NationStates Jolt Archive

AT what point in the ladder of Life does it become morally wrong to kill?

Assume, for the sake of argument that one may kill in self defence if they are in imminent, immediate danger of being killed.

Killing for pure pleasure. killing where it is unnecessary (interpret that as you will). Myself I feel this means you do not kill plants wantonly because you are bored, you don't kill more animals than you will eat or otherwise make good use of and you don't kill humans unless it's life-or-death.

I replied with all the non-human choices, although they too are sacred.

Moral justification is only for humans.

I believe the amount of justification necessary for the destuction of life is directly prportionate to the amount of awareness it has and the amount of suffering it is capable.
Viruses aren't aware or capable of suffering.

heehee, this is fun :D

I voted for both of the last options.

recap of my views from t3h previous threads:

all life is sacred; life is metaphysically more significant than non-life. Whether you can kill it or not is not an issue.

just because something is "sacred" doesn't mean you can't eat it. Sometimes it means the exact opposite - ever heard of the Eucharist?

If I felt compelled to do so, and could escape legal implications, I would kill any lifeform from humans downwards. Why would I feel the need to justify myself to any kind of "morality" system if I did not want to?

Killing for pure pleasure. killing where it is unnecessary (interpret that as you will). Myself I feel this means you do not kill plants wantonly because you are bored, you don't kill more animals than you will eat or otherwise make good use of and you don't kill humans unless it's life-or-death.


So, if i take a shower using soap, and i am enjoying the shower and pleased with the fact that i am killing microbes, you consider this morally wrong?

but if i cried in the shower at the horror of all those dead microbes, i'm okay?

just trying to figure out where the pleasure factor fits in.

Viruses aren't aware or capable of suffering.

first of all, how can you be sure?

some people think that grass suffers when you mow it.

And this type of logic leads to the typical dehumanization of one's enemies, thus making it easier to justify killing them.

You just say that they are so unaware, so clueless, that they don't have a right to live.

Viruses should not be included since they of course are not considered living and therefore unabled to be killed.

Lets see, I voted for all except human embroyos, fetuses, kill everything, not kill a thing.

You should not kill a human that wasn't around long enough to make a mistake. Is that it? No just remembered one thing

In invitro fertilization, they should get rid of the embroys that they would never use instead of freezing the hundreds of them.

first of all, how can you be sure?

some people think that grass suffers when you mow it.

And this type of logic leads to the typical dehumanization of one's enemies, thus making it easier to justify killing them.

You just say that they are so unaware, so clueless, that they don't have a right to live.

Viruses are not alive and as such can not be killed.

Plants feel nothing.
Viruses can not feel.
Bacteria can not feel.

Only things which cannot feel pain should be killed, but only killed if neccesary, so i amagainst abortion when it is not neccesary and is just the choice of some dodgy 12 year old who had sex with someone without thinking, once you hit puberty, you're old enough to know the consequences.

In invitro fertilization, they should get rid of the embroys that they would never use instead of freezing the hundreds of them.

but if you REALLY valued life, you might want to freeze them and save them for use in stem cell research.

why throw them out instead of using them to improve the quality of life?

i know if i were an in vitro embryo that wasn't going to be used for making a baby, i would at least want to be used for something good, as opposed to ending up in the biohazard bin.

Only things which cannot feel pain should be killed, but only killed if neccesary, so i amagainst abortion when it is not neccesary and is just the choice of some dodgy 12 year old who had sex with someone without thinking, once you hit puberty, you're old enough to know the consequences.

I agree on the abortion part, but food from animals is enough justification for killing them.

It is also possible to kill things without having them feel pain, it depends how you kill them.

You can:
Shoot them through the heart
Electricution
Kill them whilst(first time I used that word in a while :)) they sleep

Plants feel nothing.
Viruses can not feel.
Bacteria can not feel.

Neither can people with CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis)... does that mean they're fair game too? :rolleyes:

Viruses are not alive and as such can not be killed.

Plants feel nothing.
Viruses can not feel.
Bacteria can not feel.


okay, please cite some sort of reference proving these statements.

i, personally, am aware of research showing that plants react to being cut with a stress reaction. Is this not an indication of pain?

Plants also react to the type of music they are played. Classical music improves growth. Rock music impedes growth, and Country seems to be neutral.

I would say that is evidence that plants do feel.

but if you REALLY valued life, you might want to freeze them and save them for use in stem cell research.

why throw them out instead of using them to improve the quality of life?

i know if i were an in vitro embryo that wasn't going to be used for making a baby, i would at least want to be used for something good, as opposed to ending up in the biohazard bin.

Because I forgot all about stem cell research while I posted it. Sure give it to stem cell research or a person who wants to be impregnated instead of going to a sperm bank, whatever, just dont store it.

Neither can people with CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis)... does that mean they're fair game too? :rolleyes:
excellent point.

okay, please cite some sort of reference proving these statements.

i, personally, am aware of research showing that plants react to being cut with a stress reaction. Is this not an indication of pain?

Plants also react to the type of music they are played. Classical music improves growth. Rock music impedes growth, and Country seems to be neutral.

I would say that is evidence that plants do feel.

Also plants have the ability to develope "feelings" for people, and can be used to find a killer (source: Beyond Belief).

That doesn't mean the stress would be from pain. Maybe the plant is about to be eaten so it can't be reproduced.

As mentioned before, viruses do not fulfill life processes and as such can not be killed, and can not feel pain (they are too simple).

Bacteria are like viruses except the fact that they are considered alive, but still are too simple to be able to feel.

Neither can people with CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis)... does that mean they're fair game too? :rolleyes:

They are technically alive, and have a genetic disorder which prevents them from feeling pain, and since they are complex mammals, there are morality reasons why not to kill them. They are also not used for food, so any reason to kill them in nullified, except in self defence.

They are technically alive, and have a genetic disorder which prevents them from feeling pain, and since they are complex mammals, there are morality reasons why not to kill them. They are also not used for food, so any reason to kill them in nullified, except in self defence.

I just realized, I am the only one who voted for the first option. Damn, I am a hypocrite. Awswell.

first of all, how can you be sure?

some people think that grass suffers when you mow it.

And this type of logic leads to the typical dehumanization of one's enemies, thus making it easier to justify killing them.

You just say that they are so unaware, so clueless, that they don't have a right to live.

Suffering is more than just the ability to feel and respond to stimuli.
It involves fear, despair, the ability of self and near associates to greive. An ant pulling away from heat doesn't truly suffer the way higher life forms do. It hasn't got the complexity in it's nervous system to be capable.

never, there is no morality, the concept is laughable, so what if I kill someone its going to upset the balance of the universe and god will be angry ...... joke

The point is we have supposedly evolved above simplistic emotional backlashes to situations, we have reason, we have logic. These two tools of a rational age make it pretty damn obvious that for the good of society is not a great idea under most circumstances. And whats more a logical reason for doing or in this case not doing something gives a lot more than a simple "moral" judgement, I ask you who is the "better" man, he who doesn't kill because he knows for a fact via rational thought that killing is not in the best interests of society or the guy who doesn't kill because he believes if he does he'll be punished for it in some kind of "afterlife"

Suffering is more than just the ability to feel and respond to stimuli.
It involves fear, despair, the ability of self and near associates to greive. An ant pulling away from heat doesn't truly suffer the way higher life forms do. It hasn't got the complexity in it's nervous system to be capable.

So it's okay to kill people with affective disorders?

So it's okay to kill people with affective disorders?Technically I have an affective disorder, and I certainly suffer.

Viruses. Not actually alive, if I remember single-science gcse biology. Anyway, they contribute nothing. For the other ones you've got to have good reasons, like: it's to sustain myself, or: it's self defence. And so on and so forth.

You should only kill for:
food
self-defence
relieve victim of pain-ie: no skinning alive, no starving to death, no electrocution, no burning alive, no cutting up while not killing immediately, etc.

So, kill all the west-nile viruses and cows you want, making sure you eat the cows.

not an acceptable reason to kill:
"sport"
face it. Seriel killers kill for "sport". Does that make them right? Of course not. For the science freaks-we are simply more complex than other life-forms. How does that make us superior? I mean, we're weaker than ever and dumber too.

for religiousnuts-did god send us here to take care of the world and to learn or to destroy it for monetary gain?