Poll: At what point is killing/hurting something wrong?

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Hey guys, guess what day it is? That's right, it's debate a controversial philosophical topic day!

Anyway, this is a question that people have been asking for centuries, and it applies to a variety of issues like abortion, animal rights, treatment of the mentally handicapped, and potentially treatment of extraterrestrial life or artificial intelligence. That question is at what point is killing something wrong? At what point is something considered truly living and is thus entitled to life?

Personally, I believe that inflicting physical and emotional pain should be avoided whenever possible. That means that I don't eat meat, and I think abortion is wrong after the nervous system has fully developed and it can feel pain (which is about 20 weeks last time I checked), but killing plants, insects, microorganisms, and intelligent machines is okay.

Obviously, this is a very wishy-washy issue since we'll never truly know what it's like to be another form of life, but in principle, what do you believe constitutes life and thus constitutes murder?

EDIT: Many people have pointed out that killing is often done to continue the life of others. Examples include killing in self-defense, killing a serial murderer, or killing animals for food. While I must point out that it is far from necessary for us to eat meat to get our nutrition, the former two examples are more of a calculation of what decision saves more lives than a decision on what the life itself is worth.

So let me rephrase the decision, what is okay to kill or hurt in situations where equally valuable lives are not at stake? Or in other words, at what point does life hold value or is life sacred?

 

[kayisking]

Hey guys, guess what day it is? That's right, it's debate a controversial philosophical topic day!

Anyway, this is a question that people have been asking for centuries, and it applies to a variety of issues like abortion, animal rights, treatment of the mentally handicapped, and potentially treatment of extraterrestrial life or artificial intelligence. That question is at what point is killing something wrong? At what point is something considered truly living and is thus entitled to life?

Personally, I believe that inflicting physical and emotional pain should be avoided whenever possible. That means that I don't eat meat, and I think abortion is wrong after the nervous system has fully developed and it can feel pain (which is about 20 weeks last time I checked), but killing plants, insects, microorganisms, and intelligent machines is okay.

Obviously, this is a very wishy-washy issue since we'll never truly know what it's like to be another form of life, but in principle, what do you believe constitutes life and thus constitutes murder?

So you would say it would be okay to end the life of something that might be a hundred times more smart then you, simply because it wouldn't feel it?

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

So you would say it would be okay to end the life of something that might be a hundred times more smart then you, simply because it wouldn't feel it?

My graphing calculator is miles better at math than I'll ever be. The new ones can ever do algebra for you. I still don't shed a tear when I throw the old one away.

 

[DPeteD]

Its wrong just about anytime outside of justice or doing it so more people will benefit in the long run.

 

[thiosk]

Slaughter in the name of the God Emperor is the highest form of piety.

...

ahem.

Yeah, its a wishy washy issue and no one will ever agree. For example, you state 20 weeks as the limit for abortion, but if a criminal kicks a woman who is 15 weeks pregnant in the belly, and she miscarries, many US states will press murder charges. I have no problem eating meat, but the state of dog consumption in china is disgusting (stolen pets caged and slaughtered). I have no problem eating chicken, despite the fact that they are often housed in bad conditions.

So, inflicting death, whether for food, justice, or for service to the god emperor, will always be a touchy subject with imprecise, inconsistent rules and generalizations.

 

[loc978]

My two cents: life has no intrinsic value, it's not sacred, and killing is regulated just fine (at least in theory) in most places. Natural law pretty much states "defend yourself or die". Human law generally states "only kill from necessity or in the name of your society"... and I'm fine with both.

 

[TheFlyingMango]

Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<

Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?

 

[kayisking]

So you would say it would be okay to end the life of something that might be a hundred times more smart then you, simply because it wouldn't feel it?

My graphing calculator is miles better at math than I'll ever be. The new ones can ever do algebra for you. I still don't shed a tear when I throw the old one away.

Yes, but just because it's better at math doesn't make it smarter then you. I'm talking true AI.

 

[ManInRed]

My personal beliefs is that the less permanent the injure, the better. So pain trumps injury, trumps death. Reasons for killing general come down to things that saves lives, food, and to rid environment of pests that spread illness. Obviously, basic rules apply, the less harm and death you can do to anything to achieve these results is best. I see no moral issues eating other animals, as all animals eat other living things. In order for me to live, other things must die.

Anything I consider Human is valued more than other living things, this could one day include machines and aliens, but for now just means humans. There is no reason good enough to justify killing another human, though some excuses are more forgivable than others. And I typically am against destruction to something that does beneficial things from living, or that there's no reason to kill it.

 

[Asti]

I think it is wrong if you kill anything for no or petty reasons. I see food as a valid reason, I see luxury not as a valid reason. So meat is alright once in a while, but not on an every day basis. Killing another human for self-defense is acceptable if there was no other way, but other than that... Life should be treasured, be it in humans, plants or animals.

I don't think in categories as "intelligent" when it comes to life. There is unintelligent life that is still f*cking amazing.

 

[Echo136]

I think the question should be "At what point is killing/hurting something right?"

 

[TheFlyingMango]

Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<

Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?

Not really but if I were something as small as a bug I wouldn't enjoy being stepped on.....I don't enjoy being stepped on as a human either

 

[veloper]

You're asking a WHAT question, but you should really be asking WHEN.

Now 6 (and more coming) people voted how they cannot eat, even if it's vegetarian.

 

[Zakarath]

I'd say what matters is not the creature's sapience but rather your motivations for killing it.
You see it as a threat? Okay.
You're killing it for food? Okay.
You're killing it just for the hell of it? Not okay.

 

[Ironman126]

To draw heavily on Mass Effect 2, if members of it's species are capable of calculus, it is sapient and should not be experimented on or killed for no reason (self defense is still totally legitimate, though).

 

[GraveeKing]

If it's capable of logical thinking of course! There goes 90% of the human race....

 

[Evil Top Hat]

I'm not really sure you can make a general and overall rule, it's too specific to the circumstance. Killing is wrong, but if an attacker came into your home and tried to kill you or your partner/ family, could you really blame somebody for fighting back? Would it really be okay to say to somebody "Yeah, they was going to murder you and rape your family members, but you should have just run away, it's not cool to hurt people".

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Really to me its going to be only kill what you need to kill. For example if your hunting and you see two deer and you only need one to eat only kill that one. You never know someone else may need to eat it later why waste the extra effort. Now to humans if someone were to attack you by all means defend yourself and kill if it is needed. But just going around killing people isn't cool. >_<

Just to play devil's advocate, if I saw a bug on the ground and it wasn't hurting anybody, and I stomped on it, would that make me a murderer since I killed for no reason?

Yes it does you insensitive monster!!11!1 ...is what i'd say if i cared.

On the topic of bugs it's really double edged. I squish spiders and flies and the likes when they get into my room, but i don't just suddenly stomp an innocent creature that's speeding along the pavement, minding it's own business. That just seems like unnecessary cruelty.

I'm not really a fan of killing anything, but if death would be a salvation to the creature in question then i'm not gonna object.

On the topic of abortion: I think it should be legal to choose no matter what the circomstances(unsure of spelling), but i wouldn't be happy about it if the child could've had a good life. A child that would be born into a family that couldn't take care of it would probably be better or in the next life and the same goes for those with severe birth defects.

People are never going to agree on this as a whole though. We all see life differently and have different values. I've heard of a certain kind of people who wear masks to cover their mouth so they won't destroy microscopic life by inhaling it. And then there're the ones who butcher for a living, and there're mercenaries, soldiers and assassins who take lives for money.

Personally i just try to go about my daily business without causing someone any excessive pain.

 

[OhSnap]

I'm honestly disturbed by the number of people who say only if it's capable of logic/communication/high level thinking or everything is okay to kill, including humans.

Jeremy Bentham put it best "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" In my opinion, killing for something outside of self defense or to put something out of it's misery (think along the lines of euthanasia) is wrong. I don't mean insects, microbes and plants but animals and other organisms that display an adverse reaction to pain or are able to experience fear.