"murder Most Foul, As In The Best It Is.."

[WanderingTaoist]

After purusing the "Politics and Current Events" forum, I happened upon a thread where _____ was discussing his experiences in the armed forces, and before long the topic of conversation turned to ethics.

If the topic hasn't been thouroughly exhausted, I'd like to raise it again here, but more generally:

What are your thoughts on the ethics of killing and warfare? Do "ethics" and "killing" even belong in the same sentence? Is it ever acceptable to kill another person? What about war? Is war ever justified?

[scameter]

Well, if we're speaking entirely from the view of ethics and without anyone's personal beliefs, such as a religion, as a bias, then I think killing can be considered ethical when the death of one or a very small number of people can prevent the death of many people in the current or future, and that war is only acceptable for defense, which is not really even war it's self on my opinion.

[WanderingTaoist]

Well, if we're speaking entirely from the view of ethics and without anyone's personal beliefs, such as a religion, as a bias, then I think killing can be considered ethical when the death of one or a very small number of people can prevent the death of many people in the current or future, and that war is only acceptable for defense, which is not really even war it's self on my opinion.

Why don't we bring people's personal beliefs and religion, I don't think that's too much of a bias. It'll probably keep things interesting.

Taking religion/spirituality into account, would your answer to those questions change, scam?

[scameter]

Definitely, as various religions and personal beliefs have their own ethical standpoints. Christianity views ethics mainly from a sin orientation, that our physical bodies are polluted by our original disobedience to God, but that if we act out of selfless service to God, and thus in a loving, selfless, compassionate sense, we can act without sin. But, because Jesus cleared sin, our actions only matter in this lifetime; our sins here do not affect our souls. In Buddhism, the ego is what creates karma, when acts are done in the interest of it, and karma creates and allows to persist the cycle of birth and death. To become enlightened, enter Nirvana and thus escape this perpetual cycle, one must shed their karma, which is done through not acting by the ego, but rather in a selfless manner. To Taoism, the quality of one's actions is usually dictated by how much they are in-tune with the natural flow of nature. This is why Yin, or passive femininity, is encouraged above Yang, or aggressive masculinity, in Taoism, because Yin simply goes with the flow of nature passively, instead of intruding upon said flow with the egoistic will of an individual, which is more in a Yang sense. Judaism is really pretty similar to Christianity, just substitute all the Jesus stuff with the Ten Commandments as being crucial. And I cannot really comment on Shinto, Hinduism or Islam, because I am rather ignorant of their ethics.

[Starry_Canopy]

What are your thoughts on the ethics of killing and warfare? Do "ethics" and "killing" even belong in the same sentence? Is it ever acceptable to kill another person? What about war? Is war ever justified?

I can only give my views as I don't know what the official views of any religion is on these matters.

"ethics" can condone neither killing nor war, the latter because it involves violence and also killing.

Killing puts an absolute end to the possibility of any further interaction/ development of that aspect of our selves that mirror the person whom we kill. It also puts a stop to all the further developments/ changes that the person killed could have experienced were he/ she not been killed. I don't think that any person can arrogate to himself the power to inflict that final stop to either party. No one has that right, as far as the putting an end to the victims experiences and opportunities for further growth/ change. As far as the killer himself is concerned, he can as well put an end to changes/ developments in the 'mirrored aspect' of the victim within his own self by just having to do nothing with it rather than kill the victim.

War is disgusting. As we grow up, don't we gradually become more refined and settle differences by verbal discussions/ fights rather than come to blows physically? War is just an ugly regression even beyond the physical fighting of children, where the intent is not just to hurt, but to hurt beyond endurance and death. Anyone who says that the war is for a just cause is using a future, that could be changed by present actions other than war, to justify inflicting untold misery on others in the present. I don't think anything can be more hypocritical than that.

After saying all this, I would like to say that war or killing in self defense is morally acceptable to me, though the injunction of the divine personalities is that we should rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I am afraid that I am too weak to be able to do that, ie. offer no resistance or to stop someone who is coming to kill me or my family/ friends and to do so, if necessary, by killing him first.

[WanderingTaoist]

Definitely, as various religions and personal beliefs have their own ethical standpoints. Christianity views ethics mainly from a sin orientation, that our physical bodies are polluted by our original disobedience to God, but that if we act out of selfless service to God, and thus in a loving, selfless, compassionate sense, we can act without sin. But, because Jesus cleared sin, our actions only matter in this lifetime; our sins here do not affect our souls. In Buddhism, the ego is what creates karma, when acts are done in the interest of it, and karma creates and allows to persist the cycle of birth and death. To become enlightened, enter Nirvana and thus escape this perpetual cycle, one must shed their karma, which is done through not acting by the ego, but rather in a selfless manner. To Taoism, the quality of one's actions is usually dictated by how much they are in-tune with the natural flow of nature. This is why Yin, or passive femininity, is encouraged above Yang, or aggressive masculinity, in Taoism, because Yin simply goes with the flow of nature passively, instead of intruding upon said flow with the egoistic will of an individual, which is more in a Yang sense. Judaism is really pretty similar to Christianity, just substitute all the Jesus stuff with the Ten Commandments as being crucial. And I cannot really comment on Shinto, Hinduism or Islam, because I am rather ignorant of their ethics.

Very good summary, scam Do any of the religions you mentioned effect your personal views?


After saying all this, I would like to say that war or killing in self defense is morally acceptable to me, though the injunction of the divine personalities is that we should rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I am afraid that I am too weak to be able to do that, ie. offer no resistance or to stop someone who is coming to kill me or my family/ friends and to do so, if necessary, by killing him first.

I'm not so sure you're "weak" for believing this, Starry_Canopy; let me ask you this: who is ultimately harmed the most by murder, the victim or the murderer?

There is a natural inclination to think that it is the victim who suffers the most harm, but I would hold that it is in fact the murderer who harmed the most. Everyone is going to die eventually; hence the murderer was not robbing the victim of anything she was not going to lose at some point anyway. I don't even think we can say that the victim would have lived for years had the murder not occured; maybe she would have been hit by a truck three seconds later. We don't know when we are going to die, we have no control over time. The murderer cannot take the past from us, since the past is over and cannot be touched, but he can't take the future from us, either, since the future has not yet arrived, is not ours, and there is no garuntee how long the future is anyway. All the murder can rob from us is our life in the present moment, which is fleeting.

The murderer, on the other hand, has become exactly that---a murderer. That is a permanent change; you cannot undo a murder. If he has committed murder ("murder" here meaning "mindful unlawful killing", not self-defense, not somebody becoming insane and not realizing what they are doing), then he is, and always will be, a murderer---regardless of whether or not he repents, he has murdered, and by our definition murder implies killing out of malice, greed, or unhealthy emotional attachment. In murdering, you taint the only thing we can truly be said to "own" in this life---you taint who you are.

And so, Starry_Canopy, it seems to me that in self-defense you are not only protecting yourself and your family, you are ultimately rendering your assailiant the greatest service possible---you are preventing him from becoming a murderer. Of course, it's not necessary to kill this individual in order to prevent him from becoming a murderer; it's merely necessary to render him incapable of comitting the act. Which means that should be your primary priority in defending yourself. In many, probably most cases, it is possible to stop somebody from killing you without killing him.

If in defending yourself you wind up unintentionally killing your assailiant, that is unfortunate, but you have nevertheless succeeded in preventing him from harming himself. Ultimately, though, it if one cannot defend oneself without killing one's assailiant, then you should accept your fate. You aren't losing anything that you wouldn't have eventually lost.

[scameter]

Do any of the religions you mentioned effect your personal views?

I don't really have personal views. I accumulate knowledge, ideas, thoughts and wisdom, attempt to sculpt away the bullshit (for lack of a better word) in these until I get to the core or truth of them, and I then assimilate them into my base of knowledge. My personal views derive from this base.

[WanderingTaoist]

I don't really have personal views. I accumulate knowledge, ideas, thoughts and wisdom, attempt to sculpt away the bullshit (for lack of a better word) in these until I get to the core or truth of them, and I then assimilate them into my base of knowledge. My personal views derive from this base.

Very interesting! The truth itself belongs to nobody, but is something we all participate in...it sounds like you show great wisdom in not seeking merely to develop "your own view", but to seek the truth itself..."He who hears not my words, but the logos behind them," as Heraclitus would say, I suppose.

I suppose I should've asked, has your understanding of the truth been at all influenced by the refinement of the various religious traditions you mentioned earlier?

[Starry_Canopy]

There is a natural inclination to think that it is the victim who suffers the most harm, but I would hold that it is in fact the murderer who harmed the most. Everyone is going to die eventually; hence the murderer was not robbing the victim of anything she was not going to lose at some point anyway.

If that were so, when a thief steals our money, why don't we think that "anyway we were going to part with it some day, so why bother"?

No, I don't think that's correct! The muderer was robbing the victim of the rest of his life, how much ever it might have been, and robbing it with a finality - without any chance of being able to reverse it.

[WanderingTaoist]

If that were so, when a thief steals our money, why don't we think that "anyway we were going to part with it some day, so why bother"?

It seems to me a number of religions and philosophies advocate exactly this! I can't see a devout Buddhist being especially upset over a roberry (or having that much to rob, for that matter! ). And Jesus says something along the lines of, "When a thief steals your coat, run after him and offer him your shirt as well."

The muderer was robbing the victim of the rest of his life, how much ever it might have been, and robbing it with a finality - without any chance of being able to reverse it.

Assuredly so! But the murderer has also become a murderer--without any chance of being able to reverse it. Surely it is worse to lose something permanent rather than something that one is going to lose anyway?