Only Those Prepared To Die Have The Right To Kill

Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
By breaking down society's securities on the protection of life, they are no longer protected by that society. People who take another's life should always be prepared to die themselves.

Society is like a contract that helps better people's lives. One thing society tries to guarantee is a person's protection. Everyone works together to ensure that everyone is protected. Someone who breaks that social contract is no longer a part of that society : ).


Thoughts?

I thought this up when thinking about people without a society, freely killing each other, or people of different societies going to war, and etc... in these cases, they are not hunted down by people of their own society.

Essentially, I think that killing and etc is about betraying your own people.

For any interested, Code Geass touched on this, but I don't think that the thought came from the same line of thinking.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
So by this logic we also have the right to kill people of other societies, as we are not part of their society?
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
For me, killing is not at all a wrong thing. The only thing that may be wrong about it, outlined in the first post, is betraying your society.

I'd personally not kill as manipulation is typically better (killing, war, and etc is foolish + a hassle + a waste of time >.>).

But anyways, the thought simply is if you are ready to kill someone, be ready to be killed yourself. If you kill someone from another society, that society is likely to come after you ; ).
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,687
I hate these discussions, I always sound pretentious...

So you believe man's nature to be that of an animal, in other words An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? If so, I agree IF, and only if, society has taken a turn for the worse.
Ethics and moral codes are perfectly logical in a safe enviroment and should not be severed completely, unless the situation demands it. I consider these codes to be a natural progression/adjustment.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
The problem I'm having here is that you paint the victim as a completely faceless, unimportant being. Being ready to be killed does not justify murder, as your victim might not be ready to be killed. You are basically shutting him out completely. The difference between your life and other's is that you are in control of your life. You make the decision. However you do not pose that same control over another's life, therefor just because you are ready to die does not mean you are justified to kill someone else.
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
Anything a person is capable of doing is within the boundaries of what that person might do ^_-. Our rights are anything that we can do: the only rules we follow are the rules we and our society defines.

It is in this sense that everyone has the right to kill. However, exercising that right disconnects that person from the defined rules of society that previously protecting them. From here, the person must be prepared to die if they are prepared to kill.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
Anything a person is capable of doing is within the boundaries of what that person might do ^_-. Our rights are anything that we can do: the only rules we follow are the rules we and our society defines.

It is in this sense that everyone has the right to kill. However, exercising that right disconnects that person from the defined rules of society that previously protecting them. From here, the person must be prepared to die if they are prepared to kill.

But the person being killed might not be ready to die, therefor how can the murder be justified simply because the murderer is ready to die?
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
Except they very much play into your actions as your action in this case puts their whole existence at risk.
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
No, I am claiming that the murderer may not care about the victim, or they may want the victim dead. In the latter case, the feelings of the victim may change the murderer's actions, but in the first, nothing the victim says can change the murderer's intent because the murderer doesn't care. It's like, "Boom, you're dead." Perhaps they end it with a laugh, thinking they finally shut up the victim's whining.

You are assuming that everyone has moral guideposts -.-. I must say that thinking that way is naive ; ).

The murderer may not even hold themselves in high regard.

In that situation, the murderer is the only factor that matters. It's based on the murder whether that person will live or die. The victim may only play as a factor if the murderer actually cares in the first place.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,607
Morally or not, a murder is not something which only factors one side. It's a two sided thing, therefor both sides must also accept it. You are going with a primitive eye for an eye scenario here, where the murderer can be killed because he killed. However that is false, as if he kills another person, he should be killed twice, except that's impossible. There this scenario fails.

Also lives are very different, unique, as every person has their own genetic make up, skeleton structure, etc. Therefor the murderer's life and the victim's life have completely different values which cannot be compared. So just because the murderer is willing to die and throw away his life doesn't mean he is justified to take another life.
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
As far as rights go, this is the best arguement I've heard. It's George Carlin's arguement.

Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.

Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please, BUT! If I do something you don’t like I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer fucking deal than that? So the next time some asshole says to you “I have the right to my opinion.” You say, “oh yeah? Well I have the right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion!” then shoot the fuck and walk away…
"You Have No Rights" George Carlin

For the video: (The "rights" section starts at 4:23)

As far as morals go, they are little more than excuses for ones actions. BS statements backed by vague and empty sentiments.

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
Saying "right" to kill suggests that they can do it without facing any consequences.

What you are saying is that you only have the right to kill someone without consequences if you are prepared to face the consequences of you killing them.

It doesn't really make sense.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
850
Good luck going to jail and spending your good days in that cold and deadly prison with other mad people and such who caused them to go into prison.

And getting released in 10 years because of good behavior and $100,000 worth of bail. Then you get released back into society to do as you please as a regular civilian who doesn't have to tell anyone that they are a murderer, because you have regained your rights to privacy again and people can't look at your record. Then, you either commit another crime, and repeat above process, or you die knowing that you've cheated the entire system and society itself because you listened to the guards and acted nice.
 
Level 6
Joined
Mar 29, 2004
Messages
109
Is this a pro capital punishment argument?

Killing someone as a punishment never sat well with me. The only possible closure that victims can feel is vengeance. Nothing really positive comes from that. By committing murder they have earned a life in confinement suffering and above all else anal violation and physical beatings.

Why give them the release of death?

People who take lives away from other people ought to have theirs taken also...but not literally. Put them in a windowless hole with minimal food and water for the rest of their lives. No tennis court. No television set. No mail. A hole inside the hole in the ground to crap in. They can wipe their @$$es with their fingers. Take away every piece of meaning in their life. Let them know that no one will remember them when they are gone and that in the end they will die alone in a cold windowless hole.

For added effect, when they die, unceremoniously fill in the hole with dirt...no gravestone. Make sure the other inmates see it happen.

Maybe, somewhere along the line he will beg for forgiveness.

Killing a killer is such a short sighted way to get revenge.
 
Your threads freak me out. Why should those prepared to die have the right to kill? No one has the right to kill. Not even soldiers. Everyone has the right to live. Even if some man runs over your pet dog, you have as little right to chop his head off and burn his carcass as he has to killing your pet(this is a friendly example, don't tell me that the magnitude of the comparison is too great, as it is just an example).
No one deserves to die. This does not mean they don't deserve to be punished.
End of story.
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
Er... in my argument, I strip all moral values and fair play and simply look at it from a logical standpoint, which says party A can kill party B without worry if party A is prepared to die themselves.

It's not about deserving to die or being punished or any of that. This is why I'm having a hard time discussing this with you guys because you are bringing in other elements that I stripped in my own argument -.-. You need to strip them as well and look at it from that point of view ; P, otherwise we're arguing apples and oranges.
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,307
I'm just posting topics I find interesting ; P.

I've been having to write a lot of papers lately ;D.

And I still think, in this regard, that people only have the right to kill if they are prepared to die themselves (social contract and etc).

Please explain, with moral values aside, why everyone then has the right to kill anyone anywhere?
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
At which point did killing end up being about rights? The only way to discuss this, is with morals. Without them we're animals, with relatively small paws.

... with morals we're still animals. The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, and all religions prove that point.

Also: animals are born and they eat, breathe, shit, fuck, and die.
Are humans born? Yes.
Do humans eat, breathe, shit, fuck, and die? Yes.
We are animals...

Then the arguement is that because of our intelligence and technology, we are not animals. See previous statement (animals), and note that 'building' things is not unique to our species; the only unique thing is that we build machines that do our 'thinking' for us.

Then the arguement becomes: Well, god made us in his image and made all of the birds and beasts to feed and serve and entertain us.
~The people using this arguement are incapable of realizing how arrogant they are in even referencing this notion.

We are animals. Literally and figuratively. Most morals are linked to a god (or gods) and enforced through a religion. God (religion) is the leading cause of death for the human race.

So, in accordance with religion, people have the right to kill other people because some god told them it was a good idea... usually for one of these reasons:

1) They don't belive in any god
2) They believe in the wrong god
3) They believe in too many gods
4) They disagree about some trivial 'fact' and break off into a slightly different sect
5) If they kill 'bad' people they'll have a slot reserved for them in one of the heavens.

//\\==//\\
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
Er... in my argument, I strip all moral values and fair play and simply look at it from a logical standpoint, which says party A can kill party B without worry if party A is prepared to die themselves.
But that isn't a right, Nestharus. That's capability. Plus I can murder someone without being prepared to die myself; I am fully capable of it, and when I strip all moral values and fair play and simply look at it from a logical standpoint, it says that if I murder them in a way that I am not caught, I will not face any punishment.

The word right in and of itself suggests that you can do it without. any. punishment. Stating that you have the right to do something if and only if you are prepared to accept the punishment (ie: dying yourself) is illogical because if you have the right to do something, you don't need to be prepared to accept the punishment, because there IS no punishment.
 
archie-bunker.jpg

Nestharus, why do you keep making these threads?
 
Please explain, with moral values aside, why everyone then has the right to kill anyone anywhere?

No morals = no definition of what is right and who has rights, therefore, if there are no morals, there are no rights, and if there are no rights, that means, everyone has equal rights, which means I could walk in a pub and shoot a man in the chest. I basically mean what mrzwach said.

Technically, we are animals, but, please, people, go to school and learn figurative language.

Without them we're animals, with relatively small paws.

Like, really, Boris_Spider, everyone knows he means 'animals', as in savages and so forth, you don't have to post a whole freaking paragraph about this hocus pocus.

EDIT: Responding to the lower post;
Believe it or not, I did read that bit. But, don't you see that he means 'animal' compared to the human standards? eg. George, with a height of 5', calls Stephanie, who has a height of 7', very tall.
So, if I study my English right, I think fladdermasken means 'barbaric' and 'savage' compared to human 'norms' and standards.
And you see what we do now, wasting 3 posts offtopic?
 
Last edited:
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
Like, really, Boris_Spider, everyone knows he means 'animals', as in savages and so forth, you don't have to post a whole freaking paragraph about this hocus pocus.

...We are animals. Literally and figuratively...

I knew that and covered it as well. That "whole freaking paragraph about this hocus pocus" was to shut out all of those arguements.

//\\oo//\\
 
Top