When is killing necessary?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:37 am

hoppy;1289824 wrote: I said nothing about killing and guns being stupid. You did. Sometimes killing needs to be done and guns are an efficient tool for that purpose. Don't assign your silly ideas to me.:)You quoted both of my sentences in your reply.

When is killing necessary?

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:07 am

Ahso!;1289827 wrote: When is killing necessary?

Could you please be more specific in your question. Killing of what?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:18 am

Jazzy;1289834 wrote: Could you please be more specific in your question. Killing of what?
Good point, because the killing of broccoli is very necessary around supper time.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:20 am

Jazzy;1289834 wrote: Could you please be more specific in your question. Killing of what? No, If I had wanted to be more spicific, I would have been.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:20 am

YZGI;1289838 wrote: Good point, because the killing of broccoli is very necessary around supper time.For food then? Is that it?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:24 am

Ahso!;1289840 wrote: For food then? Is that it?
Thats the only time I can think of that it is actually necessary. To sustain life. You can ask if it is justified and it becomes a different question. Sometimes justified may not be necessary.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:50 am

IMO, killing is never necessary in itself.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 am

If you are a liberal, I suppose you would justify killing an unwanted baby because of inconvenience.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:56 am

hoppy;1289849 wrote: If you are a liberal, I suppose you would justify killing an unwanted baby because of inconvenience.So for you its necessary for convenience sake, Hoppy? is that it?

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:58 am

Killing is necessary when all things prove the criminal deserves the death sentance. DNA does not lie.

Killing is necessary yes like Ys said for sustainability. Killing of livestock is what I mean.

Killing is necessary if it means your life versus an "attackers" life, (self defense).

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:04 am

Ahso!;1289852 wrote: So for you its necessary for convenience sake, Hoppy? is that it?

C'mon ahso. Put the weed down and think. Did I say that?

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:06 am

Oh I think Killing is also necessary as well when a suffering human being demands their life be ended.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:17 am

minks;1289853 wrote: Killing is necessary when all things prove the criminal deserves the death sentance. DNA does not lie.

Killing is necessary yes like Ys said for sustainability. Killing of livestock is what I mean.

Killing is necessary if it means your life versus an "attackers" life, (self defense).[/quote]

[quote=minks;1289856]Oh I think Killing is also necessary as well when a suffering human being demands their life be ended.

These may be justified but I don't think they are necessary.

1 a : of an inevitable nature : inescapable b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : compulsory

2 : absolutely needed : required

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:22 am

Whether we like to contemplate the fact or not, we are all capable of killing given the right circumstances. I would kill to protect my family. I would help a family member to die a dignified death. As a soldier I would kill an enemy invader.

I don't know if I would kill for revenge. I'd like to think I wouldn't. I'm sure I wouldn't but never having had my mind twisted by such events and my rage tested to such an extent, I cant tell

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:27 am

YZGI;1289860 wrote: [quote=minks;1289853]Killing is necessary when all things prove the criminal deserves the death sentance. DNA does not lie.

Killing is necessary yes like Ys said for sustainability. Killing of livestock is what I mean.

Killing is necessary if it means your life versus an "attackers" life, (self defense).[/quote]

These may be justified but I don't think they are necessary.

1 a : of an inevitable nature : inescapable b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : compulsory

2 : absolutely needed : required

Perhaps a matter of interpretation eh. I understand.

Snow you are right there. One never knows what one would do in any kind of situation until one is in it eh.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:28 am

Heres an example of what I mean.

In the movie The Road which is set in a time when only a few survive an end of life on earth scenario. The main characters are a man and his young son (I think around the age of 13 or so).

There is a scene in this movie where the father decides to go off to investigate something leaving his son and their few possessions on a beach. The boy falls asleep. While the boy is sleeping, a man comes along and steals everything, but leaves the boy unharmed.

The father returns to the situation and is of course annoyed. The father and son chase the other man down and the father forces the man to not on;y return the possessions, but also give up all of his including the clothes he is wearing (its bitterly cold). The boy is dumbfounded at his fathers decision and behavior and protests telling the father that is was not necessary for the father to demand the other mans clothes.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:33 am

Ahso!;1289866 wrote: Heres an example of what I mean.

In the movie The Road which is set in a time when only a few survive an end of life on earth scenario. The main characters are a man and his young son (I think around the age of 13 or so).

There is a scene in this movie where the father decides to go off to investigate something leaving his son and their few possessions on a beach. The boy falls asleep. While the boy is sleeping, a man comes along and steals everything, but leaves the boy unharmed.

The father returns to the situation and is of course annoyed. The father and son chase the other man down and the father forces the man to not on;y return the possessions, but also give up all of his including the clothes he is wearing (its bitterly cold). The boy is dumbfounded at his fathers decision and behavior and protests telling the father that is was not necessary for the father to demand the other mans clothes.
It was not necessary but may have been justifiable depending on your outlook.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:33 am

hoppy;1289855 wrote: C'mon ahso. Put the weed down and think. Did I say that?That's how I'm left to understand your answer. Since you use others for reasoning purposes, I'm left the believe you are projecting.

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider the question and answer more honestly? You do have that option, you know!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:36 am

YZGI;1289869 wrote: It was not necessary but may have been justifiable depending on your outlook.From the boys perspective, who incidentally was born after the earths inhabitants difficulties, justification is noticeably absent in his consideration of the situation.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:37 am

Ahso!;1289872 wrote: From the boys perspective, who incidentally was born after the earths inhabitants difficulties, justification is noticeably absent in his consideration of the situation.
Then from the boys perspective it wasn't necessary. I agree.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:44 am

YZGI;1289873 wrote: Then from the boys perspective it wasn't necessary. I agree.A short time later the father agrees and returns to the place where they confiscated the mans clothes but hes nowhere to be found, so they leave his clothes lying on the ground. Which proves it wasn't necessary.

Justification is very subjective, while necessity is more raw in terms of decision making.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:45 am

The father presumably based his decision on the vast experiences during his life. The son, never having been familiar with his father past involvements and struggles, would maybe come to a different conclusion. If the father thought his actions deterred the thief from ever doing the same thing again, the son may have learned a valuable lesson

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:51 am

Can't answer without specifics. So put me down in the broccoli camp here.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:56 am

flopstock;1289879 wrote: Can't answer without specifics. So put me down in the broccoli camp here.
Broccoli camp:wah:

I doubt it would go over well with the teens but us old fogies might sign up,:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:57 am

flopstock;1289879 wrote: Can't answer without specifics. So put me down in the broccoli camp here.Try viewing the question as a person who has grown up in the jungle living off plants and fruits. When is it necessary to kill? Its a basic question.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:04 am

There are only three things to consider in determining if killing is necessary

One is Religion--------When does a particular religion deem killing is necessary

Two---Laws ----------How do particular laws handle the necessity of killing

Three---Conscience ----In the absence of the first two it becomes a matter of individual conscience

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:12 am

It seems that regardless of how I've asked the question relevant to necessity, its being answered in terms of justification.

Its interesting how we as adults are unable to distinguish between the two.

Maybe people want the question changed in order to express why they justify killing, but are stumped when justification is denied.

If killing is indeed necessary, I doubt we'd be left with such a quandary in explaining it.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:13 am

When is killing necessary?

(my bold)

To eat and clothe ourselves. It's not truly necessary otherwise. But "eat and clothe ourselves" start to have unpleasant ramifications if one thinks about it.

Science has done a good-ish job of coping with endlessly rising population. Hopefully it will continue to do so. Mars, anyone?

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:14 am

Lon;1289885 wrote: There are only three things to consider in determining if killing is necessary

One is Religion--------When does a particular religion deem killing is necessary

Two---Laws ----------How do particular laws handle the necessity of killing

Three---Conscience ----In the absence of the first two it becomes a matter of individual conscience

holy crap Lon, if I had an attacker ready to kill me i dunno if I would stop to consider religion and law

But honestly I see your point. I guess it's again circumstance by circumstance.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:32 am

Ahso!;1289889 wrote: It seems that regardless of how I've asked the question relevant to necessity, its being answered in terms of justification.

Its interesting how we as adults are unable to distinguish between the two.

Maybe people want the question changed in order to express why they justify killing, but are stumped when justification is denied.

If killing is indeed necessary, I doubt we'd be left with such a quandary in explaining it.I fi were seeking emotional based responses, asking for justification to killing would be a an appropirate question. But my purpose is to solicit less emotional and more considered responses.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:33 am

minks;1289892 wrote: holy crap Lon, if I had an attacker ready to kill me i dunno if I would stop to consider religion and law

But honestly I see your point. I guess it's again circumstance by circumstance.

If someone was ready to kill me I would not consider religion or law either in killing them to defend my self, but in all other cases, from a personal standpoint, I would only consider the Law & my Conscience in any other kind of killing since I am in no way religious. Whether it is necessary or not is another question and was the original question posed by Ahso. Deliberate killing (premeditated--person--animal--fetus) is necessary in the mind of the killer, and others may or may not consider it necessary.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:59 am

Killing is necessary when someone is attempting to murder another human being!

The older I get and the more stories I read I'm not exactly upholding my stance on the death penalty.

In the news here reported a 2 year old child was beaten regularly and she eventually died one night of severe trauma to the head(Can there be any other definition of "trauma" in this context!?). The autopsy reveled 11 fractures throughout the entire body. The murderer was the boyfriend of the victims mother and later admitted to beating the child because "she was crying"!

If I witnessed this I'd kill the murdering peace of garbage. Now is anyone willing to suggest they wouldn't?

I'd like to speak with you if such is the case.

Amythest · Post by **Amythest** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:03 pm

1) Killing is necessary for carnivores( or omnivores) for sustenance. Hunting is more humane because the animal has lived a free full life. The laws of nature ( necessity) keep the killing "fair".

Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

However raising livestock for food is a slippery slope from good to bad practice. I believe all livestock should be free range, allowed open spaces, fields and the ability to graze along with given feed. Slaughter practices should be the most painless and rapid.

2) Killing is necessary for self protection and to protect ones community. A community supports every individual and needs protection. This is where lines get blurred.

If killing is carried out for self protection territories are considered. What is yours and what is mine. Invasion or killing on foreign soil?

If mutual respect is practiced then Killing is a rare occurrence.

Amythest · Post by **Amythest** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:05 pm

Ahso!;1289897 wrote: I fi were seeking emotional based responses, asking for justification to killing would be a an appropirate question. But my purpose is to solicit less emotional and more considered responses.

YAH Good luck with THAT!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:15 pm

Ahso!;1289866 wrote: Heres an example of what I mean.

In the movie The Road which is set in a time when only a few survive an end of life on earth scenario. The main characters are a man and his young son (I think around the age of 13 or so).

There is a scene in this movie where the father decides to go off to investigate something leaving his son and their few possessions on a beach. The boy falls asleep. While the boy is sleeping, a man comes along and steals everything, but leaves the boy unharmed.

The father returns to the situation and is of course annoyed. The father and son chase the other man down and the father forces the man to not on;y return the possessions, but also give up all of his including the clothes he is wearing (its bitterly cold). The boy is dumbfounded at his fathers decision and behavior and protests telling the father that is was not necessary for the father to demand the other mans clothes.

Ahhh to take back ones pocessions is reasonable. to take anothers is greed and called stealing.

To take bread to survive hunger is neccesary . To take the jam is greed and stealing and is a crime.

If you think of killing another or an animal in this way it is not a crime nor is it wrong.

lets turn it around shall we? What about sustaining life? is it neccesary and justified or is it cruel and inhumane?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:26 pm

Ahso!;1289852 wrote: So for you its necessary for convenience sake, Hoppy? is that it?

Don't try to confuse the issue when you know damn well what I meant. It just irritates me and makes you look like a fruit loop.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:31 pm

Killing is necessary when someone is attempting to murder another human being!

The older I get and the more stories I read I'm not exactly upholding my stance on the death penalty.

In the news here reported a 2 year old child was beaten regularly and she eventually died one night of severe trauma to the head(Can there be any other definition of "trauma" in this context!?). The autopsy reveled 11 fractures throughout the entire body. The murderer was the boyfriend of the victims mother and later admitted to beating the child because "she was crying"!

If I witnessed this I'd kill the murdering peace of garbage. Now is anyone willing to suggest they wouldn't?

I'd like to speak with you if such is the case.

(my bold)

Hi there!

I'd remove him by violence, and I wouldn't be upset if he died in the process, but I wouldn't go in there to kill him.

You are responding emotionally to a particular case. We might WANT to kill the... person involved, but it is not "necessary". And the question was, when is killing necessary? Are you arguing that your urge or desire to kill are sufficient justifiction to describe killing in this case as necessary?

You've made me think, though. What if I were further away, with a gun, and that was the only way to stop it? I think I'd hesitate: "What if I was somehow misunderstanding? Is that really what I think it is? What If I hit the baby?"

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:58 pm

Ahso!;1289827 wrote:

When is killing necessary?

revenge is a dish best served cold.:yh_rotfl

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:08 pm

Odie;1289932 wrote: revenge is a dish best served cold.:yh_rotfl

especially if it's ice cream. :yh_rotfl Hi Odie:)

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:20 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1289939 wrote: especially if it's ice cream. :yh_rotfl Hi Odie:)

or brownies!:yh_rotfl

Hi Fuzz!:-4

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:50 am

YZGI;1289838 wrote: Good point, because the killing of broccoli is very necessary around supper time.

Were all going to hell.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:58 am

Nomad;1290109 wrote: Were all going to hell.

and I almost killed a chicken driving today.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:01 pm

Clodhopper;1289922 wrote: (my bold)

Hi there!

I'd remove him by violence, and I wouldn't be upset if he died in the process, but I wouldn't go in there to kill him.

You are responding emotionally to a particular case. We might WANT to kill the... person involved, but it is not "necessary". And the question was, when is killing necessary? Are you arguing that your urge or desire to kill are sufficient justifiction to describe killing in this case as necessary?

You've made me think, though. What if I were further away, with a gun, and that was the only way to stop it? I think I'd hesitate: "What if I was somehow misunderstanding? Is that really what I think it is? What If I hit the baby?"

Hesitation is a direct result of uncertainty...This would prove you're uncertain you wish to protect the victim or uncertain you wish to place a level on in how you harm the aggressor. I myself place 0 value on an aggressors life when they decide to harm someone unprovoked...

An average size male, approximately 5' 10" 190 lbs beating a two year old child(I believe the fact the child was a female is relevant) from which an average two year old female child weighs approximately 25 lbs, no sir! would I hesitate in the least! I'd blow his brains out and then dial the local cleaners(I'd dial an ambulance first because at that point he wouldn't be a threat)

If I were far away then I'd shoot to kill the attacker upon my 100% certainty I needed to in order to prevent the child from dying, slowly at that!

The moral of the story is that hesitation is an illustration of ignorance pure and simple

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:06 pm

Clodhopper;1289922 wrote: You are responding emotionally to a particular case. We might WANT to kill the... person involved, but it is not "necessary". And the question was, when is killing necessary?

Killing this person was necessary Clodhopper and is 100% set in stone from the moment that child died. That child would be alive if someone stopped this person from beating a child to death and "killing" is just one way to do it!

The difference is killing the person gives a much higher probability the attacker wouldn't harm the victim any more than they already have,..or in this case "had"!

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:25 pm

Yes, sometimes.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:19 pm

Hesitation is a direct result of uncertainty...This would prove you're uncertain you wish to protect the victim or uncertain you wish to place a level on in how you harm the aggressor. I myself place 0 value on an aggressors life when they decide to harm someone unprovoked...

Definitely the result of uncertainty. Don't agree with your idea of proof that I'm uncertain about protecting killer or victim. I am/ would be more concerned that I might by my action manage to create the situation that I'm trying to prevent. If I could be certain in the moment that I would save the baby's life, the trigger would be squeezed no question. But I might miss. And a bullet is going to hit something. Or the "killer" might be banging the back of a choking child.

Certainty? Oh, Lord, give me "certainty" about anything!

Sometimes you have to act, and act NOW. But if the act is to kill, unless I was certain...

...and I fear my potential for violence.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:36 pm

Thanks for reviving this thread.

I'd think many would deem it necessary to kill in order to sustain life of an individual for itself or loved ones or for the viability and integrity of the group.

The U.S. believes it to be necessary to kill (capital punishment) for the reasons of group integrity IMO.

The example of the burying beetle is relevant. The burying beetle practices infanticide when necessary. What the burying beetle does is find carcass's of lets say a dead bird, or perhaps even a small piece of meat. It takes its find and buries it and lays eggs near the carcass. Burying beetles all grow to be about the same size and the mother knows by some internal calculation exactly how many babies, feeding on the size carcass it has secured will eat to become the proper size. She lays her eggs and then eats the over abundance which she has laid.

Humans don't have such an instinctive ability as the burying beetle to know how or when to regulate its population.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:48 pm

I'm not accepting what burying beetles do as relevant. I can argue that in extremis humans will eat their children - certainly other people's - if required for survival, so we don't need bugs to excuse it. It'll just happen.

As I said in an earlier post, the ramifications of killing to eat and clothe oneself are pretty unpleasant.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:57 pm

Clodhopper;1290582 wrote: I'm not accepting what burying beetles do as relevant. I can argue that in extremis humans will eat their children - certainly other people's - if required for survival, so we don't need bugs to excuse it. It'll just happen.

As I said in an earlier post, the ramifications of killing to eat and clothe oneself are pretty unpleasant.As an example of when killing is necessary, i think it is relevant? You may not think the same practice is relevant f. or humans and thats fine. However, In the case of the burying beetle it is indeed necessary in order to maintain the the size of its offspring.

I'm offering this example because most of the posts are more about moral justification rather than necessity. I think in order to think in terms of necessity, we must put morality aside.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:15 pm

In the sense of putting morality aside, I already had. Humans will eat other people's children if it really comes down to it: Siege of Leningrad. Happened almost certainly. There are no figures.

I don't take bugs as an excuse. When it comes down to it, humans will do pretty much anything. Eating Grandad appears to have been a religious experience about 4,000 years ago in Cheddar Gorge.

We are human. We'll kill and eat pretty much anything, if it comes down to it.

But we have the great world religions telling us that we are all eachother's brothers.

And they tell us truth, if we have eyes to see.