Are you capable??

Dr.Feelgood

Purely for the sake of interest.

And to see if my worldly brothers and sisters have lost the plot or not.

Do you think that you could be capable of taking another life? Not in war, not in a moment of madness....
Not that i would or would condone this at all.
Having said that how do you know until every button you have has been pushed but i mean premeditated, planned, not for revenge!!

Or say if you had a friend who told you they had killed somebody what would you do???
This is hypothetical of course, no one has a life more important than someone elses. We all know that or at least i hope we do and if not all hopefully a vast majority.

If this question is too much or offensive believe me it is not intended that way, it is mostly due to the fact i havent slept in about 44 hours and this screen is my only outlet right now.

My answer is no, just for the record, and depending on which friend told me they did it and why they did it, if i thought they were a psycho i'd take him or her in. If it was momentary madness i'm guilty i might help get him out of the country. There are only 2 people in the world i'd do that for, one male one female, they are close. And to be honest 2 of the most chilled out people i have ever met so i'm not worried. ARE YOU?

MrPudding

Difficult question. With regards to a friend telling me he had killed someone. How I reacted would depend on the circumstances.

For myself I do not know if I could or would kill someone. I don't think that many people do.

For me I can see 2 occasion when killing someone may be an "option" The first one is a fight, for whatever reason. People get into fights, maybe a bit pissed or whatever. We see it in the news all the time. In a case like this I would hope that I would not kill someone, unless the second senario comes to pass.

The second scenario is where I beleive that either my life or that of a member of my family or a friend was at risk. In this case I woul dhope that I woul dbe capable of taking a life in order to protect those that are important to me.

MrP

Neuro

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

This is hypothetical of course, no one has a life more important than someone elses.

Most people would agree with this statement which inevitably leads to a utilitarian world view i.e. the good of the greatest number. Of course, in such a society and if circumstances arose that required it, 51% of the population would see no problem in killing the other 49% if it somehow made them 'happier' (I use this word in the utilitarian sense).

In other words, if everyone's life is of equal value it does not necessarily imply that people would never consider killing one another, it just means that they'd need a very good reason to do so.

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

If this question is too much or offensive believe me it is not intended that way, it is mostly due to the fact i havent slept in about 44 hours and this screen is my only outlet right now.

It's probably not a good idea to read Crime & Punishment when you haven't slept for such a long period of time!

simu

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

Purely for the sake of interest.

And to see if my worldly brothers and sisters have lost the plot or not.

Wordly brothers and sisters - are you in a cult?

Do you think that you could be capable of taking another life? Not in war, not in a moment of madness....

I don't think so. If I hate a person, the idea of touching them or being near them (in order to kill them) would repulse me. And once I'm removed from a person, hatred declines. I would count being in a fight or killing to protect family etc as moments of madness though so who know what might happen in such cases.

Or say if you had a friend who told you they had killed somebody what would you do???

Go to the police, of course. I wouldn't cover up a murder. Of course, things might be different if we were living in a dictatorship with corrupt police abd justice systems.

If it was momentary madness i'm guilty i might help get him out of the country.

Well, they take mitigating circumstances into account in Ireland.

--Kaiser--

I don't think I would have any moral qualms about killing someone, if I had a reason. But realistically the consequences (if you got caught) would preclude such an act.

Sangre

I don't really do hate, if someone starts to really bug me I just ignore them or just stop caring. Life is way too short. People can call me mellow/easy-going but seriously, what is the point in hating someone? It takes so much effort.

I'd never kill someone, it would be admitting defeat to myself because there are no solutions.
God knows what I'd do if a friend told me they'd kill someone, probably plead with them to turn themselves in or just turn them in myself.

Shabadu

If my baby's life was at risk then I feel I could kill with fairly minimal hesitation. I feel most parent's will answer this way. It's different when you have a sprog.

Nasty_Girl

Shabadu wrote:

If my baby's life was at risk then I feel I could kill with fairly minimal hesitation. I feel most parent's will answer this way. It's different when you have a sprog.

I'd kill for my brothers sisters parents and friends.

Personally i think I would have no problem with the actual killing but the split second the person was dead the realisation of what I'd done would be overwhelming, even the if the person was the next hitler.

Sleepy

Yes I could kill given the right weapon (projectile based), pretty sure of it actually.

Or say if you had a friend who told you they had killed somebody what would you do???

I've been there and to be honest, I did nothing about it. The guy involved used to have quite a dodgy existence, a drug deal went bad and it was kill or be killed. Not the nicest thing to have on his conscience, but at the end of the day, we're all capable of killing when the circumstances are right (or as the case is, very, very wrong).

no one has a life more important than someone elses

That's a ridiculously naieve view of the world. I can think of loads of people who's lives are more important than mine.

Human life is over-valued tbh.

Tobias Greeshman

I dont think Id have a problem with taking a human life, but if I did do it - it would be out of self defence or to protect my family/friends/partner, not out of it being planned murder (based on hatred of that person).

After the killing of the person, there'd be a good chance of the guilt you would feel for what you had done. Even Assassins talk of this, when they go to sleep or relax, they say they can see their victims faces.

Sleepy wrote:

Human life is over-valued tbh.

I dont know if I really could accept this, I value Human life for what it is, and if I didn't then taking a human life may be just too straight-forward.

Sleepy

Is it that you can't accept it? Or that you don't want to?

Tobias Greeshman

Its just the values that I've adopted and I see it as being morally wrong to consider it otherwise. So I guess as I am I'm incapable of accepting Human-Life as being overvalued.

The Corinthian

Most people would not kill. However most would also not betray a friend or loved one who had, but instead construct justifications and excuses how the victim may have deserved it or how betrayal would solve nothing. And finally few would stop at murder if terrorized and truly in fear for their lives. And whether we like it or not, all this is part of our nature, our upbringing and our makeup.

Sleepy wrote:

I can think of loads of people who's lives are more important than mine.

Most sociopaths would disagree with that sentiment.

Nevyn

All life is precious but to me some are more precious then others.

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote:

Most sociopaths would disagree with that sentiment.

Can you tell my shrink that?

Dreamcatcher

Sleepy wrote:

no one has a life more important than someone elses

That's a ridiculously naieve view of the world.

I don't think it is necessarily a "naive" statement.

Sleepy wrote:

I can think of loads of people who's lives are more important than mine.

I don't get it. How can one person's life be said to be "more important" than another?

Sleepy wrote:

Human life is over-valued tbh.

That all depends on who is doing the "valuing". And it's still a very sweeping statement. Interesting though!

neuro-praxis

I think history would dictate that we're all capable. 7 genocides and two world wars this century...

Shabadu

I don't get it. How can one person's life be said to be "more important" than another?

If you had to choose someone to live, and someone to die, out of two people, one of whom is a newborn child, and one of whom is a mass murderer, you would choose the baby.

It doesn't have to make sense. 'Important' is relative depending on the people and circumstances. If I had to choose between you and my baby, we all know how I'd pick. I'd feel guilty, sure, but humans are selfish.

Sleepy may feel that there are other lives more important than his, but he may not choose to let them live if circumstance dictated that he would in turn die. Self-preservation is pretty pervasive.

Sleepy

Well tbh Shabadu, by the same token, I know that my life has more value than some others. I just thought it was the less arrogant way to phrase things.

A nobel prize scientist's life is quite obviously more valuable than a factory workers. Conversely, the factory worker's life is more valuable than a scumbag drawing the dole and terrorising their fellow countrymen. Wicknight will now dismiss this as a utilitarian point of view and he's right in that the view is essentially based on utilitarian principles: those worth more to society are those that contribute most. Where utilitarianism falls down in this respect is when comparing extremely similar individuals because the unit of measure used in utilitarian theory, 'a util', is an immeasurable one. (yes I know how paradoxical that sentence is, blame economists ). However, this doesn't entirely discredit the principle demonstrable in the examples above.

We, as humans, value our own lives more than anything else (severe cases of depression aside). Out of this stems our valuing of life as "priceless". Essentially, our sense of self-preservation guides us to this. As any actuarian can tell you, a figure can be placed on the value of a human life from an economic perspective. We only think of human life as something valuable because we want to. To do otherwise would leave us in a position where we had a low sense of self-worth which isn't a nice place to be psychologically.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I think history would dictate that we're all capable. 7 genocides and two world wars this century...

Very good point.

Dreamcatcher

Shabadu wrote:

If you had to choose someone to live, and someone to die, out of two people, one of whom is a newborn child, and one of whom is a mass murderer, you would choose the baby.

A good point, but it is also a very extreme/hypothetical scenario.
I was thinking more along the lines of all the "grey areas" in-between.
For example, when in a "military situation", political leaders arbitrarily "play god" and seem to have little moral qualms about dropping bombs willy-nilly on innocent people, yet on their own territory, people get done for life if they are convicted of murder.
To me, it's all murder, full stop.

Shabadu wrote:

Self-preservation is pretty pervasive.

Well try telling that to a would-be suicide-bomber. In that case the "self" has been so mitigated/messed with by outside forces beyond their control, that they are driven to sacrifice "the self".

To get back to topic, "Am I capable of killing someone".
No, I just couldn't do it.
If ever I did do it, even if "by accident", I would be "guilty, but insane".
If I really had to do it in an unimaginable extreme situation to defend myself or to protect the people that I love, I would be so meticulous that I wouldn't get caught.... but the answer is no, I'm not capable, unless my back was to the wall, so to speak - then I would be entering the realm of insanity if I was to do it.

Shabadu

Sleepy wrote:

A nobel prize scientist's life is quite obviously more valuable than a factory workers. Conversely, the factory worker's life is more valuable than a scumbag drawing the dole and terrorising their fellow countrymen. Wicknight will now dismiss this as a utilitarian point of view and he's right in that the view is essentially based on utilitarian principles: those worth more to society are those that contribute most. Where utilitarianism falls down in this respect is when comparing extremely similar individuals because the unit of measure used in utilitarian theory, 'a util', is an immeasurable one. (yes I know how paradoxical that sentence is, blame economists ). However, this doesn't entirely discredit the principle demonstrable in the examples above.

While it doesn't discredit the examples you gave, there are obvious dichotomies and exceptions.

For example, 'majority rule' is beginning to feel out of place in today's quickly growing society. 'Majority' perceptions of what is deemed a good contribution to society, your example of professor/worker/layabout, would be considered faulty by some subversive minorities such as some socialists, and anarchists. [side note, 'anarchists'= muppets imo]

While I don't agree with the socialists on this one, I feel that it is the responsibility of the 'majority' to try and change/evolve society to maximise human happiness and productivity.

The whole concept of the moral majority is faulty at best anyway. Many the affronted moralist in public feels different in private. Also, the people that will make up the moral majority in twenty years time, and the people who subscribe to it at present will differ greatly.

What I'm saying rather clumsily is that humans always pick on those with the least power, even if numerically they are stronger, eg monarchy v. serfs.

It probably won't happen, but imagine if at some stage society deemed that the true philosopher was the prole and his view on life, and the professor was a scourge and irritant on society, with his subversive ideas.

In today's society where the flow of information is instant and people are constantly being exposed to new memes it is highly doubtful that will happen, but shouldn't we all stop playing the game of superiority and try to get past our obvious differences to find a better way of existing?

We, as humans, value our own lives more than anything else (severe cases of depression aside). Out of this stems our valuing of life as "priceless". Essentially, our sense of self-preservation guides us to this. As any actuarian can tell you, a figure can be placed on the value of a human life from an economic perspective. We only think of human life as something valuable because we want to. To do otherwise would leave us in a position where we had a low sense of self-worth which isn't a nice place to be psychologically.

This is absolutely true- it is why 'heroes' always lay down their lives for others and are applauded for it, because they do what most of us can't unless programmed by the armed forces/religion/brain rays.

Sleepy

Dreamcatcher wrote:

I would be entering the realm of insanity if I was to do it.

I disagree. Killing to protect your loved ones or yourself from the same fate is a perfectly sane thing to do.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Dreamcatcher

Sleepy wrote:

A nobel prize scientist's life is quite obviously more valuable than a factory workers. Conversely, the factory worker's life is more valuable than a scumbag drawing the dole
....

WTF, I totally disagree. "Quite obviously", is it? Not to me it isn't.

Sleepy wrote:

We, as humans, value our own lives more than anything else (severe cases of depression aside). Out of this stems our valuing of life as "priceless". Essentially, our sense of self-preservation guides us to this. As any actuarian can tell you, a figure can be placed on the value of a human life from an economic perspective. ......
Very good point.

Oh dear, money makes the world go round and all that. Such boll*x. Really, what you're saying annoys me no end Sleepy. What age are you. Are you a young student? Nothing wrong with that, but I think you really need to step back and think!

Sleepy

Shabadu wrote:

While it doesn't discredit the examples you gave, there are obvious dichotomies and exceptions.

For example, 'majority rule' is beginning to feel out of place in today's quickly growing society. 'Majority' perceptions of what is deemed a good contribution to society, your example of professor/worker/layabout, would be considered faulty by some subversive minorities such as some socialists, and anarchists. [side note, 'anarchists'= muppets imo]

While I don't agree with the socialists on this one, I feel that it is the responsibility of the 'majority' to try and change/evolve society to maximise human happiness and productivity.

The whole concept of the moral majority is faulty at best anyway. Many the affronted moralist in public feels different in private. Also, the people that will make up the moral majority in twenty years time, and the people who subscribe to it at present will differ greatly.

What I'm saying rather clumsily is that humans always pick on those with the least power, even if numerically they are stronger, eg monarchy v. serfs.

It probably won't happen, but imagine if at some stage society deemed that the true philosopher was the prole and his view on life, and the professor was a scourge and irritant on society, with his subversive ideas.

In today's society where the flow of information is instant and people are constantly being exposed to new memes it is highly doubtful that will happen, but shouldn't we all stop playing the game of superiority and try to get past our obvious differences to find a better way of existing?



This is absolutely true- it is why 'heroes' always lay down their lives for others and are applauded for it, because they do what most of us can't unless programmed by the armed forces/religion/brain rays.

Sure, it's societies duty to provide equal opportunities for all to succeed. That still doesn't change the fact that some people are worth more to society than others. In fact, in part by deeming someone necessary of such help are you not deeming them incapable of providing for themselves, never mind contributing to the greater good?

Shabadu

Dreamcatcher wrote:

A good point, but it is also a very extreme/hypothetical scenario.
I was thinking more along the lines of all the "grey areas" in-between.
For example, when in a "military situation", political leaders arbitrarily "play god" and seem to have little moral qualms about dropping bombs willy-nilly on innocent people, yet on their own territory, people get done for life if they are convicted of murder.
To me, it's all murder, full stop.

It is all murder, true, but a suprisingly large proportion of humans are capable of it. Of course there are exceptions, and you make a very good point. In a war scenario, who is to say who should live/die? It's barbarism of the highest order, training men and sending them into a kill or be killed situation. Sometimes it is necessary. WW2? The moral repurcussions have to be borne by the leaders, and the physical by the soldiers.

'Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die'

Well try telling that to a would-be suicide-bomber. In that case the "self" has been so mitigated/messed with by outside forces beyond their control, that they are driven to sacrifice "the self".

I said 'pretty pervasive' to indicate that there are exceptions. One could argue that suicide bombers kill themselves to preserve themselves, as well.

To get back to topic, "Am I capable of killing someone".
No, I just couldn't do it.
If ever I did do it, even if "by accident", I would be "guilty, but insane".
If I really had to do it in an unimaginable extreme situation to defend myself or to protect the people that I love, I would be so meticulous that I wouldn't get caught.... but the answer is no, I'm not capable, unless my back was to the wall, so to speak - then I would be entering the realm of insanity if I was to do it.

You cannot be so emphatic without experiencing it.

Sleepy

I'm not resident in the country the crime occured in, so not as such, no it's not illegal. It doesn't particularly worry me though. The man killed had murdered himself in the past and was in the process of trying to kill the guy I know. Live by the sword, die by it.

Sleepy

Sorry, I haven't time to reply to all these points now as I'm just on the way out to a work function but me and my hangover will attempt to address them in the morning

Shabadu

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, it's societies duty to provide equal opportunities for all to succeed. That still doesn't change the fact that some people are worth more to society than others. In fact, in part by deeming someone necessary of such help are you not deeming them incapable of providing for themselves, never mind contributing to the greater good?

I see your point but respectfully disagree. Some sections of society, particularly some areas of the inner city, are treated like animals. It is far more difficult for people to escape this reality and mindset despite being given equal oppurtunities in education.

In helping someone that may be 'useless' it is possible to create someone who contributes more to society than the effort put in to help them.

You need to spend time/effort in order to get a pay off.

Dreamcatcher

Shabadu wrote:

I said 'pretty pervasive' to indicate that there are exceptions. One could argue that suicide bombers kill themselves to preserve themselves, as well.

Yes, but that comes down to what is meant by the word "self".

Whilst I don't condone the 9/11 attack for example, I can understand even with my own limited "understanding" why they did it. The US, along with their surrogate state, Isreal has been devalueing "human life" for decades.
Don't get me started on our own N.Ireland troubles.
As I said, to me it's all just murder plain and simple.
In this day and age of "the global village", the world is a much smaller place.

There is no justification for anyone resorting to war/murder. There is always a better way to sort things out. In the past, there wasn't. Now there is. And yet, lazy, thick "leaders" (like Clinton, Bush etc.) get elected and end up deciding the course of world history. And that also applies to our more local idiots like Bertie and Tony and their ilk.

It comes back to Sleepy's point re the value of human life.
An American president places zero value on the life of a black/muslim/soviet/foreign human being, when it comes down to it. The life and livlihood of an "American citizen" is vastly more "important" than obliterating a whole family who happen to have the misfortune of living in a "rogue state".

Moriarty

Dreamcatcher wrote:

Yes, but that comes down to what is meant by the word "self".

Whilst I don't condone the 9/11 attack for example, I can understand even with my own limited "understanding" why they did it. The US, along with their surrogate state, Isreal has been devalueing "human life" for decades.
Don't get me started on our own N.Ireland troubles.

When exactly has human life been more valued than it is today? It has to have been greater at some point in the past for it to be devalued now..

Dreamcatcher wrote:

There is no justification for anyone resorting to war/murder. There is always a better way to sort things out.

We saw how poorly sanctions and the like worked against Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwae, North Korea and a hundred other examples. There will be a requirement for physical force intervention for as long as I can realistically see into the future.

Dreamcatcher wrote:

In the past, there wasn't. Now there is. And yet, lazy, thick "leaders" (like Clinton, Bush etc.) get elected and end up deciding the course of world history. And that also applies to our more local idiots like Bertie and Tony and their ilk.

What's changed? I was unaware leaders were now issued with magic wands to make all the bad people around the world see the error of their ways.

Dreamcatcher wrote:

It comes back to Sleepy's point re the value of human life.
An American president places zero value on the life of a black/muslim/soviet/foreign human being, when it comes down to it. The life and livlihood of an "American citizen" is vastly more "important" than obliterating a whole family who happen to have the misfortune of living in a "rogue state".

Zero importance, no. Less importance, almost certainly yes. That's the way things have always been, and will always be, until the last government on earth decides that physical force policys are unacceptable.