Killing In The Name

i'd like to start a debate on the very basic issue of the 'morality/ethic' of ending another being's life here on earth
for higher purposes, greater good, etc.
one of our fellow members here
made the comment
in another thread
that murder is never justified.
he didn't really use the word 'murder' correctly,
he actually should have said 'killing'
as murder has a strict legal definition
that does not apply to legally sanctioned killing.

but to the point-
is it ever 'right' to kill a human being ?
this debate is at the very core of our civilization and so far humanity's consensus over recorded history has been that
yes, killing can be an ethical, rational response to certain problems.
but let's dig deeper
and look at the underlying issues.
what killing really is,
it's impact,
and of course the spiritual/theological angle.
historically the consensus
has been that killing bad people is good,
but killing good people is bad.
basic situational ethics,
very practical and pragmatic.
then of course we also distinguish between solitary killers/acts of killing
and killers that act in the behalf of society
or another higher power,
which brings us back to the thread title,
killing in the name.
and so to narrow the focus a bit
and render it more topical in the context
of the current war
i'm asking
for thought on the concept of using lethal force to achive a higher goal, whatever that might be.
that covers both the 'terrorists' and those that oppose them.
some say that
violence never solves a problem
it just makes it worse, longer.
is that really true ?
or is killing more like
a form of surgury
where the actual patient
is society itself
and the deaths are akin to
removing a malignant growth that endangered
the body as a whole ?
at least,
that's kinda how i see it.
individuals are kind like human cells
in the body of society.
we can kill certain infected cells to
benefit the body.
some humans are pathogens,
others are like a virus and spred disease,
bin laden might fit that category.
is it better to let a tumor grow
as a sign of respect for the life of the tumor ?
what say ye ?

Well first of all, you're all full of Rage today, aren't ya?
I used to think that taking a human life was wrong in any context, but I can't really feeel that way now. I refuse to be a part of it or condone it, but it quite clearly has to be done. In this day and age where the greatest danger to people is other people and also just the indirect afffects of our shear numbers, some sort of 'cide is a necessary biological activity. Conceptually and morally however, my mind rebels against it.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Well first of all, you're all full of Rage today, aren't ya? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
got a new Rage Against The Machine cd
for valentine's day
so i be jammin'

new as in previously unreleased material, or new for you?
headin home... peace

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Conceptually and morally however, my mind rebels against it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
as it should.
but we often find ourselves
in situations when we are compelled
by forces, circumstances
to undertake unpleasant but
necessary steps
in the interest of a higher good.
it is a form of discipline
that one undertakes
to carry out a repugnant task.
for example
i hate taking any life,
i go out of my way to
take bugs, etc.
outdoors and release them.
but i wage a relentless war
on rodents and roaches
that infringe on my home
because i know that the
damage and disease
that accompanies them
is a threat to me and mine.
they are not open to reason,
i cannot explain to the mice and roaches
why it is required that they change their ways
or else.
there too are people that are not open
to persuasive reasoning for various reasons.
they too can pose a grave threat
and so what are we to do ?

[pskovinsky]

Personaly, i don't like the idea of killing anybody.
However, if someone rolls up into my home, and starts stealing shit and/or threatens me, they are going to have a hard time of it.

If someone were to attempt to kill me, they had better succeed.

On a larger scale then self defense, while i find the concept highly distasteful, it would be better for humanity on the whole, if "undesireables" were prevented from reproducing, they don't need to be killed, but their genes are better off dead.
Defining undesireable is of course, quite tricky.

Now on the war side of things, i have roughly the same basic feelings.
This current war i don't support, because i don't think it's any of our business, at all.

If a country were to attack us, as the japanese did in WW2, then i would support our rolling over there and laying the smack down, i might even enlist to do it, which is REALLY saying something.

Terrorists are in my opinion one of the, if not the, lowest grade of scum out there, the only people who rate lower on my scale are crack dealing pedophiliac rapist murderers.

Their attacks are against people who have done NOTHING against them, and in a lot of cases don't even have the faintest idea that someone would want them dead.

If you think about that for a moment, that somewhere there are Al'Queda types who think that the world would be better off if all of US were dead, it's rather chilling really.

Plus, they are actively working on plans to come over here and kill more of us.
That lumps them into the set of people who i support taking out.
If it were possible to reason with them, i would go for that method 100%, but so far they have proven fairly hard to reason with, which leaves us with the death option.

I don't kill bugs either if i have a choice, except for mosquitos, fleas, and ticks, all of which intend me harm, they die.

[Lefty]

A "Grave threat"? I like him, no one should threaten him! It might hurt his feelings.
But seriously, I feel killing is justified. As for animals, I feel hunters who kill &amp; just take the "back strap" of an animal should be flayed. If your going to take the responsibility of a hunter, waste is a sin. Give to the needy, at the least. I really like that game commissioners take the guns &amp; vehicle of poachers. Blinding an animal with a spotlight is lowly. I know someone who got his Dads' 2 week old truck taken for that shit, I laughed for days when I saw the ten types of shit his Dad beat out of him.
Now war, it used to be "God &amp; Country" until somewhere around the Korean Conflict. Man could be convinced to kill for these reasons, feel little or no guilt, and return &amp; live a long happy life if not be proud of it. Those "values" were lost on the Vietnam era. Maybe people thought differently, maybe it was how the war was waged. Don't know, one of my first memories is watching the news &amp; seeing a jungle then "invisible" (well camouflaged) men step out of no where. I recall the news mentioning guerilla warfare &amp; wondered why apes were fighting and why we couldn't just tell them to stop.
I feel killing is justified in some cases. If you have the honor not to bail when your country calls on you, they put you in situations where you kill or be killed. Thats the deal, believe in the cause or not, act or die.
Now this current war, I feel it was politically manipulated. It isn't being fought for the reasons that were presented at all. But once your there, writing your congressman isn't an option.
Home defense, I totally agree with. If someone is rude enough to break in when a person is home, muchless with a wife &amp; kids, he should be blown right back out the window.
An interesting aside, the French developed a flachette round, basically a dart, that only wounds. The theory is a wounded man takes out two more soldiers to help him. Such a weapon is against the Geneva convention, I think.


(Message edited by lefty on February 14, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I don't kill bugs either if i have a choice, except for mosquitos, fleas, and ticks, all of which intend me harm, they die.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
They don't intend anything. they are just automatons tying to survive.I kill them too, but not because I think they are "trying" to harm me.

Is it wrong when an animal such as a Tiger kills another in order to protect it's territory that it depends on for it and it's offspring food supply? Are we any different? I think not. We behave no differently than wild animals in the jungle, just on a different scale and different methods but it's all the same thing...killing.

Wow, great topic. I think it was definitely time for a discussion like this, in light of the other threads.

It seems to me, when animals kill, it's a warrior thing- they're face to face being honest, killing and being killed. Actually I think that's one of the most beautiful things of all.

Unfortunately, we have developed ways of killing that put the aggressor at little to no risk, and also remove him from the consequences. I think that as a species, we would have a better perspective on war and fighting if we would be warriors and face each other.

I think most fighting and oppression and killing come from wanting more. If we could focus on wanting better, rather than wanting more, I think a lot of problems would be alleviated. I don't know that we'll ever reach that level of consciousness.

Should certain people be killed or their actions? I think so, in very special cases. What really disturbs me is who gets to make that decision. To my mind, the vast majority of killing is for reasons that do not meet the required criteria. There are so many conflicts of interest in this world

I must admit, I'm complicit in much of the aggression in this world. I did a survey on a computer at a museum and discovered that if everyone lived my lifestyle we would require 4.5 earths to support ourselves. Someone, somewhere is suffering for my lifestyle. By the way, I'm on the low end of the curve.

I think there are many ways that could work to bring greater harmony to people in all situations, but are we really dedicated to finding a solution?

On a side note, a friend of mine once had a great idea. We should have a peace class from kindergarten to the end of high school. Mandatory every year. It could include topics all the way from global politics down to working out grievances between specific people. Can you imagine how much different people's attitudes would be at the end of it?

Let's all try to be a little more tolerant to each other for the rest of the day, ok?

Putting morality and religion aside is there any such thing as right and wrong? I believe there is. I remember at a very early age knowing something was wrong, not just knowing it but physically feeling it. My very first real fist fight I had a reaction at the begining where I was unable to move, it wasn't fear as I was considerably strong for my age and knew it, I just froze because I knew it was wrong to fight, then I got whacked it the face good and I unfroze real quick and beat the hell out of the kid AND his friend. The neighbors called the police because they really thought I was gonna kill the kid...I was only 10 years old. So, apparently one can put asside "good" for the purpose of self defense or survival? Jesus would have turned the other cheek, unfortunately I'm not Jesus but to this day I always do everything I can to avoid a fight, even running...I'm good at that LOL!

[Lefty]

Don't feel too guilty there Mr. Hyd about the museum survey, keep in mind atleast one third of the earths population never has a chance at decadence. Maybe you should live it up in their honor?
The peace class sounds like a good idea on one side, brainwashing on the other. Could be great, could be an assembly line for little clones all thinking in the same parameters. Public school is damaging enough on it's own, but I feel home schooling is probably even more damaging in the majority of cases.

I think we would be better off with martial arts classes than with peace classes. The martial arts teach one to be respectful and peaceful and to recognize and avoid violent conflict at all costs.

[grave]

id kill to protect myself, my family or an innocent from an attacker.

id pick up a gun to protect where i live.


**lol lefty, thx for picken up for me

(Message edited by grave on February 15, 2005)

[cutty]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

id kill to protect myself, my family or an innocent from an attacker.

id pick up a gun to protect where i live. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I agree with this quote...I must say My worst fear is for my daughter,in this day and age rape is happening more and more if someone ever hurt my daughter,Im not sure where I'd end up but I'd definetely have a long jail term ahead.Im not saying I would kill anyone....
(Well maybe!!!)

I dont agree with "killing" But I do understand that we all have an inner Rage that can push us to kill,and if pushed far enough anybody can kill.

The environment on earth is a series of chemical cycles driven by solar energy. We're part of that environment. The distinction between the world of man and nature is completely artificial. When someone dies their mass moves on in the system. Most people say killing, I call it being proactive about recycling.

population control.

It's all relative.

In context of the war,
lots of innocent people
are suffering and dying
who don't know or care the
reasons. Nothing new.

People only see shit from their side.

I was talking to my mother-in-law...
She said about a new support-troops
display here. And I mentioned it
might be up for a while, as we got
plenty more war on the horizon.

What she said next bothered me,
but didn't suprise me - my friends
and coworkers have all said this:

"We should just pull all our guys
out of there and bomb the whole place.
Just bomb them till there's nobody
left!"

I asked her where she meant and she
said all "those muslim countries".
A usually warm intelligent person
was advocating basically genocide
on a massive scale.

Nobody sees the hypocrisy of
"some people from there killed
some of US, that is so bad,
we should kill more of them".

there are far worse crimes
than hypocrisy.
i know of no one who is entirely free of it.
are you ?
wish i were.
your mom is just looking for a simple solution,
unfortunately there are none.
doesn't make her evil,
she thinks that the bombing would ultimately save lives
and that's kinda the point here-
killing to reach a higher goal.

(Message edited by admin on February 16, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

and that's kinda the point here-
killing to reach a higher goal<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I can think of 19 hijackers who probably thought the same thing. It's all about perspective. As far as bombing the whole middle east, it's been suggested before. "Kill them all, let God sort it out." That is a popular paraphrase of the original decree. Anybody know who originally said that?

i forget the dude's name,
a catholic bishop i think
giving the orders to sack and burn a town
around the time of the crusades.
when told there were christians mixed in with the enemy population he gave the order you paraphrased above.

[Lefty]

It was on shirts in Soldier of Fortune magazine alot, along with "Willie Peter Will Make You a Believer". A grand reference to white phosphorous. Wonder who coined that phrase.

The pope.

no, not our pope, at least.
got a name ?
he wasn't a pope whwn he gave the order,
pretty sure of that.
i'll have to look it up i guess.

Yea, me too. It's been a few years. I was under the impression it was the pope though. Somewhere around 1100-1200CE if memory serves me correctly.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Church History
"Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!"

In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The papal forces besieged Beziers and all inside were commanded to surrender and repent. The heretics inside, also known as Waldensians or Albigensians, were believers in a widespread form of gnosticism which threatened the goals of the Papacy.

According to a Catholic source, "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered. In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own." This was a reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (KJV). About fifty were hanged, the rest were burned to death.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
that source falls short of directly saying the pope personally gave the order
i'll dig deeper


(Message edited by admin on February 16, 2005)

LOL
I was just going to post that same link. It's not a very reliable source as it's a xtian website and quite anti-catholic. I do now remember it was Innocent III, but I thought he gave the order directly. I'm out of time to look now though. I'm sure you'll find it though, you seem to be on a roll.

Do you ever sleep?

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

It's not a very reliable source as it's a xtian website and quite anti-catholic.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

yeah, i noticed the bias too.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

This is a quote attributed to
Arnaud-Armaury, the <u>Abbot of Citeaux</u>, Papal Legate of Pope Innocent III in 1210 AD. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
from http://www.collinsandassociates.com/deus.htm
so,
it was not the pope himself
but rather an 'abbot' that gave the infamous order

(Message edited by admin on February 16, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Do you ever sleep?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
lol
yes,
just not for very long.
i tend to sleep in 3-5 hour intervals
once or twice a 'day'
so my waking hours are pretty erratic

got a new Rage Against The Machine cd
for valentine's day

The first one or another one?

i tend to sleep in 3-5 hour intervals
once or twice a 'day'
so my waking hours are pretty erratic

Reminds me of DaVinci...

You guys are funny

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The first one or another one? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
cuz there's only one worth paying money for....

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The first one or another one? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

<u>Live At The Olympic Auditorium</u>

ooooh maybe I'm wrong...live...

Is it good; I've seen their live stuff on DVD and it was sick (e.g. Mexico City) and I've considered paying money to buy this album, regardless that I find the whole concept ironic as hell.

Does de la Rocha have a new band because Morello is just pissing me off...

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Is it good<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

eh, yeah.
i'm enjoying it, could always be better i suppose,
a pity the <u>ballad of tom joad</u> wasn't included
then i'd be happy.

interesting
[back on topic]
that no one has unequivocally
come out against the whole concept
of taking human life.

I think it's hard to make it that simple;
why just be against taking human life?
What's so special about us that we'll trample
over the rest of this gorgeous creation
killing whatever we feel like
but then have remorse when it comes to
doing each other in?
I'm looking at my logic now...
If we don't care about killing the planet
Why care about killing each other?
But this goes both ways;
there is no way to say that all killing is bad,
so can one say that any killing is bad?
Can a murderer be unjustified but a government can be?
I guess so...I don't think so, but some people do,
and I find it difficult to really refute what they think
based on what I've said before about us
killing everything and not giving a fuck,
or not killing anything and really giving a fuck,
as say a Zen Buddhist might.
I would say that it's very difficult to really
make an argument against killing humans
without inherantly also thinking that killing other things is bad
and I think it's very difficult to do that because
we all kill all sorts of things just by our living.

Can one truely be against killing? Even in an
ideology? How can an organism survive