when is it ok to kill?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Grass hopper, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Hmmn, did they do this in the 1920's?


    When is it ok to kill? Maybe time to "kill this thread"....:D
     
  2. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Nah, you're thinking of prohibition which was a ban on alcohol. Ol' George Washington was involved with the Whiskey Rebellion, it was "back in the day." :p
     
  3. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Hold on...people like myself state things "back in the day" :eek:
     
  4. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I think anyone of any age today can say "back in the day" for something that happened in the 1700s. :p
     
  5. Heikki Mustola

    Heikki Mustola Valued Member

    Yeah I checked the thread after you mentioned... It was all good timing! :D
     
  6. Fujian Animal

    Fujian Animal Banned Banned

    It is never okay to kill - But sometimes, there is no choice but to kill or be killed. Some people do not like to hear it put so bluntly, but it's true. Fortunately, few people are ever in a *kill or be killed* situation where they need to worry about such things. But if you are ever wondering when would be a good time to place your morals, or religious beliefs aside, a good time would be when you are getting shot at.
     
  7. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    It's only OK to kill when the law allows it. Regardless of the moral imperative in any particular situation, if you don't obey the law then the state will make your life miserable.

    That, I guess, is why the law exists. To take individual judgement out of the equation.

    Personally, I think would be morally justifiable to kill anyone who keyed my car or stole my bike, for example, but taking a cost-benefit analysis, the moral righteousness you might feel would probably be outweighed by the years in a scummy prison that you would most likely face.

    In the end, society can't actually prevent you from killing anyone, but it can make the cost so severe that it outweighs the benefit in all but the most atypical cases.
     
  8. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    This would really apply to the 1980's
     
  9. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    The obvious Godwin argument here is to ask about what happens in the case of a corrupt or evil government.

    Do you really think like that? Like... actually, seriously want to kill someone for stealing your bike. Is that a moral trade that you consider... fair? Assuming here that we're interpreting "when is it ok to kill" as a retributive question.

    I think society can and does prevent that, but that's usually by trying to prevent the kind of society in which people would want to or need to kill. I'd hazard to guess that is the very few outside of career criminals who make actual cost benefit analyses over whether or not killing is worth the legal lash back.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
  10. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Death for keying your car or stealing your bike? Wouldn't want to get on your bad side, sheesh! My lines usually tend to revolve around serious harm or death to others or yourself. I don't think I would even get slightly angry if somebody keyed my car, but you wouldn't be able to tell they did that with all the dings and scrapes the ol' Buick has on it anyways :p.

    Sanctions are the main thing in society that keep people in check. Do something that is against established laws, and you face severe punishment. I know quite a few people, myself included (more so in the past) who would be doing quite a bit of horrible stuff if it weren't for those sanctions in place. I know Anarchists would say I'm a fool, but they're idealists, and idealism is a hop, skip, throw, car, train and plane ride away to the space shuttle to the moon away from reality.
     
  11. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Oi! MAP's resident Anarchist speaking here!

    I don't think you'd be a fool for it. What kind of sanctions are you thinking about? I kind of feel like they wouldn't be enough. If someone is a danger then I would probably want them away from me and the people I love rather than just ignore them. It's a weird question from an anarchist perspective though, trying to find out precisely on what terms one is allowed to kick someone out of a community or an area... and who gets to act on "behalf" of "the community".
     
  12. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    A sanction is just the repercussions of an action in society. For example, if you kill somebody illegally, you go to prison and potentially face the death penalty. Everything that serves as a deterrent (extent the law will punish you) is a sanction. Sanctions also apply to other areas of life and smaller communities as well. A sanction for leaking fight tapes of a fellow fight team member to his opponent may involve getting you kicked off of your fight team.

    Anarchists believe that people can take care of themselves and they don't need the government to tell people what they can and cannot do correct? Well, each little anarchist community will form its own sanctions enforced by the community (government). If not, people will literally do whatever they want and you would end up with a bunch of people like Moosey who will slit your throat for stealing their bike. If society shifted into anarchy, I wouldn't be a nice guy to be around.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here on anarchy. I'm a little rusty in this area, hasn't been a studied subject since I was 18-19 years old.
     
  13. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Ooooook.

    So which branch of Anarchism do you fall in line with? I made the mistake a lot of us 'merikuhns do when we say "socialism." There's more than one type. :p
     
  14. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    There was a time when I was a strict Anarcho-Communist. Though I've become more accepting of both mutualism and syndicalism (a la the CNT-FAI).

    When it comes to "can take care of themselves" that can be a tricky one and for some it is the absolute test of anarchy (like the Anarcho-Capitalists, who are often viewed as not being real anarchists... and I can see why) for others it's questionable.

    The saying goes "no man is an island" and it's one of the few statements that I take to be absolutely true. It's hard to think of anyone who can make their own clothes, power their own home, grow their food, defend themselves etc all at the same time (and that's before we even get into the realities of family life, raising a child etc). So I think fighting for anarchy because one holds a hyper-individualist outlook is a very misguided path.

    A more realistic approach to anarchy is to avoid the modern "sex pistols" connotations and rather view it as an attempt to look at society and the relationships of power there and question each one of them on their own merits. Not so much "we should all take care of ourselves" more "we should examine the ways in which we are dependent on each-other and try and create a more equitable and free society.

    It's interesting that you raise the point of community as a form of government and I think that's very important. Traditionally, before Murray Rothbard (anarcho-capitalist) and Max Stirner (all round crazy man) Anarchists opposed "the liberal state" specifically; the argument ran that "the liberal state is the monopoly of legitimate use of force that upholds the arbitrariness of the property system that necessitates capitalism" the idea of co-operation, co-dependence and organization was something they were fine with.


    This is evidenced by the fact that most anarchist societies that existed, that didn't self-implode, often quickly established their own civic infrastructure to replace certain functions of the state but not the particular notions of property or societal control that anarchists disagreed with.

    Outside of Stirner's "post leftists" and the occasional wing-nuts looking to dress libertarian-ism up in a fashionable "radical chic" most anarchists tend to be a lot more flexible in terms of organisation than a lot of people think. The saying goes that Anarchy means "no rulers" not "no rules".

    That about cover it? I'm aware though that in "Merikuh" Anarcho-capitalism is a lot more prominent than anywhere else in the world. :p
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014
  15. Fujimoru

    Fujimoru Valued Member

    my philosophy , dont kill unless it can't be avoided. Which is usually the case right?
     

Share This Page