Killing in the Name of

Killing in the Name of...

What is actually wrong with killing?

Of course, "god says don't so don't," but I'd prefer a more solid reason that that. And judging by how many wars history has shown us, logically other people don't listen to this argument for too long either. To be fair, they probably think things such as “just war” and so on, however just war theory is a different topic. This is just the actual death issue.

So, what is actually wrong with me killing my neighbor, my father, my spouse, my child? Or killing animals; why are animals a different story than humans? It’s still killing, there is still death, so why is shooting a deer different from shooting a person.

I have many thoughts on this matter. The first thought is that perhaps they are not different at all. Perhaps you merely need a justifiable reason to kill, and then killing is, well, justified. But who decides what is justified? Looking at our own society, there are justifiable killings, according to the law. If a man breaks into my home with a deadly weapon I have the ability and right to perforate him. However, if that same man were to intimidate me in a back alley somewhere, I could not shoot him, as this is considered Manslaughter or even 3rd degree murder. Why? What differentiates these too killings?

Difference here perhaps is the cause of the killing: if he tries to kill me first, then I can kill him. That, to me at least, seems logical enough. You know he will try to kill you, so instead of letting him you stop him. In an ideal world you shoot to wound, but assuming he dies, this is an example of a justified killing. Now, in the case of intimidation, I cannot kill him because he did not try to kill me first, merely scared me. What if he tries to kill my friends or family, or even a complete stranger? Do I have the right to step in? I honestly don’t know. I’d like to think I do have that right, to stop him in some way. But what if he was justified in trying to kill the person I want to save by killing him?

Death ethics are quite complex. Here I have examined the possibility that there is no difference between shooting a deer and shooting a man.

But perhaps there is?
What is that difference then? What if I should not shoot a man, but I should or can shoot a deer because I have a soul. Now, there is the problem of proving the soul, etc, so for a more secular proof, what if it was the man’s sentience that makes him separate, and wrong to kill? This would seem to bridge into one of the basic laws of humanity, if there are such things (I think so). But for a fun thought, what about killing aliens? Why in science fiction is it wrong to slaughter the children of aliens, if we can slaughter deer babies? They both aren’t human, and therefore don’t receive human rights. I can predict needing to readjust our laws and ethics dramatically when we encounter another civilization.
The thought now occurs that what if they want to kill us for food, or because they are a more advanced beings. That is the same problem with a man shooting a deer, isn’t it? Killing a lower life form for food, or even just because you can.

Thankfully, this problem has not arisen yet, but it is a good thought line to follow. I truly have no solid answer for why it is wrong to kill. For a legal discussion, (a different topic, though relevant) I have heard the idea that killing can be reconciled by fulfilling the victim’s place in society, without the benefits to the killer. Example, kill a Vet, you take his job and do it well but do not get paid, have no benefits, etc. It is something worth considering as a more just punishment than letting them laze around in prison or merely killing them.

There is more to be said, but at a later date.

The Thinking Skull