Why is killing bad?

would you mind if someone killed you or your family?

>>2254147
Because government's need a monopoly on the use of force.

File: eldritchabomination3.jpg (862KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 800x1200px

>>2254147

Because every soul set free by human hands is one less to be offered to Shah'harack upon His coming, which is essential to ensure His victory over the other Star Gods.

>>2254147
Kill yourself and you will find out why

>>2254147
Not all killing is bad, obviously, but some killing is obviously bad like going postal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

>>2254147
Depends on your definition of bad which comes from your philosophical point of view.

If you are theist you say its bad because objective morality comes from God and he said that killing is indeed bad.

If you dont believe in god then there is nothing objectively good or bad because there is nothing objective (like God is for theists) that dictates morality so killing is not bad or good.

But then you can subjectively define good or bad. For example utilitarians define good as those actions that bring more happiness to the world and bad is the opposite.

For example if you killed " insert the best person in the world here" it would be bad because people would feel sad, or he wouldnt be able to continue to do good for others or w.e

But if for example you kill someone who was going to mass murder an entire country and killing him was the only way to stop him then it would probably be good.

>t. PhD in Philosophy

>>2254147
makes things dead

>>2254164

Fuck off SHILL'harack

t. Yssmgiisdil

File: kek.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>>2254189
>he got a PhD in Philosophy

>>2254234
Yes and I make 6 figures a year working in the Ministry of Culture of my country.

Not all philosophers work at Mc Donalds

>>2254259
>ministry of culture

Might as well work for McDolan's.

File: 1483910051751.png (305KB, 960x530px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 960x530px

>>2254147
Because it violates the NAP

>>2254189
>phd in philosophy
>this is what he has to say about morality

your professors were fucking shoemakers

>>2254268
But at least Im not a meme like you living with my parents and actually make a lot of money.

>>2254272
Says the one who knows shit about philosophy.

I dont care about if I sound fancy or not, or about your 13 yeards old opinion, thats what it is.

>>2254274
I, sir, am a financially independent meme.

>>2254281
Good for you, Im a financially independent meme too.

>>2254147
Because some people don't want to be killed

>>2254274
You're a meme for being a tripfag

>>2254147
Because a society that does not kill its members unjustly will always out preform a society that,does, all other things being equal.

>>2254259
what kind of culture has a ministry that subsidizes it and shits it out into 4chan?

>>2254278
youre really bad at ur job

>>2254278
nevar forget how philosophers used to take up 400 pages defining what "is" means, , ,now we have philosphers like you

>>2254147
Because of a certain thought enhancer we have been programmed with. It was not present in the original monkey's software.

File: 82e17ebf6d09e5d1813f52c6047f3e05.jpg (145KB, 673x680px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 673x680px

>>2254189
>objective morality comes from God

>>2254165
Honestly not a great example, he'd just be doing everyone a favor.

Because people die when they are killed.

>>2255632
nevar forget when we had shitposters who were australian, now we have faggots like you

>>2256114
If you're a theist, yes? Do you read mother fucker?

You understand its possible to describe opinions without ascribing to them?

>>2254147
Because or biological goal is to ensure the survival of our species. Killing is directly contrary to that goal.

>>2254164
Is this a Final Fantasy secret boss?

>>2254147
Killing is bad if you kill good people

>>2254147

Do you want to be killed? No? Then it behoves you to support a ban on killing.

>>2254147
Killing someone in any regard but self defense is implies depravity and lack of impulse control. It takes an absolutely monsterous to kill someone who was just minding their own business or who's too weak to defend themselves. It means that you've gotten to a point where you can rationalize killing people off for fun, you've become unable to function in human society, and should be put away for the sake of everyone else.

>>2256160
absolutely not you retard. You could have a non-personal God that doesn't care about what you do. God isn't requisite for morals to exist. kys

>>2256146
Don't believe everything they say in Chinese cartoons you fool.

>>2254278
lol I'm an undergrad and already writing at a higher level than your reddit primer up there. Fucking pathetic

>>2254147
it makes people dead. They generally don't appreciate that.

>>2254147
Killing isn't bad. Nothing is bad because bad doesn't exist.

>>2254147
Because then people don't like and and kill you, and dying is bad.

>>2256606

again,theists believe god provides those objective morals.of course there could be a god that doesnt give a rats ass about all of us and the beliefs of theists would still say god would care.

>>2254278

Besides pretentious faggotry,what do philosophy students learn that the average /his/ poster couldnt grasp?

>>2254164
Fuck off faggot the Bogdanoff brothers already have the Star Gods by the balls and they never needed one sacrifice.

>>2256606
Are you even reading what you're typing? The claim is that theists think God serves as the foundation for objective morality. Nobody thinks God HAS to perform this function logically - just that the role of God DOES in fact serve this philosophical function for the vast majority theists. Quit being so butthurt about people saying the G word you moralizing faggot.

>>2256433
Agreed. You can motivate your ban on killing with a lot of philosophies, but I'd say the simplest reason, probably (at least subconsciously) at the root of all other arguments, is game theory.

>>2256790
Bad does exist, from a completely subjective point of view. There are things that are good for me and bad for me.

>>2256164
This

Also infighting is bad for everyone, don't packs of wolves and dogs stop fighting amongst themselves because it ruins the pack?

File: haha yes.jpg (161KB, 538x491px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 538x491px

>>2254189
>he fell for the "theist morality is more objective" meme

>>2254189
how are you such a lifeless writer and elementary thinker

>>2254147
>implying ancient societies thought it was
>impling they it wasn't more of a question of regulation rather than morality
Where did modern society go so wrong?

>>2258204
>muh enlightenment
>muh secular humanism
>muh rights

>>2254147
Because I said so

>>2256955
Because people made it up it exists? That's not an argument at all, you can apply this logic to anything!

>>2258306
>acknowledge the logic
>somehow not an argument
Kek. Ever heard of constructs- No, not the buzz word social ones just constructs in general? Are you aware of the concept of abstraction, perhaps?

>>2254147
There is no good and bad, just ways of controlling you. Killing is made bad because it benefits others that you not kill them. That would totally destroy their immersion in their made up fantasy world in which morals are subjective and the government is your boss because "they said so."

I don't want to get killed, I don't want my family to get killed. Society can keep singing their mantra of "killing is bad *unless in certain situations where the government does it", but no matter how many laws they make, strong people will still protect themselves to death.

It's is kind of elementary level philosophy, read up about nihilism or summin'. Really opens your eyes.

>>2254147

Human beings, when taken as a population and as a statistical group, have certain very common, normal, typical, innate attributes which precede all culture, and are down to evolution, so far as science is presently able to elucidate. When "properly functioning", they (that is, the individuals) are social beings that establish various social relationships, and variously cooperate and compete with each other within a community of human beings. The cooperation would seem to be an adaptation which gives the individuals of the community each a statistical net benefit in terms of survival, while the competition seems to be chiefly concerned with access to intraspecies resources which are peculiarly in demand among certain humans (sexual access by male humans to attractive young female humans, say), interspecies resources in demand by other entities (food in general, viz. other animals), and probably also cultural reproduction on the more elaborate end of things, which latter I will not develop too much.

Take two simplistic yet valid examples: the hermit breaks his leg, and for want of living in proximity to other human beings who might come to his aid, he bleeds out and dies at thirty. On the other hand, the risk-averse individual who never endeavors to compete for resources of any kind, either dies for want of procuring food, money, or otherwise fails to reproduce for want of the appropriate intraspecies competition. These succinctly illustrate the benefits and hazards of both cooperation and competition among humans.

cont.

>>2258410

It also bears mentioning, on the way to coming toward the point, that the above two impulses are ultimately wholly irreconcilable, one with the other, from an objective point of view. If they seem to be reconcilable, then this is because of our subjective human point of view which obliges us and makes us pretty good at, for the above general reasons, navigating the tension between the two. But one is only ever vacillating, hazarding the one in order to serve the other. Synergy is false, only optimization is possible. Just because someone at a distance abmires someone else for having schemed properly, or gamed the situation the right way, does not mean that the observer would appreciate actually losing out to the winner being observed and reflected upon. The observer is perhaps more likely to be projecting themselves into the role of the winner, upon observing the winner.

The above is so straightforward, and accords so well with theory and experience, that it justifies the admittedly simple and vague following working principle, which confused thinking tends to deny for various technical reasons that do not actually bear upon the matter, once the right scrutiny is applied. The legitimate working principle that I refer to, is this: "Human nature exists."

cont.

>>2258420

I referred in the first paragraph to very common statistical attributes of human beings, which include the above specific modes of cooperation and competition, which are variously required so that the individual organism, seen coldly from the scientific point of view, can do the basic things that animals are "supposed" to do, "evolved" to do, whatever verb you prefer to arrive at the straightforward conclusion that we all anticipate by now, in our modern terms which yet have been obviously relevant in every period, even if understood differently (which just goes to their general truth): stay alive, and maybe reproduce. Other subspecies that deserve mentioning but which I will give lower privilege, and thus not develop further, include: feel good, avoid pain, and so on. These secondary hedonic items are just my catch-all for things like: feel psychologically okay, be accepted, eat the tasty food, literally feel good via orgasm even (or especially, depravedly!) if it doesn't result in impregnation, etc. You're "doing" what the animal is "supposed to be doing", on some level.

So let me now introduce a third attribute, in addition to cooperation and competition among humans: memory. We interact with each other, cooperate and compete with one another, and in the course of this, we remember each other. We remember the good turns, the lucky breaks, the rejections, the slights, and the violence done against us, if any.

Now let's start groping toward answering the OP's question, given this foundation. Equipped with memory, humans are trapped in their animal nature, which amounts to invoking their human nature, to variously cooperate and compete with one another. somewhere in here is also an evolutionary, or sometimes hedonic, fear of death.

cont.

>>2258457

I'm petering out now, since I want to do something else, but where I'm going sketches out something like this: explain how murder is psychologically possible to begin with (as a consequence of the above irreconcilable tensions of cooperation and competition, in addition to straight up maladaption of some humans which is so obvious that I haven't even addressed it: mental illness, etc). Explain the social impulse to kill a killer as being perhaps sometimes a perceived net positive to human life, and actually answer the OP's question with a qualified justification of the golden rule (which, by the way, is a truth), which arises exactly because of the memory/cooperation/competition/etc schema that I've sketched, and which is fairly obvious to most although the details can get lost in the shuffle. Another point of order for me is to banish god from the discussion as being part of the super-structural projection of this stuff which comes well /after/ the fact of the human organism and society itself, eventually codifying and solidifying, perhaps confusedly, in various ways (religion, culture), but always /after the fact/ of human nature which requires the invocation of no God, being a scientific phenomenon, by generally agreeing with conventional western, nu-atheist evopsych ideas on the matter.

>>2254147
Because the prospect of being painfully killed by someone doesn't appeal to me.

>>2254147
It isn't depending on the context.

Murder is justified if the benefits of that person dying to the entire human race outweigh the losses. It's a basic utilitarian principle.

>>2254189
Why are autists so triggered by this? Literally nothing here is wrong btw

>>2254147

Because it could happen to you