No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Philosophy, religion, social sciences, politics and exegesis und so weiter.

Killing...

...is sometimes justified.
2
40%
...is never justified.
3
60%
...is alright as long as nobody finds out!
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Armand » Mon Mar 27, 2006 19:45

This might be a very basic question, but one that has eluded me from the beginning and still keeps doing so. Or that's what I keep telling myself. Anyhow we gotta get this forum area started! Mad FFS! Mad

So, what do you think defines what is alright to do and what is not? What defines our morals, ethics, all that jazz? Are there any "universal rules", or is it all man-made? Has perhaps some greater entity decided that "Thou shalt not <insert something fun here> or thine puny soul shall burn in the fires of Righteousness!" etc... Or are there rules sort of built-in to the way everything works?

Also, what is it that makes one to follow the rules then? Divine retribution? Hell? Or nothing, and that it's just the smart thing to do? The right thing to do? Why? Laughing

What has been troubling me in particular is the thing about killing. Most other "sins" can be made up for somehow, but killing... well, not yet at least Confused So, I'd like you to include some thoughts about that particular deed, based on your views on the aforementioned issues.

User avatar
Smeagol
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 1422
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 14:32
Location: Vänersborg, Sweden
Contact:

Postby Smeagol » Tue Mar 28, 2006 21:30

It's a scary question (the poll) and it feels like you'll get backstabbed for the answer you give. This is not an answer or anything but simply thoughts i have revolving killing and instincts.

Killing a person in self defence is perhaps the most basic animal instinct we have, often it doesn't have to result in death but...

Killing a person to declare your place in the heirarchy is also one basic instinct, which is going away thanks to evolution

Killing to feed, is a must (yea yea über veggies, but plants are also people... Rolling Eyes )

I still don't think we should kill eachothers, killing is not a solution. I believe that if both parties are willing to discuss in an intelligent manner everything can be resolved without having to shoot someone in the head. Be it in times of war or Gregor vs Greger arguing who is the tallest guy in town. If they simply must do some sort of violence i rather see them kicking the shit out of eachothers in a UFC type of way Razz

I hope this is readable.. don't try to make sense of anything o_o I'm just typing words coming out of my head.
He's not heavy, he's my brother.

User avatar
nobile
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 00:32
MySpace: www.myspace.com/nobile01
Location: Honduras
Contact:

Postby nobile » Thu Mar 30, 2006 07:04

I agree with Smeagol, except in the killing to declare your place in heirarchy thing, I don't think that is a justified thing =P I like to think I'm a bit better than an irrational animal =P
Last edited by nobile on Wed Sep 03, 2008 21:36, edited 1 time in total.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder <3

User avatar
Smeagol
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 1422
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 14:32
Location: Vänersborg, Sweden
Contact:

Postby Smeagol » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:09

Heh don't misunderstand me, i didn't mean i was accepting that Razz We humans are smarter than having to beat someone up to show that we are higher up ^^
He's not heavy, he's my brother.

User avatar
Nimmyelf
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 20:25
Location: misery

Postby Nimmyelf » Mon Apr 03, 2006 23:21

"if someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!"

User avatar
nobile
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 00:32
MySpace: www.myspace.com/nobile01
Location: Honduras
Contact:

Postby nobile » Tue Apr 04, 2006 05:34

Neutral
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder <3

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

Postby Armand » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:10

I was just thinking how my thoughts are like a spring river, pushing anything not fixed (and some of that too) from it's way and never staying in one place. In english, this means that if you ask my opinion of something at a given time and then ask again six hours later, chances are you get a different answer.

Anyhow, that doesn't stop me from giving them answers Laughing Mad

At the moment all I have to say is, there are no right actions, only right thoughts, right intent.

User avatar
Mortis
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 1979 01:00
Contact:

Postby Mortis » Wed Apr 05, 2006 00:55

I like to think I adhere to the following thought chain whenever this question is asked:

1. Human beings come to this world without any "human" knowledge (the concept of tabula rasa, clean slate, untouched mind etc., from John Locke).
2. Therefore, good and bad, among other such concepts, cannot be universal if people are not born with knowledge of them.
3. Ergo: Good and bad must then be historical "baggage", invented at some period in time, (probably for functionalistic purposes).

Humanity, whatever that is, seems to be an accumulated (though deficient) sum of its parts; despite the fact that it starts and ends at individual personas and personalities, it is an ongoing and fluctuating process. It would, therefore, be naive to allow our concepts assume a value a priori or in se; instead, we should only evaluate what we have a posteriori, in reference to the current state of reality and society we are in.

This is essentially why much of regulations and rules we currently have are considered "common sense", i.e. they make a modern society work the way it works. Makes you wonder if there is a way out?

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

Postby Armand » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:38

What a beautiful post, Mort! I agree, it is all very logical and thought-out. The chain does hold true, assuming that we are indeed born tabula rasa, assuming that we are not born with some sort of a connection to existing knowledge, or rather, awareness of the way things are.

What do you think causes your self-sacrificing, altruistic feelings?

From what point does your poetry ultimately flow from?

User avatar
Mortis
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 1979 01:00
Contact:

Postby Mortis » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:51

Admittably there exists a possibility for speculation regarding the relationship between a mother and a baby in the uterus: What, exactly, is being transferred by the body to the new human? Is information stored in the brain and spine in something that could be assumed to be, well, a standard database, of which something is then carried over to the baby?

The problem with such a train of thought, of course, is that one doesn't need to go further than (or, as far back as possible, if you will) the first animal with human qualities - where did those human qualities come from -if- such concepts were transplanted in utero? What "data" would there have been to carry over?

I assume one could satisfactorily explain this with a creation myth or two.

As for so-called altruism (explanations of which are manifold), let us turn to satanism for some good jolly fun! Twisted Evil Let us assume that a practicing satanist, while always trying to maximize the joys of one's own self, would not feel like taking a faux pas even if one were to give alms to the poor, when the ultimate result of such seemingly illogical behavior is joy for both parties. Why would a satanist deny him- or herself good egotistical joy (of supremacy and potence) even if it benefits someone else?

I guess it would be logically possible (desirable?) to digress towards a discussion of utilitarism from here.

As for art (and the flow of poetry), perhaps I'll do a further thread after I've cleaned up my old essay on "the artist" and published it here. It only has subjective views (some of which have refined over the passing years), but as always subjective views are the only views discussion-worthy!

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

Postby Armand » Wed Apr 05, 2006 16:08

I was not talking about information being transferred from a mother to her unborn baby - and you know it! Confused Isn't all that stuff scientifically proven and studied already anyway?

And I did not ask what an assumed satanist would do or why - I asked YOU *points* Twisted Evil And I still want an answer, dude.

User avatar
Mortis
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 1979 01:00
Contact:

Postby Mortis » Thu Apr 06, 2006 17:54

I apologize for not describing the aims of my previous posts better: My intention was merely to lay a broader foundation for (the) discussion in general. I wasn't really attempting to answer anyone's questions in particular, just trying to concentrate on issues that might need attention of some kind for a more wholesome approach.

May I ask what the exact question that you would want answered is?

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

Postby Armand » Thu Apr 06, 2006 18:09

What (do you think/believe) causes your self-sacrificing, altruistic feelings/thoughts/actions?

User avatar
Armand
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 20:16

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Armand » Tue Feb 06, 2007 22:07

*bump*

(Even tho the starter of this thread was an ass and I'd happily at least try to kick him there...)

Anyway, in retrospect! Mortis!

Humanity, whatever that is, seems to be an accumulated (though deficient) sum of its parts; despite the fact that it starts and ends at individual personas and personalities, it is an ongoing and fluctuating process. It would, therefore, be naive to allow our concepts assume a value a priori or in se; instead, we should only evaluate what we have a posteriori, in reference to the current state of reality and society we are in.


That's excellently put rly, but! Does it mean you deny the possibility of us finding out the fundamental "laws" that run the world? Because if they could be understood, they could (depending on their nature) be "applied", if not a priori, then at least momentarily? Or to go with the latin flow, ab uno disce omnes?

I put the "law" in "" because I'm beginning to think that calling them laws is misleading and leads people to think of silly stuff in the vein of "thou shalt not do this nor that lest thou wishes to be stoned to death". Stuff like ultra ban on killing, divorce, abortion, torture or oldskool pederasty. I mean sure all this is 0ld thinking but, I kinda see it in a new way now. Perhaps the word "law" could be replaced with "seed"? Or, after one has thoroughly thought out the meaning of the concept, even "chaos"!

2 3

PS. And yea, *BUMP*, I still want an answer man

User avatar
Darkelth
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 18:48
SteamID: Darkelth
Location: Tampere (Lempäälä), Finland
Contact:

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Darkelth » Sun Aug 31, 2008 18:35

Forum marathon.

I can't think myself killing anyone. My ideas about guns and so on has been very "I touch no gun"-like. As an example, when I'm an adult, there was a war, I would not kill for my land. Or perhaps I would, but that would be only myself.

I don't even want to learn how to use a gun, that's only mission is to take someone's life.
Martial arts, swords and etc, are cool. I have practiced them. But with those weapons, you don't have to kill your opponent. when with gun, you hurt your opponent more, and most likely kill him/her. That's something I never want to do.
If you want to be happy for a day, drink alcohol. If you want to be happy for a year, get yourself married. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, start gardening. - An old Chinese aphorism.

Nickelplate
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 19:55

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Nickelplate » Wed Sep 03, 2008 22:19

I believe that there is absolute right and wrong. My view is that everything is either true or false: black or white. If anything ever appears to be grey, look closer and there will be small parts of black and white just close together. Like the pixels on your screen that make every color with RGB in different configurations.
I would say that the preponderance of people in this day and age would like to believe in subjective morals, situational ethics, and relative right and wrong as they make it much easier to do exactly what you want, when you want, and feel perfectly justified doing it. However, the flaw in this line of thinking is that there will always be those who do not have a sense of anyone outside themselves and if they want to kill, rape, steal, or commit any other type of victim-based crime, who upon commission of such acts will inevitable be negatively affecting the lives of others who had no choice in their part of the situation. Along with this general mode of thinking comes an attitude about the opposite way of thinking, of which Armand's original posting is a perfect example (I'll explain now). As for the consequences of breaking the law of Right and Wrong, there is no "consequence of divine wrath" as is commonly thought.
For every action there is an (one or more) equal and opposite reaction(s). Each action is the reaction of one or more actions prior thereto. Given this bit of common knowledge, we can logically debunk the theory that there is a jealous being that burns - or doesnt - people according to who did and did not, respectively, break His arbitrary rules. Instead of thinking that humans can do whatever they want, and, when the time comes, be judged for their actions and sorted accordingly (and were it not for this Cosmic Judge, everyone would continue on into happiness and bliss) we must think of pain and suffering, or Divine Wrath if you wish, as the default destination for all (without, for now, giving thought to a more pleasant destination ;) ).
This is where it all ties together, Looking at my example of a victim-based crime above:
How can the action be good (it feels good and I want to) for one person and bad (I'm raped and dead now) for the other person. Being the same action and given the nature and very definition of "right" and "wrong" as opposites and thus the logical inability for something to BE both one thing and that thing's very opposite, I would by logic be forced to conclude that the dichotomy between right and wrong prevents an action from being both, and thus, right/wrong relativity cannot exist.

Epilogue: I know I've sort of changed subjects a bit, or so it would seem, but given the nature of quantum mechanics, all things really ARE related. ;) If you think I've jumped to any conclusions in my logic please ask and allow me to explain.

oops! Edit time!
Mortis, I think that human knowledge of something does not preclude it from existing. there are many things that exist outside the sphere of collective human knowledge.

Nickelplate
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 19:55

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Nickelplate » Wed Sep 03, 2008 22:33

On the subject of guns, I think that they are tools. I would say that almost ALL tools are lethal if used in the wrong way: a hammer can be embedded in a person's skull just as easily as a bullet, you just have to be closer. However, IMO there is no need for things like "armor-piercing bullets" and guns that are made to get through security checkpoints. Guns really have no place in a city environment except perhaps for law-enforcement. And handguns, it should be noted, are not in the same category as "tool" guns such as a rifle that a man uses to shoot a deer so he can feed his family, or shoot a bear so his family does not become feed. ;)

All tools are lethal, it is the ease with which they can be misused that differentiates them.

User avatar
Darkelth
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 18:48
SteamID: Darkelth
Location: Tampere (Lempäälä), Finland
Contact:

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Darkelth » Thu Sep 04, 2008 15:23

But about the guns. I fully agree that you can have a gun, if you need it to kill animals for food, or defend against bears and so on.

But in our environment, there's no need. You can kill with a hammer yes, but its main purpose is to help you nail things somewhere. You can kill with a motorsaw, but its function is to cut down trees. But with a gun, its function is to take someones life.
If you want to be happy for a day, drink alcohol. If you want to be happy for a year, get yourself married. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, start gardening. - An old Chinese aphorism.

Nickelplate
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 19:55

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Nickelplate » Thu Sep 04, 2008 21:48

Darkelth wrote:But about the guns. I fully agree that you can have a gun, if you need it to kill animals for food, or defend against bears and so on.

But in our environment, there's no need. You can kill with a hammer yes, but its main purpose is to help you nail things somewhere. You can kill with a motorsaw, but its function is to cut down trees. But with a gun, its function is to take someones life.


you are specifying too far. Not "someones life." But just "Life in general." not necessarily human.

User avatar
Darkelth
Kakaist
Kakaist
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 18:48
SteamID: Darkelth
Location: Tampere (Lempäälä), Finland
Contact:

Re: No Rest For The Wicked, Rest For The Rest?

Postby Darkelth » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:30

Nickelplate wrote:
Darkelth wrote:But about the guns. I fully agree that you can have a gun, if you need it to kill animals for food, or defend against bears and so on.

But in our environment, there's no need. You can kill with a hammer yes, but its main purpose is to help you nail things somewhere. You can kill with a motorsaw, but its function is to cut down trees. But with a gun, its function is to take someones life.


you are specifying too far. Not "someones life." But just "Life in general." not necessarily human.


This was totally the cultural difference. Here in Finland someone's = jonkun, and the "jonkun" word is used both to humans and animals, it is used for everything. :)
If you want to be happy for a day, drink alcohol. If you want to be happy for a year, get yourself married. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, start gardening. - An old Chinese aphorism.


Return to “Deep Thr... ought”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests