We're the only species which, if we become extinct today, the ecosystem will reap no aftershock.
(Pending the species which are dependent upon our protection since we forced them into endangerment) we are the least important species. Every other species helps another species live, other than humans.
So scientifically and ecologically speaking, a human life is worth less than anything.
On what grounds would someone or a group of people rectify that a person is unfit to live, or on what grounds would you yourself suggest? Are we talking mass criminal? The declared insane? The physically and mentally unfit? Miscellaneous?
We're the only species which, if we become extinct today, the ecosystem will reap no aftershock.
If we disappeared right now, this world would fall apart for the next 15,000 years.
On what grounds would someone or a group of people rectify that a person is unfit to live, or on what grounds would you yourself suggest? Are we talking mass criminal? The declared insane? The physically and mentally unfit? Miscellaneous?
He can, but if he's coming to you/another man with a knife he wouldn't have enough time to change.
We're the only species which, if we become extinct today, the ecosystem will reap no aftershock.
That's not correct mathematicly. Famous mathematical story: 1.Predator fish eat the small fish 2.Humans fish the big fish. 3.Suddently there is a war and all fishing stops. 4.The number of predator fish grows. 5.They eat the small fish too much. 6.The number of small fish goes down. 7.Part of predator fish die of hunger. Conclusion: If humans go away then ecosystems are hurt.
If a person is really pleading to die(exa: He will be stuck in a hospital bed for the rest of his life) then you should kill him.
That's not correct mathematicly. Famous mathematical story: 1.Predator fish eat the small fish 2.Humans fish the big fish. 3.Suddently there is a war and all fishing stops. 4.The number of predator fish grows. 5.They eat the small fish too much. 6.The number of small fish goes down. 7.Part of predator fish die of hunger. Conclusion: If humans go away then ecosystems are hurt.
I can think of a very good reason that has nothing to do with food chains.
Toxic waste: Sewage, nuclear waste, chemicals. These all are contained in places that 110% need people.
Or these things are released into the environment.
Do you know what the half life of uranium is? It's a VERY long time.
Small fish have a population boom. Big fish make a comeback. Small fish become rare. Big fish stave. Small fish make a comeback. Big fish follow suit.
That is a very unstable food chain. For every little change the changes in population get bigger, or the average starts to go up and down, until they hit 0 population for one of them.
If i could go back in time and kill the guy who was going to murder my brother before he did, i would but i would never claim that it was justified
It's simple, the justification is the prevention of loss of life. This debate does become more tricky once you bring god into it, but from a purely atheistic viewpoint, people who are unwilling to kill will always be subject to those who can. That form of slavery is ot something that is justifiable either, and is not the most conducive to a healthy society, which is why, in the case of tyrants, mass murderers etc., killing is justified to me.
The problem, Firefly, is that we cannot go back in time, as mind-blowingly awesome and paradoxical that would be. So, assuming the crime has already been commited, is it justified to kill the perpitrator, thus causing greater loss of life?
Out of curiosity, what other options did you have in mind?
Unfortunatly, I am not nearly intelligent enough to come up with a perfect non-lethal defense mechanism that will work in all situations. There are some obvious alternatives, such as mace or a stun gun, but these do not always work. However, I believe that the combined intelligence of a society is enough to come up with an alternative method for self defense. But we never will try to discover this method as long as we continue to kill in self defense. Ideally, we would find a way to discourage murders to such an extent as to make self defense unneccesary. Currently, we do this by allowing victims to kill their attackers. This, in addition to strict laws already in place, create a strong deterent for would-be murderers. But as I have already said before, death is not the best way to fight death. This is evidenced by the fact that people continue to kill each other.
Is it immoral? Yes, yes it is. Nothing can ever justify murder, even in retribution or self defense. Is it necessary? Yes it can be. It's not moral to execute a quadruple murderer, but it is necessary. It's not moral to kill someone who is trying to kill you, but it is necessary. Sometimes things need to be done.
That would only be true if killing in self defense was your only option. Life isn't a multiple choice test; you will always have an alternative.
So, assuming the crime has already been commited, is it justified to kill the perpitrator, thus causing greater loss of life?
There's a difference between killing as a punitive measure and killing as a preventative measure. I don't advocate killing as punishment for killing, ie., the death penalty. I do however advocate killing in order to prevent a larger loss of life from occuring in the future.
It seems to me an interesting tangent to this argument would be if war was ok and, if so, at what point? (preventative, counter attacks, etc.). As far as one killing another, the death penalty doesn't make much sense but neither does having to use tax money to house them for eternity in a prison. If one person kills another, housing them in an empty prison makes sense with the lowest grade food makes sense. Killing someone on purpose without cause (ie, protecting yourself or your family, etc.) justifies severe punishment.
