there is, indeed, some good in the incident.

But, I still consider it bad, overall.

But still necessary.

It'd bad because we failed them (and that is utopian I know.)
 
Explain and expand, please.

It's because I believe that our basic nature, who we are in our truest level is wholesome and that when we act in a way which is not it is because we have in some way been harmed. Ideally instead of harming someone who was difficult or even dangerous we would heal them.

I believe that healing anyone is possible because a psychiatrist managed to heal 6 of the coldest psychopaths in our jails so that they were able to feel the very thing the psychopath cannot feel - empathy

but I am also aware he was particularly skilled and if we were to be able to heal more people we would need to heal the would be healers first.

Eventually when we are all healed we will be very alive and creative.

It is utopian and it is no where near where we are now and we may decide to kill each other instead but it is definitely one of the possible ways we could go.

(must go to bed)
 
Thus: Bad, but necessary.

Some persons consider ANY killing of another human to be bad. Thus, ANY killing of another human is bad, but in some cases it is necessary.

The results of killing another human may even, in some cases, be positive for a great many people.

In those cases, there is, indeed, some good in the incident.

But, I still consider it bad, overall.

But still necessary.

Exactly. I think there are times when you can justify the killing of others. However, the act of killing another human is universally a bad action.
 
You wouldn't consider it bad in any way?
Having to kill your best friend or sibling?

If I consider my life, or the life of my family 'good', therefore a threat to it must certainly be 'bad'. And eliminating that threat to ensure the ongoing lives of me and my family (good) must also be a 'good' thing.

I don't for a second believe that any life is 'sacred'. I very much believe that killing some people is a very, VERY good thing for either myself, my family, my nation, or countless other people.

How could it be 'bad' to kill a direct threat to my life if I consider my life to be 'good'? Whether that threat is a virus, a bear, a mountain lion, a dog, or a human? What lifeform the threat is, is fairly irrelevant.
 
Come to think of it, I would actually feel worse for having to put down a wild animal attacking me than I would a person. In the case of the wild animal, it's acting primarily on instinct, or fear. Not understanding that I'm not a threat to it. But it only sees *threat to its life* and therefore I must be eliminated. Or threat to it's child's life, whatever.

But in the case of a person? They know exactly what they are doing. That, to me, is less sad. I don't feel nearly as bad about putting someone down who knows precisely what they are doing and chooses to do it anyway, knowing full well the risks and possible outcomes.

I'd feel much worse about putting down a momma bear just trying to protect her cubs.
 
If I consider my life, or the life of my family 'good', therefore a threat to it must certainly be 'bad'. And eliminating that threat to ensure the ongoing lives of me and my family (good) must also be a 'good' thing.
Those are some of the positive aspects of defending yourself and your family by killing a person who is threatening those things.
The negative aspects, IMO, are that you had to kill someone to do it.

I would consider such an action to be a necessary but negative one.

I don't for a second believe that any life is 'sacred'. I very much believe that killing some people is a very, VERY good thing for either myself, my family, my nation, or countless other people.
Absolutely true.
Didn't I just say that?
However, I would still consider it a necessary but negative occurrence.

How could it be 'bad' to kill a direct threat to my life if I consider my life to be 'good'? Whether that threat is a virus, a bear, a mountain lion, a dog, or a human? What life form the threat is, is fairly irrelevant.
I, and this thread, are specifically referring to another human as the threat.

I consider it, overall, a negative occurrence to be forced into killing another human.

I never said there were no positive aspects of such.
 
Exactly. I think there are times when you can justify the killing of others. However, the act of killing another human is universally a bad action.

I disagree.. I would say the more accurate comment is a situation that requires you to kill someone else is universally a bad thing. However, the killing is not the evil. The evil is what has caused you to have to kill-in most cases, the harm the other person has done or is attempting to do
 
I disagree.. I would say the more accurate comment is a situation that requires you to kill someone else is universally a bad thing. However, the killing is not the evil. The evil is what has caused you to have to kill-in most cases, the harm the other person has done or is attempting to do
That is perhaps a better way of stating it.
 
I disagree.. I would say the more accurate comment is a situation that requires you to kill someone else is universally a bad thing. However, the killing is not the evil. The evil is what has caused you to have to kill-in most cases, the harm the other person has done or is attempting to do

I don't agree. In a case of say self defence killing is neutral. It is not good and it is not bad. It just is necessary. However it is never to be applauded taking another person's life - in that way it can never be a good thing.

I think you are justifying killing. Once you justify it there are always plenty of more people to kill.
 
It might be necessary. It might be done for a good reason.
But it's never a good thing.
 
I don't agree. In a case of say self defence killing is neutral. It is not good and it is not bad. It just is necessary. However it is never to be applauded taking another person's life - in that way it can never be a good thing.

I think you are justifying killing. Once you justify it there are always plenty of more people to kill.

In some cases killing is justified. A Jew in the Polish Ghetto killing a nazi was both justified and a good thing because it meant one less Nazi the Allies had to kill.

If someone had whacked Idi Amin, or Robert Mugabe I would have cheered that since it would have short circuited years of oppression
 
Back
Top Bottom