Why is killing bad?

>>3031227
Well depends upon the morals that you subscribe to.

File: 1494991638493.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>3031227
Its not

>>3031231
>morals

>>3031227
fuck back off to /pol/ kthx.

its mean

>>3031238
It is impossible to escape a moral system. You must assign values to actions even if that assignment is all zero.

All of the human groups without strong restrictions on intra-group homicide got conquered by groups of humans that were better at cooperating.

>>3031227
Because it shows you have unhinged uncivilized impulses that cant be regulated.

Killing is a perfectly useful tool with many uses, but there are many situations where it isn't the best tool for the job.

I wouldn't try to hang a picture with a miter saw.

>>3031311
But soldiers get medals for doing that.

>>3031227
MURDER is bad.

>>3031227
Exodus 20:13, Heathen.

>>3031227
It's not

>>3031227
Killing is bad (if intentional) because it denies the victim autonomy and it presumably harms them or does not benefit them

>>3031482
What if the person you killed was attempting to kill someone else?

>>3031498
It depends. Is it necessary to kill them to stop them from killing? Because if so then killing them is not an end or a means but a foreseeable side effect, which in this case depending on the broader context may be justified. However, if killing the would be killer isn't necessary but convenient then doing so is a means which is fully intended by the actor and thus bad.

>>3031520
How do you decide if it is necessary or merely convenient?

>>3031227
Human society couldn't function if killing were legal. Seriously, it couldn't. That's the first (not the only, just the first of many) filter you go through to decide if things are good or not, whether or not society could function if anyone could do it whenever they wanted.

>>3031530
If there is no other way (that you could reasonably be expected to know about in your position) to stop the person from killing except for killing them then it is necessary, however, if there is another way to stop them but you choose to kill them as your means of stopping them then it is not necessary but convenient

>>3031583
What if other ways are less likely to succeed?

Should I really risk an innocent life to protect a murderer?

>>3031601
It depends on the chances, there is no threshold point at which an alternative option becomes viable enough that you should chance it but obviously something with a >1% chance isn't a reasonable option whereas something with a >90% would be

>>3031610
*<1%

>>3031610
I don't think there's any threshold. If there is any chance at all that my non-lethal method will fail while my lethal method would have succeeded, I should use the lethal method.

Once someone has shown that they are going to kill an innocent person, they forfeit their protections under the social contract. Society is a two-way street, if you stop holding up your end of the bargain, there's no reason for society to continue holding up its end.

>>3031632
Society may be a two way street but morality is not, your moral obligations to other do not change even if the others are not morally righteous

>>3031398
The difference is they kill the 'other guy'.

>>3031554

And why is the existence or stability of society good?