Is Killing Evil?

[Maekrix]

Is killing evil? If so, is it still evil in defense of yourself or other? For this, we'll have define the term. So as part of your response, please include your personal definition of evil.

Also, please refrain from quoting pages of bible or other holy books. Obviously you're welcome to quote something, but please describe its relation to your opinion.

My definition of evil: To me, evil is intentional malice, hateful acts, or something to corrupt. This is probably close to most people's definitions, but please state yours none the less.

I personally think needless violence is evil. You can always quote me on that. But that is needless violence, something that serves no 'good' cause. To me, defense is not evil, even if you have to kill the thing you protect yourself or another from. War, if for vindication or freedom is not evil to me, however, war for the sake of bloodshed or to crush non-threats is evil. Again though, I believe that everyone has the right to protect themselves with force, but only when force is required to live on.

And then some people would choose to bring 'fate' into the picture. Fate is something that personally I don't choose to believe, and thus the following doesn't 'apply' to me and my thoughts, but I do know that a large majority believe in fate or some sort of 'guiding hand', if you will. I'd like to believe that ever man and woman forges their own path through life.

So bringing fate into the picture, is fate evil for allowing killing? Does it take the blame for the cold-blooded murderer? Does it actively protect the innocent through 'accidents'? Is fate responsible for war, for bloodshed? Or even defense? Does fate make defense evil? If you're 'fated' to die, is it wrong to fight back?

I truly am interested in seeing the responses. Remember, please refrain from lengthy, 'irrelevant' quotes. (lengthy being more than what would fit on an 8x11 paper...

[The Raven]

Evil. Killing. A many sided, almost endless battle, but I shall contribute none the less.

I think I mostly agree with you on the definitions of evil and voilence, but...

Evil: Irreputable acts that cause suffering and pain, and also , the personification of impudence, vile gloom, odium, and abomination. I believe it takes all these characteristics to label something evil, and if something can be called that, it be very evil. Otherwise I simply pass it off as sinister and menacing. I am skeptical about labeling ANY religion evil, even one that worships dark entities, which there are none I can refer to at the moment. Away from the topic of anything religious, it takes the utmost defiant and blood thirsty person or thing to be called evil.

Is killing evil? Only if it falls into what I described above, every single characteristic. Killing can be wrong and not evil. Violence is something that should not be the foundation of our society, along with sex, but that is the way it is. I believe there is a time and place for violence, and that impudence must be treated accordingly. Inside each and every one of us lies a bloodlust, and at one time or another, it's going to slowly seep out.

So, all in all, there is a time and place for violence, and I see one of those times being the time when "evil" shall be fought, or when everything precious to you and others is tied to a thread and is laid in the brutal gut of the ocean, awaiting the time when it will snap and all will be lost.

Edited January 6, 2005 by The Raven

[Maekrix]

Well said my friend, I appreciate your contribution to my little thread here.

Come'on people! Post! I know a lot of you have your own opinions and are willing to state them!

[Hotoke]

IMO it is sometimes good to kill especially when something does not fit in with what our society is about

what is evil? when someone commits a crime does he know he is being 'evil'

Edited January 6, 2005 by Hotoke

[Maekrix]

IMO it is sometimes good to kill especially when something does not fit in with what our society is about

what is evil? when someone commits a crime does he know he is being 'evil'

439543[/snapback]

So are you suggesting that killing people who are different isn't evil, even though they commit nothing harmful to you?

I invite you to define what 'evil' is to you.

[aquatus1]

Since I do not beleive in the terms "Good" and "Evil" when they are used as absolutes, I do not think that killing is inherently evil. To be frank, I cannot think of a single situation that can be labeled either of these that cannot, with a few extra sentences, be turned into its exact opposite.

[Bizeebutt]

by definition, any kind of killing is evil.

e·vil    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vl)

adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.

Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.

Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.

The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.

An evil force, power, or personification.

Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

Killing causes harm to an individual, and destruction of that individual.

HOWEVER... when the killing is warrented as a punishment for the exact same crime, then it is not evil, it is JUST.

just1    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (jst)

adj.

Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair1.

Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Properly due or merited: just deserts.

Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.

Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.

Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=just

I know it is a bible reference to say "an eye for an eye" but it fits. You take someones life intentionally with malice and ill intent, you should die as well.

IF however, it is a case of manslaughter (creating or participating in a situation that directly resulted in the death of an idividual) then a lesser munishment is in order for one's carelessness.

[CatAstrofix]

If we say, that killing is evil (my definition goes pretty much along what's stated here already, so needless to repeat it) Is then killing someone, who's about to kill others an evil act? Killing is done, but many lives saved.

I suppose keeping this strictly to humankind is a good idea. Just to keep the reasons for killing limited.

Ultimately, in many situations the killing occurs it's for the surviving. Someone feels threatened enought to kill, to survive. Is the will to survive evil?

Can the reason justify killing, or is it evil as a act itself, regardless of the reason.

Haven't completed my thinking yet so sorry if I seem to be just throwing questions in the air.

[Maekrix]

Well, actually Bizee, I was hoping for your own definition, but if that definition fits your view, then fine. The reason why I want everyone's view on evil as well is because evil is truly a matter of perception; everything is, but evil is something moreso. For instance:

The lamb might think the wolf is evil for trying to kill it, but the wolf might think the lamb is evil for depriving him of food.

Try to think on both terms. Nothing has one side, especially true for perception.

Thanks for the responses people, keep'em coming.

[Bizeebutt]

To be completely honest, I think evil to me means nothing. I don't believe in evil as a "force" "power" or dark and sinister "thing". I really think that what a lot of people consider evil is really a matter of moral judgment. Some "evil" people might only be mentally ill, or have a chemical imbalance.

Hmmm... I'm thinking, I'll add more when my boss isn't around

[Maekrix]

Moral Judgement! EXACTLY! Perception! Thats why I posted this thread, I wanted to hear comments like that! Woot!

[Looter]

I think killing is evil, but if someone is threatening to kill you its OK.

[the duel master]

my definition of evil is three words - the rosanne show!!! du dun dun

[ThePortal]

it is always hard to define evil or good because we all perceive life a different way.

so without trying to find a general answer, I will just state mine

sry if I get passionate and write much. But I take this to heart. I am and will always be pacifist

For me evil is an action that will bring a negative response upon another being or life itself. It is an act that comes from someone who only think of himself reguardless of others needs and reguardless of the influence or consequences it may have on others. It does not care for others freedom, emotions or life, it cares only for its own. In sum, evil is an egotistical behavior that will do anything to have its way in the end reguardless of how or who it may affects.

As for war, it may not always be with an evil intent. Killing may not always be evil too. They is always to many shades of greys, like in selfdefense.

But in my book it is always wrong. War is wrong, killing is wrong. I will start with my views for war. There is always another way. Perhaps it is harder to achive, longer to achieve but it can be done nevertheless and it would be much more gratifying for both sides in the end. No losses, no bitterness and no need waste so many precious lives and ressources.

Patience in this case is indeed a virtue and a big one at that I know, but one that I think if followed would bring more in the end then a war. Violence only breads violence. And the bitterness in the end that it cause only breads more hatred in peoples heart. It is a vicious circle.

Now I agree that resolving a difference without a war would take much longer to finally end. But in the end, everybody will have learned from it, everybody will grow in wisdom and knowledge and that same difference should not come up again.

Now I know that some countries are oppressed. If the people are really unhappy, then either they can move or overtrow their goverment. A gouverment is nothing without the support of its population. If the goverment is stupid enough to kill them for resisting, then they will loose the support of everyone else. Everyone else can just leave if they wish.

I may sound uncaring here, but fear is not a reason to let your govermment keep doing atrocities. Either go or speak up. But staying there silently only supports them and doom their future generation to the same fate. Now I am sure it would be hard to overtrow a gouverment with an army. If there is no peacefull way to solve this. Then I think people should leave.

Fight or flight right?? why humans are so stupid as to not fight and not flight when these things happens.

as for violence. Hitting someone is just plain wrong and I dont think any justification is good enough. Like war it is a vicious circle. People will always arm themselves in case there is a nutcase that would wish them harm. And I totaly understand that. But killing is going a step too far.

If you really have to defend yourself for fear of yourlife then do so to the best of your abilities but there is no need to kill. There is plenty of courses for self defense that shows technique that renders an opponent defensless or unconscious without killing. There is no need to kill.

If the person did wrong, the justice system will take care of them and a psychologist will follow them to help them. Once again violence breeds violence.

If you do take such a self defense course, it should not be used for petty dispute. It should only be used in a life death situation. It is just too easy to hit someone when they are not agreing with you. Does it proves your point. No, if it does , they are only being controled by fear. Fear of the power you have over them. There is nothing gained, nothing learned. Just a bunch of overconfident big arm idiots who manipulate people by fear of getting hurt.

This does not help our society evolve, this does not help our society, be just that a society. People walk everyday in fear of being backstabbed, beaten or killed. Big time paranoia.

And with our technology today, I dont think there is any excuse for physical arm to stop someone to do just that. I am sure the scientific community can invent a way to stop people without getting hurt. We have sleeping dart for animals, hey why not use that. Or anything that would render the person unconscious or paralized would do the trick.

Violence is just plain wrong. It only brings more, demand more. Brings hatred, fear and vengance into peoples heart.

Understanding brings love

Contempt breeds contempt

here's a Albert Einstein quotes in wich I agree dearly

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already

earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,

since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.

This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once.

Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable

and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a

part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under

the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

[Firien]

Killing just to kill is just wrong no matter what. If you decide and plan to kill someone, thats pretty messed up.

[Maekrix]

That is a beautiful quote, truly. And in a perfect world, I would most certainly agree with you. But however, I don't think in hypothetics. You are a kind person for not wanting violence. Don't get me wrong, I hate violence, I hate killing, but there are times that I think it must be relied on.

Yes war is wrong. But talking will never solve everything, especially when you're dealing with a madman. Some people are mentally imbalanced and actually get PLEASURE from killing, as sick as that sounds. So would killing them, ridding the world of them be evil? Would you rather give them a life sentence? They could break out of the compound, and plus it'd be wasting money that could go for healthcare or education.

And lives are precious, at this point and time, bringing people from the dead is impossible, and even if you succeed, they would never be the same person.

You mentioned self-defense without killing. Yes, the majority of self-defense classes do teach to use your capability to harm only to an extend to free yourself from danger. I have a friend who is almost a black-belt, and I know he is never going to use his capabilities for 'evil'. Thats what self discipline is about.

But there are cases when you need to take someone out though. Think about it, no matter what you do, if the enemy is resourceful enough, he can escape you, and live on to commit more terrible acts.

You mentioned people needing to overthrow the government if its doing wrong.

1. The majority of people would become dazed, shocked, that violence of certain extremes is happening. Look at the Holocaust. Not many Jews fought back right away. It took a long time before they 'realized' if you will what was happening.

2. Army: Most 'evil' governments have the power of the armed forces behind them. That makes it hard to 'fight' back without violence. If you do it with speech, you might suddenly 'disappear' during the next night. Thats what happened to those who voted for 'blank' under Saddam's control. (Despite that, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but thats an ENTIRELY different issue)

3. Fear: you might say "Well why doesn't the armed forces rebel against the government". The answer is fear. They would fear the consquences of trying and failing.

4. Even after its been happening, people are still fearful and it would take a LOT of effort, effort that would take a long time to arouse, to get everyone to work together. Even then, the armed forces can come crushing in.

5. If they leave the country, they leave behind their whole lives. If thats not bad enough, they are allowing evil to continue, which according to my standards makes you just as bad.

Sometimes, I believe violence is necessary in this terrible world. ITs quite depressing actually....

[Maekrix]

Killing just to kill is just wrong no matter what. If you decide and plan to kill someone, thats pretty messed up.

439632[/snapback]

Actually most murders that occur are unplanned acts of passion. Most murderers lose control and go off the deep end, and a lot feel terrible that they commited murder. Now, of course that doesn't change much, but planning is definitely worse, and less common.

[Hotoke]

IMO it is sometimes good to kill especially when something does not fit in with what our society is about

what is evil? when someone commits a crime does he know he is being 'evil'

439543[/snapback]

So are you suggesting that killing people who are different isn't evil, even though they commit nothing harmful to you?

I invite you to define what 'evil' is to you.

439551[/snapback]

different as in harmful to our society lik nazi's and racist. they should be eliminated because they lead to anger and they are going to disturb the society with their hate crimes. they dont fit in our made society wich is based on 'goodness' so they should be eliminated

Edited January 6, 2005 by Hotoke

[HolyDevil2053]

I think there are infinite ways to try to disect all the scenarios about why killing is or isn't evil, it just depends on how you were personally brought up and your own judgements about it.

Like it was mentioned earlier, it depends on your own point of view and morals.

My personal opinion is that killing is wrong...whether it is justified or not. I don't think that we should punish anyone, no matter how cruel or malicious, with death if they killed someone else. I think all things will get judged upon eventually on their own course.

Someone else might argue if I was in a situation where a death of my family member was involved, would I not want justice...which of course, I would say yes. I know it sounds hypocritical, but look at it this way.

It is so easy for us to let the government handle it with executions. A group of people not related to the whole situation handles it so it is easier on the conscience, right?

...my question would be...

If the justice system was different and it called upon the victim's family members to actually kill the "evil person" themself...would they? And if yes, wouldn't that be considered evil as well?

[ThePortal]

That is a beautiful quote, truly. And in a perfect world, I would most certainly agree with you. But however, I don't think in hypothetics. You are a kind person for not wanting violence. Don't get me wrong, I hate violence, I hate killing, but there are times that I think it must be relied on.

thank you for taking the time to answer I know what you mean, I realize that I am a very idealistic person. But I dont think there is anything wrong in trying to get there. If we think it is impossibile, then impossible it will be

Yes war is wrong. But talking will never solve everything, especially when you're dealing with a madman. Some people are mentally imbalanced and actually get PLEASURE from killing, as sick as that sounds. So would killing them, ridding the world of them be evil? Would you rather give them a life sentence? They could break out of the compound, and plus it'd be wasting money that could go for healthcare or education.

I agree that talking may not always solve everything....but I think that they always give up too easily. Actually I dont think they even put much efforts into it. You cant make peacetalk and prepare for war at the same time.

As for madman, just hopping they are not in a place of power like a president..... I might surprised you there, but I think that a ''bad apple'' like this in a place of power. If talk brings nowhere, I would be all for assassination. No need to kill armies for one madman.

as for a just a normal madman. Well first I think that they have way too much luxuary in their prison. 4 walls, one meal a day will keep them alive and make them think.....would you not agree. Prison is a joke now. I wonder why they changed it in the first place?? and seriously how many REAL madman is there. Most crime are done out of passion...they are not necesseraly all madman.

And lives are precious, at this point and time, bringing people from the dead is impossible, and even if you succeed, they would never be the same person.

I agree

You mentioned self-defense without killing. Yes, the majority of self-defense classes do teach to use your capability to harm only to an extend to free yourself from danger. I have a friend who is almost a black-belt, and I know he is never going to use his capabilities for 'evil'. Thats what self discipline is about.

yes self discipline is what many people need

But there are cases when you need to take someone out though. Think about it, no matter what you do, if the enemy is resourceful enough, he can escape you, and live on to commit more terrible acts.

I understand what you mean. If I would be in an extreme situation like this. I might even do what needs to be done and live with the consequences afterward. In my heart I am a pacifist but at the same time I would do anything to protect my family. I would still try as I might to bring them to the police instead of killing them.....but it cant always go as we want. And I would not judge someone for doing the same....

5. If they leave the country, they leave behind their whole lives. If thats not bad enough, they are allowing evil to continue, which according to my standards makes you just as bad.

I know this may sounds extreme.....but hey it would be funny

just imagine if they all leave. A gouverment is nothing without people. Yes they would leave all their lives behind...But would you leave a very negative place to have a better life elsewhere or stay because this is what you have always knowned. Would you not want to make that little sacrifice for you and for your children. We as human adapt, surely they know they will too.

Sometimes, I believe violence is necessary in this terrible world. ITs quite depressing actually....

I unfortunatly have to agree

Idealist at heart but I'm still realistic.....

[ABOTU]

Killing is wrong. I think there is no good reason to kill.

[Kat_Kloud]

Say, someone kills your true love and you want your revenge on that person. So you kill them. Was it right, or wrong? You killed someone, but you did it for a different reason than the first person.

Are you eveil for taking that person's life, taking a mother's child from her? Or is it okay, because that person killed your true love, and they deserved what was coming? Perhaps the person that killed your true love did it only because someone treatened them to do it, or else they would be killed.

What if you are in a war. Your job is to kill that other person running towards you with a gun in their hand. Do you know this person? No. Do you have a grudge against this person? No. Does this person have a mother and father, and perhaps children who love them, as you yourself do? Yet, you're still running blindly at each other to kill.

[Hotoke]

who defines what is evil anyway. are all criminals evil?

[SilentObserver]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as good and evil. what might be considered evil to one person may not be considered eveil to someone else. where do you draw the line? Just to use an example, you see a lioness slaughter a baby antelope (or whatever they eat). someone might think that it's evil, but later you see that she killed it to feed her cubs, which would be "good". See what I mean? or did I just ramble on?

[Looter]

If you don't believe in Good and Evil then you are a Satanist or a Nihilist and they are no Good.

You have to admit that the crimes of the State are greater than crimes of the individual, but how can you make a balance, and how do you deal with people who only know and understand a coercive state? These are issues we will have to deal with once we've smashed the state but we must get that done first.