Where are you getting the idea that all killing is wrong? — Thorongil

I got it from introspection.

I got it from introspection. — Mariner

I see. Well, did you ever consider becoming a Jain?

Nope.

By the way, @Wayfarer, I`m familiar with Feser`s site and argument about the death penalty. I agree with it (namely, that it [death penalty] is not opposed, in principle, to Church teachings).

@Thorongil, to clarify, I meant any killing of a human life. I don`t think that killing animals or plants is intrinsically evil.

You sort of implied that you thought this, in the past tense. What is your position now? Do you accept the principle of double effect?

Nope, killing (a human) is intrinsically wrong inasmuch as it deprives him of his freedom. This is inescapable, regardless of the juridical gradations.

This is not to say that the law should not concern itself about the juridical gradations. But it is to say that when the law does that, it is grading evils, and the scale never reaches a killing which is so "slight" that it becomes a non-evil.

That's fine, as long as you realize you're actually at odds with your own church's teaching on this.

If you accept Jesus' proscription against violent resistance to evil, then it is not justified even in the case of self-defence. There really is no hope for humanity if everyone just keeps arming themselves against their neighbours. Someone has to be courageous and take the risk of vulnerability in order to stop the rot. How much is spent on armaments and defence systems today that could be spent on schools, hospitals, feeding the poor? I would say there is always another alternative, but hardly ever anyone courageous enough to take it. Tolstoy is good on this interpretation of Christianity; see his The Kingdom of God is Within You. — Janus

My apologies Janus for the very delayed response. I do appreciate your comments and our discussions, so please don't take this as disrespect towards you and your comments in any way. It's absolutely not meant in that manner. I've been meaning to respond, but unfortunately I had to deal with a situation wherein the Three Stooges tried once again to *liquidate* me since I was becoming too dangerous - but luckily I survived one more time >:O

I do hold that murder even in self-defence is ultimately wrong, but a "necessary" wrong if I may say so - or at least an excusable one. However, even if a courageous one - or many - take the risk of vulnerability, it will not stop the rot. They will inspire a few people here and there, and their name may get recorded in the history books as praise by those who will never be courageous.

Nothing can stop the rot, it's part and parcel of this world it seems. It can be limited, but never exterminated. I don't remember if I ever looked at Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, but I have read his Gospel in Brief for sure which has a similar message to what you've mentioned here.

I don't feel any disrespect from you Agustino and I likewise enjoy reading your comments and discussing with you; I think we are quite close on many things; and I have certainly gained insight from our points of disagreement. I'm glad you were not liquidated; I think this site would certainly be much the poorer without you. :)

I get what you are saying about violence in self-defence; and I would probably employ it to defend my loved ones and myself if needed, since I am not morally perfect. I guess my concern is more with what the churches prescribe or don't proscribe, and whether it is in accordance with Jesus Christ's radical teachings, and not so much with what people would actually do, since I don't expect other people to be ethically perfect just as I realize I am not.

Nations spending obscene amounts of money arming themselves, though, is done often in unreasonable (to say the least) anticipation of threats from other nations. The churches don't speak out against this egregious and gratuitous paranoia. It is the general atmosphere of distrust that is problematic for (relative, I don't think perfect is possible of course) peace and harmony on Earth. That is why Christ told people "Love thy neighbour as thyself". I doubt he expected perfection on Earth, any more than I do.

I do hold that murder even in self-defence is ultimately wrong, but a "necessary" wrong if I may say so — Agustino

But as I told you in the other thread, killing in self-defense is not murder. It's manslaughter.

I get what you are saying about violence in self-defence; and I would probably employ it to defend my loved ones and myself if needed, since I am not morally perfect. — Janus

But it would be morally permissible to kill your assailant in self-defense. That wouldn't be murder but manslaughter. Look up the principle of double effect, which effectively states that the cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.

I'm glad you were not liquidated — Janus

yet* :P >:O

I think this site would certainly be much the poorer without you.:) — Janus

Thank you, those are very kind words for you to say! I have also found the discussions with you very interesting and insightful as well! :)

.:) — Janus

Have you become possessed by the banned spirit of Thanatos Sand with the ".:)" ? >:)

Nations spending obscene amounts of money arming themselves, though, is done often in unreasonable (to say the least) anticipation of threats from other nations. The churches don't speak out against this egregious and gratuitous paranoia. It is the general atmosphere of distrust that is problematic for (relative, I don't think perfect is possible of course) peace and harmony on Earth. That is why Christ told people "Love thy neighbour as thyself". I doubt he expected perfection on Earth, any more than I do. — Janus

But then I think I would do that as well if I was in charge of a country. I'd want my country preferably and ideally to be well armed and prepared in case of war. I mean don't you think it would be irresponsible for a leader not to prepare his country, and then have to face the possibility of someone like Kim Jong Un force his country into slavery? If you were that leader, wouldn't you feel that you have to take the measures necessary to protect your people, and in fact, that it is your responsibility to do so? I think a leader should feel bad if he places his country in peril's way, because the livelihood of many people depend on him.

Whether it is morally permissible to kill an assailant in self-defence may well be arguable. It would obviously depend on the context created by your presuppositions. I have been specifically concerned with the context of radical non-violence; which Christ's teachings can be interpreted to exemplify.

Whether someone causes their own death by being an assailant in a case where they are killed by their intended victim obviously depends on whether you assume that the victim has a choice about whether to defend themselves or not.

But as I told you in the other thread, killing in self-defense is not murder. It's manslaughter. — Thorongil

I don't make a difference between the two of them. That's another reification right there in my opinion. It's the same underlying action, you're just using two different words to differentiate based on CONTEXT not on the action.

.:) — Janus

Have you become possessed by the banned spirit of Thanatos Sand with the ".:)" ? >:) — Agustino

Ha, corrected! I sometimes neglect to leave the required space between the full stop and the emoticon; in which case it fails to appear...>:O

whoops!!!

>:O

. :) — Janus

Have you become possessed by the banned spirit of Thanatos Sand with the ".:)" ? >:) — Agustino

Ah, I see, you must have performed some exorcism on your own self :-O

It's good to keep yourself clean of Sand :P

What if TS were me under an alternative account? It's not impossible. I could have created another account under a different email to let my alter ego out for some exercise. ;)

Joking of course...

Yes sand is very unpleasant when it gets in your Janus. >:)

What if TS were me under an alternative account? It's not impossible. I could have created another account under a different email to let my alter ego out for some exercise. ;) — Janus

He did actually open a new account under the name of John Harris, so wouldn't say it's that impossible >:O - but that one is unfortunately also banned now.

Yes sand is very unpleasant when it gets in your Janus. >:) — Janus

>:O >:O

I don't make a difference between the two of them. That's another reification right there in my opinion. It's the same underlying action, you're just using two different words to differentiate based on CONTEXT not on the action. — Agustino

But how do we determine the morality of an action if not the intent of the agent who performed it? The only other way to determine it is by the consequences of the action. In that case, intent doesn't matter. But I never took you for a consequentialist.

Whether someone causes their own death by being an assailant in a case where they are killed by their intended victim obviously depends on whether you assume that the victim has a choice about whether to defend themselves or not. — Janus

Assuming he does, then if he chooses to fend off his attacker and in so doing happens to kill him, despite not intending to, then he had the right to. That is to say, it was not wrong for him to do so.

On a serious note I'm not sorry to see Harris or Sand go, but in a way I think it would have been better if people had simply learned not to respond. To ignore someone is to effectively ban them; if not from the site, at least from one's own sight.

But how do we determine the morality of an action if not the intent of the agent who performed it? The only other way to determine it is by the consequences of the action. In that case, intent doesn't matter. But I never took you for a consequentialist. — Thorongil

The action itself - murder - killing another human being - is wrong. Not based just on the intention of the agent, which in both cases is to kill a human being (for different reasons though), and not based just on the consequences. It's a combination of intention, consequences, internal state of the one who performs the action and the context. It's quite a complicated thing, one which I think is best to couch in Aristotelian terms rather than the more modern Kantian vs consequentialist kind of thinking.

This is very easy to see that neither intention alone, nor consequence alone are sufficient to determine right/wrong. For example. Suppose I kill someone accidentally. I haven't intended it, but I've still done wrong. Or suppose I am a doctor and I apply the best treatment possible to a patient, and he dies - I haven't done wrong, despite the consequence.

As I said whether or not defending yourself is right depends on what principles you hold. Personally, I think it would be better if people universally refused to defend themselves under any circumstances, but in that case there would be nothing to defend yourself from. As I said, I am not claiming that I could resist defending my loved ones or myself; I am almost certain that I could not. I still hold it as the highest principle though. It is certainly a complex issue. :)

it would have been better if people had simply learned not to respond. — Janus

Maybe you are right, if you look at it that way, it is a missed opportunity. I'm perhaps too often confrontational with such people, and in the end I suppose that's not wrong if you can control that. But if I never resist - or try to - I never see if I can or not. Wayfarer was talking about this recently in one of his posts too.

I would think that murder is always wrong, wrong by definition, morally and in law, in every culture. Killing is not quite the same thing. As has been discussed, defense against an enemy or attacker, or the judicial execution of a murderer, are not murder. Murder is generally something along the lines of 'unlawful premeditated killing' - as I think Agustino is saying above.

Sure there are many grey areas, where deaths occur but it can't be determined if it's murder, manslaughter or self-defence - but the law, and life, are like that. (Unfortunately we can't use the phrase 'shades of grey' any more.)

It's a combination of intention, consequences, internal state of the one who performs the action and the context. — Agustino

Why?

Why? — Thorongil

Because I think all four components are required to give a full moral account of the situation - an account that can be comprehensive of all situations that arise.

Fine. I still disagree. If you kill someone but don't intend to, I wouldn't say that you've committed wrongdoing. There's a difference between wrongdoing and tragedy.

One thing I don't like about your position is that it makes it impossible not to commit wrongdoing. In my view, it creates more wrongdoing than there actually is in the world.