• 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
Yes.

The way I look at it, it is always bad to kill a human.

However, sometimes it is necessary.

In many cases of brutal crimes, I would support the death penalty.

But the death penalty is still a bad thing.

Meh, it's one ****ed up world.
 
Yes.

The way I look at it, it is always bad to kill a human.

However, sometimes it is necessary.

In many cases of brutal crimes, I would support the death penalty.

But the death penalty is still a bad thing.

Meh, it's one ****ed up world.

if it's necessary, then why is it bad?
 
if it's necessary, then why is it bad?
Because in my mind, the taking of another sentient life is never a good thing.

But sometimes, also in my mind, it is necessary.

Haven't really thought about it much beyond that, so I really can't answer in more detail.

/shrug
 
In another thread(Human shields), a poster has argued that whenever you kill a person, no matter the situation, the result, or the person's deeds, it is always a bad thing.

Is it so?

Just to clarify, the question is not if killing a human can be a good thing, but if it is always a bad thing.

To me the only time it is acceptable is in self defence. To some extent I almost think it is a duty if necessary for self defence because otherwise you are not honouring yourself but, it really does need to be self defence - not things like the shooting of burglars in the back as they flee.

We have a responsibility to protect ourselves and those who are dependent on us - our children or the State to protect the public, but anything which uses more than the minimum of force needed cannot ever be seen as 'good' or a skillful way of dealing with things imo.
 
It depends on your definitions of "good" and "bad".
That's not my point here.
If you'll decide to lift up your hand now for no actual reason, would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
 
That's not my point here.
If you'll decide to lift up your hand now for no actual reason, would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
Neither. Lifting a hand and ending a life are completely different actions with very different consequences, so what point are you hoping to make?
 
Neither. Lifting a hand and ending a life are completely different actions with very different consequences, so what point are you hoping to make?
That something can be neither good nor bad, and hence reasoning the perception of an action as a "bad thing" with "I can't see it as a good thing" is a logical fallacy.
 
That something can be neither good nor bad, and hence reasoning the perception of an action as a "bad thing" with "I can't see it as a good thing" is a logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies are pretty irrelevant in a thread where you are asking if an action is always "bad." "Good" and "bad" are terms relative to the individual using them.
 
Logical fallacies are pretty irrelevant in a thread where you are asking if an action is always "bad." "Good" and "bad" are terms relative to the individual using them.
Please re-read my comment in order to understand it better.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the terms being relative to the individual's view, but with the understanding that there is a situation when something is neither good nor bad, and hence one cannot reason his perception of something as bad simply because he cannot perceive it as good.

I see nothing to do with the term's relativity here. Absolutely nothing.
 
In another thread(Human shields), a poster has argued that whenever you kill a person, no matter the situation, the result, or the person's deeds, it is always a bad thing.

Is it so?

Just to clarify, the question is not if killing a human can be a good thing, but if it is always a bad thing.

When one person kills another, a driving stimuli forces him do something he wouldn't normally do, not good nor bad, just an uncontrollable reaction.

ricksfolly
 
Please re-read my comment in order to understand it better.
I'm trying, but your position makes very little sense to me. Maybe I'm not getting something. :shrug:

It has absolutely nothing to do with the terms being relative to the individual's view, but with the understanding that there is a situation when something is neither good nor bad, and hence one cannot reason his perception of something as bad simply because he cannot perceive it as good.

I see nothing to do with the term's relativity here. Absolutely nothing.
Okay. I recognize that there are neutral situations. I still think killing a human is always a bad thing, though sometimes necessary to preserve innocent life. What now?
 
I'm trying, but your position makes very little sense to me. Maybe I'm not getting something.
That's not a maybe.
Okay. I recognize that there are neutral situations. I still think killing a human is always a bad thing, though sometimes necessary to preserve innocent life. What now?
I can see your misunderstanding now.
You have perceived, for whatever reason, that I'm trying to deliver a counter-argument to The Mark who was stating that he believes killing someone is always a bad thing.

I have merely pointed out that the reasoning he has used for his opinion was not valid, since he has reasoned the notion that killing is always a bad thing with the notion that "something that is not good" equals "something that is bad" - or rather - "something that is not bad" equals "something that is good".

I have given examples and supporting arguments as to why the latter notion is a logical fallacy.
Do you see my point, now?
 
Last edited:
That's not a maybe.
I can see your misunderstanding now.
You have perceived, for whatever reason, that I'm trying to deliver a counter-argument to The Mark who was stating that he believes killing someone is always a bad thing.

I have merely pointed out that the reasoning he has used for his opinion was not valid, since he has reasoned the notion that killing is always a bad thing with the notion that "something that is not good" equals "something that is bad" - or rather - "something that is not bad" equals "something that is good".

I have given examples and supporting arguments as to why the latter notion is a logical fallacy.
Do you see my point, now?

Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were arguing that killing a human being falls into the neutral category, neither a good nor bad concurrence. I should have eaten my Wheaties this morning. :2razz:
 
Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were arguing that killing a human being falls into the neutral category, neither a good nor bad concurrence. I should have eaten my Wheaties this morning. :2razz:
No harm was done.

Eat your Wheaties from now on.
 
Can't it be not good and not bad at the same time?
I suppose.

Perhaps I should restate.

IMO, killing another sentient being is never a good thing.

However, also IMO, it is sometimes sadly necessary.

Some may equate "necessary" with “good”.

I do not.
 
Some may equate "necessary" with “good”.

I do not.

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.
 
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.

Not butting in for Mark, just my opinion.

It can never be a good thing because if you believe it is a good thing then you believe that to kill another human being is ok.

It would always be better to avoid killing if possible. Otherwise there becomes something of a blur as to who is 'good'.

Killing in self defence is 100% acceptable but most people do not feel good about being put in that position, do not believe that what they did was good. It was necessary but not to be wanted and to be avoided if possible.
 
Not butting in for Mark, just my opinion.

It can never be a good thing because if you believe it is a good thing then you believe that to kill another human being is ok.

Yes I believe that killing another human being is ok as long as it is done to protect others, punish a scumbag on death row or to protect yourself and property.

It would always be better to avoid killing if possible. Otherwise there becomes something of a blur as to who is 'good'.

Good men sometimes have to kill evil men.
 
Yes I believe that killing another human being is ok as long as it is done to protect others, punish a scumbag on death row or to protect yourself and property.

right we have differences of opinion on what is good.

Good men sometimes have to kill evil men.

People who believe they are 'god' believe they know the difference. Really it is just an excuse for revenge. It may be 'good' with someone who has never developed beyond a rudimentary good/bad idea of morality but it certainly is not a particularly mentally healthy way to be.


Is revenge good - Of course not, it is not much better than the original action. Does revenge feel good - sometimes. Does the good feeling of revenge produce good - rarely. Does the good feeling of revenge remain - no. Does inflicting revenge on someone make one a better person - very definitely no.



I suspect I know where this is going so may leave you to it.
 
r

People who believe they are 'god' believe they know the difference.


That is utter nonsense. Are you saying that you can not tell the difference? You do not need to be God to know that deliberately taking a innocent life without just cause is evil or that molesting children is evil or that many other things are evil.

Really it is just an excuse for revenge. It may be 'good' with someone who has never developed beyond a rudimentary good/bad idea of morality but it certainly is not a particularly mentally healthy way to be.


Is revenge good - Of course not, it is not much better than the original action. Does revenge feel good - sometimes. Does the good feeling of revenge produce good - rarely. Does the good feeling of revenge remain - no. Does inflicting revenge on someone make one a better person - very definitely no.


That is more nonsense. Its not about revenge or feeling good its about permanently stopping someone. A dead murderer can not kill again, a dead rapist can not rape again and a dead burglar can not burglarize a home again.
 
That is utter nonsense. Are you saying that you can not tell the difference? You do not need to be God to know that deliberately taking a innocent life without just cause is evil or that molesting children is evil or that many other things are evil.

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.

That is more nonsense. Its not about revenge or feeling good its about permanently stopping someone. A dead murderer can not kill again, a dead rapist can not rape again and a dead burglar can not burglarize a home again.

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.
 
That is utter nonsense. Are you saying that you can not tell the difference? You do not need to be God to know that deliberately taking a innocent life without just cause is evil or that molesting children is evil or that many other things are evil.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom