Killing, is it acceptable under certain circumstances?

[politics student]

An interesting question which popped up in opposing ideologies I transfered it here.

Killing, is it acceptable under certain circumstances?

I would personally say sometime killing has to be done in extreme political change or self defense (sometimes if the risk to you is that great)

What do you think and feel about this?

I look forward to how this debate will turn out. :cool:

[SoulBldr7]

I'm not too sure how I feel about it. I mean if pressured I would have to agree with you. If the person that you killed was putting yours and/or other peoples lifes at risk then it should be esvused.

[Mala Tha Testa]

in most pre-revolution cases, self defence.
but if there's a violent revolution, there would be no time for self defence, there should definatly be offensive actions(involving executions of spies, encirclements, sabotage, etc.) taken on a frequent basis.
so it depends on the situation.

[Glenn Beck]

I think we should judge our acts on our best reasonable conjecture regarding their consequences. So like say revenge is not an ethical reason to kill someone, but putting end to harmful acts being committed by someone when killing them is the most practical way to do this might be. This is where the best reasonable conjecture comes in, because would it really be just to kill a tyrant when he would merely leave a power vacuum that would result in a brutal imperialist takeover or civil war or an even more bloodthirsty lieutenant taking over (or all of the above)?

An example I've been thinking about lately is the death penalty. I think it's pretty easy to say that in the circumstances of a country with enough resources that is at peace it is not at all justifiable. Simply because there is always another way to detain someone who is a danger if they cannot be reformed and because having a policy allowing executions will inevitably lead to innocents being killed by accident. I think the inadvertent consequences of our actions need to be taken account because even if every guilty criminal were absolutely irredeemable and a constant danger to others it is realistically speaking impossible to ensure that an innocent person is never executed and thus we should opt for life imprisonment because it fulfills the need to remove threats but innocents can be exonerated, freed, and compensated for their wrongful suffering.

[Norseman]

Well, I was reading a book recently titled The Authoritarians. Overall, it's a fascinating study of the psychology and interaction between right-wing authoritarians, fundamentalists, and social dominators. According to the studies performed by the author, practically all crises would cause the population to become more right-wing and subservient to authority. There was one exception however, which the author called “the Gandhi trap”. When a repressive government assaulted nonviolent protesters, right-wing authoritarianism declined. So, it seems to me that nonviolent resistance and protest is a good way to make the government look bad. Either the government lets you protest all around the country and publicize problems with it, or it represses the protests and makes itself look bad. In the case of nonviolent protest and resistance, there's way no way around causing anti-authoritarian sentiment to grow. Since the power that capitalists and police have is little more than intimidation and fear, I think a nonviolent movement could create communism very easily. It might need to defend itself here and there, but I don't think that would require killing.

[apathy maybe]

I am of the opinion that in the present system of states, government and capitalism (and in previous systems such as feudalism, and in other present systems, such as exist in places like North Korea and Cuba, which aren't strictly capitalist, but aren't socialist either), that the death penalty should never be accepted as a tool of the state.

The state has no right to exist, and consequently, no right to arbitrarily make laws and enforce penalties (up to and including the death penalty) for breaking those laws.

In other words, fuck the state, no to state sanctioned murder.
----

There are then two strands of thought that I could go down, the first I will examine is the concept of "self defence".
Where you or another person are in a situation where you are in danger, then you are within your rights to defend yourself, and depending on the situation, this means up to and including the right to kill a person attacking you. I won't examine this in more detail, because it is very easy to find philosophical arguments for this in other places, long essays have been written about personal self defence.
Continuing on that line of thought though, what about self defence against the state? The state uses or threatens violence against each and every one of the individuals living in its jurisdiction everyday. (Obey, or you shall be punished!) I also think that self defence against the the state is justified, though obviously it is foolish for individuals to attack the state alone unless they understand the consequences of their actions.

The second strand of thought considers the right of a community to execute people in a future perfect society. Let me be very clear that I don't consider human beings to have souls or anything like that.

There is a big difference between the state at present (and at any time in the past or future) and an equal, egalitarian society comprised of free individuals (whether that be "communism", "collectivism" or something else is upto that future perfect society, not me).

I honestly do think that a community in such a society, has the right to self defence (that is, if a person or persons are attacking the community, then they can respond with force, upto and including killing if required). But what about a situation where a person has killed another, and then detained by the community and shows no obvious threat? Obviously killing that person would not be an act of (immediate) self defence, as there is no more threat.

I also believe that in such a society the concept of "punishment" would not exist as a deterrent, neither would the concept of "revenge" be given much thought.

As such, what justification could there be for killing a killer (or rapist or whatever)? I said about that there is no immediate self defence requirement (as we are talking about after the actor has already committed the act). As such, any decision would have to rest on the thought that a person capable of committing an act (of murder, etc.) would be capable of doing so again.

Some people think that simply acting in one way in the past, means that a person is much more likely to act in that way again into the future. However, I'm not convinced that just because a person killed another person, that they are more capable of killing someone else, then a random person off the street.

I would suggest then, that each case would have to be considered on its merits (or otherwise). If a person has carefully planned and killed more then one person, then yes, I would suggest that they are probably a threat to the community, and it would be self defence to prevent them from killing again. However, if a person has only killed one person, and it was in exceptional circumstances (perhaps heaving drug use, combined with persistent bullying), then I would suggest that executing that person would do nothing for the community.

----

And so to answer the original question, is killing another person acceptable under certain circumstances? Yes.

[MarxSchmarx]

Killing, is it acceptable under certain circumstances?


Yes. Euthanasia.


I think the inadvertent consequences of our actions need to be taken account because even if every guilty criminal were absolutely irredeemable and a constant danger to others it is realistically speaking impossible to ensure that an innocent person is never executed and thus we should opt for life imprisonment because it fulfills the need to remove threats but innocents can be exonerated, freed, and compensated for their wrongful suffering.

I do not oppose the death penalty for this reason.

Killing the innocent occasionally is the price we as a society pay to satisfy our blood lust. Opposing the death penalty because of "accidents" is like opposing cars or gun ownership because of accidents. In both cases, it is inevitable that someone innocent will get killed in spite of all the precautions.

I think we need to oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle, and unequivocally state as a society that blood lust (the politically correct term is "closure"), the only rational reason for the death penalty, is utterly unacceptable.

[Holden Caulfield]

yes 'necessity knows no law' and 'by any means necessary' are two pharases that spring to mind,

we will to freedom, equality (etc) and when the revolutionary masses try to take what is theirs by right no conventional (top down) 'morality' will dictate their actions,

[Demogorgon]

There are certain cases where it is justified in self defence. That is where it is needed to stop immediate serious harm being done to yourself or others and lesser force would not be sufficient to prevent the harm from happening.

Under normal cases, that is about it. (Assisted suicide I guess could be called another acceptable form of killing depending on circumstances, but whether that is really killing in the sense meant here as the one dying is still the one driving the situation, I do not know)

Anyway to put it clearly, in normal circumstances murder, killing in self defence when lethal force is not necessary, the death penalty, behaving in a manner that puts people in danger of death, causing situations that can escalate to killing and so forth are all utterly wrong.

The exception comes I suppose in a revolutionary situation, not because revolution provides an excuse for wanton violence, but because of the traditional notion that in a situation of combat the rules change somewhat. So under certain circumstances in a revolution killing might be acceptable so long as it is necessary for success. It is still deeply regrettable though and I pity anyone who might have to do it.

[black magick hustla]

I think it is, but I also think a lot of the left has a fetish with guns and violence and this is really bad and unhealthy, and makes me think more of right wing crazies retreating to the mountain to fight off the new world order than communism.

[Leo]

Killing, is it acceptable under certain circumstances?

Yes, acceptable under certain circumstances, but not desirable nevertheless.

[PigmerikanMao]

I don't endorse any such form of taking another human life unless the killing is assisted suicide.

[John Lenin]

Of course killing is acceptable.

This is a brutal world ... and sometimes you have to kill or be killed.

Pacifism doesn't exist in any living species.

[John Lenin]

I also think that oligarchs who oppress the working class should be executed in some cases.

You can't take the "War" out of Class War

[trivas7]

Yes, acceptable under certain circumstances, but not desirable nevertheless.
How not desirable if acceptable? I don't get it. :confused:

[trivas7]

I don't endorse any such form of taking another human life unless the killing is assisted suicide.
Then why do you espouse a line that proposes civilian terrorism (http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Terror-History-Warfare-Civilians/dp/0375760741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218566424&sr=8-6)?

[PigmerikanMao]

Then why do you espouse a line that proposes civilian terrorism (http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Terror-History-Warfare-Civilians/dp/0375760741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218566424&sr=8-6)?

I hope you know, I'm not actually going to buy that.
When have I espoused a line that supported civilian terrorism? I said world revolution hinges on the third world- not the first. Never had I said that revolution need be violent.
~PMao :rolleyes:

[communard resolution]

Generally speaking, I would rather make the oppressors work hard post-revolution instead of killing them.

I may make an exception for war criminals, but the problem is: who is the war criminal? The politician who thinks up the crime? The general who passes the order to his soldiers? The soldier who shoots? The people who organize the logistics? If you want to kill everybody who participated in a war crime, you'll end up with a list of hundreds, and then you're in the position of having to commit mass murder yourself. Difficult one.

[trivas7]

I hope you know, I'm not actually going to buy that.
When have I espoused a line that supported civilian terrorism? I said world revolution hinges on the third world- not the first. Never had I said that revolution need be violent.
~PMao :rolleyes:
I apologize, perhaps I'm way off base here. I respect everything you've posted, except for the looney third-worldism.

[eatbullets]

Killing can be acceptable if in the end, the least amount of lives were lost (such as in a revolution) or for defending loved one. Although i would personally try to subdue the person hurting my loved ones first, and use killing as a last resort, but sometimes, what has to be done, has to be done unfortunately.

[revolution inaction]

In self defence or defence of another killing is acceptable, if another method is not practical.
if normal methods of dealing with people who are dangerous to society or a revolution are not practical then killing may be necessary.
Killing should not be used for vengeance or a deterrent, (its ineffective).
There may also be other reasons to will people such as where great suffering is involved.
In all cases killing should be avoided where possible and kept to a minimum.

[Sharon den Adel]

Killing should be acceptable when it is in self defence, or euthanasia. Those are the obvious reasons why it should be acceptable.

[trivas7]

Killing should be acceptable when it is in self defence, or euthanasia. Those are the obvious reasons why it should be acceptable.
Why is death the acceptable price to pay for assault or battery?

[Oneironaut]

Killing is only acceptable under revolutionary circumstances where quick decisions must be made over traitors and spies. However, it should never be dogma to kill all betrayers of the communist movement. As far as the now is concerned, I am fine with assisted suicide, euthanasia, and killing when your own life is under reasonable threat. In the post-revolution society, depending on how far it as advanced, euthanasia will hopefully be the only reason to "kill".

[Oneironaut]

Well, I was reading a book recently titled The Authoritarians. Overall, it's a fascinating study of the psychology and interaction between right-wing authoritarians, fundamentalists, and social dominators. According to the studies performed by the author, practically all crises would cause the population to become more right-wing and subservient to authority. There was one exception however, which the author called “the Gandhi trap”. When a repressive government assaulted nonviolent protesters, right-wing authoritarianism declined. So, it seems to me that nonviolent resistance and protest is a good way to make the government look bad. Either the government lets you protest all around the country and publicize problems with it, or it represses the protests and makes itself look bad. In the case of nonviolent protest and resistance, there's way no way around causing anti-authoritarian sentiment to grow. Since the power that capitalists and police have is little more than intimidation and fear, I think a nonviolent movement could create communism very easily. It might need to defend itself here and there, but I don't think that would require killing.

What about in the cases of the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba? I think these authors may have hinted on to how acts of civilian terrorism (FARC) can turn people to the right, but as far as the revolution that we all propose, people aren't going to turn away from us.

[ashaman1324]

hmm
this is a question i get alot.
im an atheist that lives by buddhist morals.
i would normally say killing is unacceptable under any circumstance, and i dont see how a post revolution world could kill as easily as our current one without being hippocrites or completely missing our goal
id say that during the revolution killing would be a necessity.:(
and i agree with redplague about euthenasia, thats the only acceptable killing.

[Tobias_Manford]

[quote=Norseman;1210879] When a repressive government assaulted nonviolent protesters, right-wing authoritarianism declined. So, it seems to me that nonviolent resistance and protest is a good way to make the government look bad. [quote]

I'm not going to say that killing wouldn't be necessary in a revolutionary uprising, frankly, i don't know enough about any of this to speak with confidence. I do believe, however, that the best way to initiate a revolution would be to alter ignorant capitalist mindsets through information and debunking common myths, therefore generating the support of the people rather than killing them. I hate to cop out and say that a non violent revolution would be the most effective but i believe this to be true. That being said i do believe killing is acceptable under certain circumstances.

I really am new to all things left, i am really quite ignorant to all things political and i just took this opportunity to broaden my horizons, in fact this is my first post. That said i wanted to put my two cents in but i am willing to eat my words like a veritable feast of succulent pork should i be contradicted

[Comrade B]

For self defense, assisted suicide, or removal of an oppressive leadership. I also support the option of capital punishment for rapists with enough evidence against the person.

[InvileMachina]

Killing is what fuels all of nature. In order to live, one must end up killing something. Even vegans technically live from taking life.


It's the most natural thing in the world. Is it wrong? Of course not.


Considering morality is just a social contract fueld by emotional instincts and self preservation. Killing is typically only seen "wrong" or "evil" if it endangers the members of that given social structure.


Obvious example: "I don't want my daughter brutally raped and strangled to death like that person down the block, We better kill the person who did it"


Violence, Killing, Destruction, ect. are all the driving forces behind evolution.


So how can you have a revolution without it?


No matter how noble and intelligent your philosophies are...


They'll never be viable unless backed up by an iron fist.

[Decolonize The Left]

Killing is what fuels all of nature. In order to live, one must end up killing something. Even vegans technically live from taking life.

It's the most natural thing in the world. Is it wrong? Of course not.

This argument doesn't follow. Just because things happen in nature doesn't justify them in a moral system which is constructed by human beings.

For example, animals shit and piss wherever and whenever they want. But we, in most societies (in all I can think of), have designated places (and methods of disposal) for our waste and consider it inappropriate to excrete bodily fluids and mass wherever we please.


Considering morality is just a social contract fueld by emotional instincts and self preservation. Killing is typically only seen "wrong" or "evil" if it endangers the members of that given social structure.

Fine... but we are all human beings in one large social structure... hence it is entirely acceptable to draw moral conclusions based on this...


Obvious example: "I don't want my daughter brutally raped and strangled to death like that person down the block, We better kill the person who did it"

...?


Violence, Killing, Destruction, ect. are all the driving forces behind evolution.

Well, if I only focus on something, I can say it's the only thing that exists too. So actually, the driving forces behind evolution are rainbows and the tides...

Not only are you simply claiming this, it's a pretty poor claim in itself. You seem to forget cooperation (such as packs working together, family units, schools/flocks/etc...), healing, and construction....


So how can you have a revolution without it?

No matter how noble and intelligent your philosophies are...

They'll never be viable unless backed up by an iron fist.

This is probably true, but ultimately irrelevant. The people will engage the revolution - the working class will overthrow the system - they will do so however they see fit.

Take your bloodlust elsewhere.

- August

[Ken]

invile machina has got it right, the rest of you better drop your bibles and rid yourself of your post judeo-christian morals or there wont ever be a revolution.

[Holden Caulfield]

invile machina has got it right, the rest of you better drop your bibles and rid yourself of your post judeo-christian morals or there wont ever be a revolution.

intesting point, are you a nazi or a nietzsche

[Ken]

i am someone who believes there are a few billion too many people alive today.

if you cannot see the filth around you, you are blind, or you are filth.

[Hit The North]

if you cannot see the filth around you, you are blind, or you are filth.

Here's looking at you, kid.

[Comrade B]

i am someone who believes there are a few billion too many people alive today.
Trust me... we won't be having overpopulation anytime soon...


if you cannot see the filth around you, you are blind, or you are filth.
I see filth, but I wouldn't go to say billions of people are filth...

I support quite a few authoritarian measures, capital punishment for certain counter-revolutionaries, heavy punishment for white collar criminals, capital punishment for rapists, heavy restriction on firearms, a strong military, and a nationalized economy, but there is no way I support killing people just for their ideas. You can be a republican, nazi, whatever, so long as you don't actually act on your stupid beliefs.

[Jazzratt]

if you cannot see the filth around you, you are blind, or you are filth.

I certainly can see some filth, but it's not the billions of strangers...

Killing can be justified in many circumstances, generally to permanantly remove someone who is an unreasonable danger to society (rapists, murderers, counter-revolutionaries and so on.).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would never call killing "acceptable," but it is sometimes necessary or ethically neuter. I agree with self-defense and assisted suicide but I would also extend abortion into the realm of toleration. Not capital punishment.

[Vanguard1917]

We want a society where human life is indeed sacred, inviolable and treated with the utmost respect. It's the process of establishing such a society which unfortunately necessitates violence - against a minority which represses human freedom.

'To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved through blood and iron.'
- Trotsky

[ComradeG1967]

Killing is acceptable when used to prevent murder or great harm to innocent individuals.

Fascists killed 6 million, those who espouse fascism and glorify genocide are therefore deserving of death, as they are potential murderers.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Fascists killed 6 million, those who espouse fascism and glorify genocide are therefore deserving of death, as they are potential murderers.

What? That's a pretty illogical conclusion. Thought crime alert.

[ComradeG1967]

What? That's a pretty illogical conclusion. Thought crime alert.

So you believe in a platform for fascism, then?

[InvileMachina]

This argument doesn't follow. Just because things happen in nature doesn't justify them in a moral system which is constructed by human beings.

For example, animals shit and piss wherever and whenever they want. But we, in most societies (in all I can think of), have designated places (and methods of disposal) for our waste and consider it inappropriate to excrete bodily fluids and mass wherever we please.



You do realize realize that we are living in nature, right? You do also realize that humanity itself IS nature? Given that both of those statements are true... any construct by humanity is a construct of nature. Morality is merely a glue made of shared selfishness that allows a human to survive and thrive in the highly complicated social structure our species has developed.



How is evolution not driven by chaos, death, destruction? Maybe you should take a look at a biology text book.



You're post was amusing though. Too bad it didn't have much substance.

[Decolonize The Left]

You do realize realize that we are living in nature, right? You do also realize that humanity itself IS nature? Given that both of those statements are true... any construct by humanity is a construct of nature. Morality is merely a glue made of shared selfishness that allows a human to survive and thrive in the highly complicated social structure our species has developed.

Wow... lot's of problems here.

If everything is natural, including humanity and by extension all that humans do, then wouldn't morality be natural? :lol:


How is evolution not driven by chaos, death, destruction? Maybe you should take a look at a biology text book.

I'll leave alone the fact that you have just clearly indicated that you have not read a biology book with that statement and answer your question.

Evolution by natural selection is not driven by "chaos, death, and destruction" because if this was the case then there could not be any living things.... because they'd all be dead and destroyed in the chaos...:rolleyes:

But if that's not enough for you (and it should be because it explains how infantile your claims are), there's also the matter that evolution through natural selection occurs through genetic mutations resulting in character traits which are useful for survival. Given that genetic mutations occur during fertilization, there would have to be reproduction, or creation, and this involves cooperation.


You're post was amusing though. Too bad it didn't have much substance.

Well now you look really stupid... well done...

- August

[InvileMachina]

You really have problems reading, don't you? Or maybe, just maybe you are truly this dense?


First of all, morality IS natural. A natural instinct that allows a human being to survive and thrive. Why do you have such a hard time in understanding this?


Morality is a very subjective thing though. The only difference between killing someone and murdering someone is what moral system you judge it by. However, killing is killing. How you look at it doesn't change what it is.


You also can't argue my point that none of us can live without killing something, so to say killing is wrong would be to say that living is wrong.


Also, again I'll ask you to take a glance at a biology book.


Of course evolution is the result of natural selection, mutations that make the organism adapt and eventually thrive in a certain environment.


The key word here is adaptation. They adapt. They adapt to a harsh, destructive environment while others die. Thus without death and chaos there would be no evolution.


However, eventually if the adaptations are successful enough and the environment/nature stays relatively the same, the organism won't change much at all.


Take a look at the dinosaurs. If some cataclysmic event didn't take place then reptiles would still be ruling the planet.


Human society is so well adapted to it's current environment that unless a violent, cataclysmic event happens...


Our species won't change much at all.




Just like a government that is left to be decadent and corrupt. The only real way to change it is for a catalyst to trigger a bloody revolution.



So please quit trying to twist my words and set up strawman arguments that I never even said.



It seems to me that you are trying to imply that I somehow think morals are useless. I never said that. They serve to keep the social contract of a society locked in place.



I said chaos and destruction were the driving forces behind evolution. Like fuel for a vehicle. While 99% of beings would die from a certain radical change, 1% will survive and thrive.



Once something is perfectly adapted to an environment, there will be no real evolution or radical change to that organism. Things only evolve when the shit hits the fan. That is ALL I meant by chaos and death being the driving forces behind evolution.


An organism can't adapt without having something to adapt to.



So have I cleared things up for you? Or are you going to go and keep twisting my words?

[Ken]

Trust me... we won't be having overpopulation anytime soon...

earth isnt overpopulated?



Fascists killed 6 million, those who espouse fascism and glorify genocide are therefore deserving of death, as they are potential murderers.

agreed we should kill all fascists.

[Decolonize The Left]

First of all, morality IS natural. A natural instinct that allows a human being to survive and thrive. Why do you have such a hard time in understanding this?

I don't, you're original claim was:

Killing is what fuels all of nature. In order to live, one must end up killing something. Even vegans technically live from taking life.

It's the most natural thing in the world. Is it wrong? Of course not.
I rightfully noted that the second claim ("Is it wrong? Of course not.") doesn't follow from the first ("Morality IS natural"). You still have not said anything to this point, only reiterating that morality is natural... I understand this, I am telling you that it doesn't follow that just because something is natural it's 'right.'

This is not an argument, but two statements combined together to appear to be an argument - in fact it is just a claim. I noted a counter-example as to why this claim isn't logical.


Morality is a very subjective thing though. The only difference between killing someone and murdering someone is what moral system you judge it by. However, killing is killing. How you look at it doesn't change what it is.

Yes, I agree...


You also can't argue my point that none of us can live without killing something, so to say killing is wrong would be to say that living is wrong.

I haven't argued this point, nor would I...


Also, again I'll ask you to take a glance at a biology book.

Of course evolution is the result of natural selection, mutations that make the organism adapt and eventually thrive in a certain environment.

The key word here is adaptation. They adapt. They adapt to a harsh, destructive environment while others die. Thus without death and chaos there would be no evolution.

This is obvious. But this was not your original claim. And since you seem to think I am 'mangling' your words, I'll quote you. Here's your original claim:

Violence, Killing, Destruction, ect. are all the driving forces behind evolution.There is a difference between saying "without X and Y, Z couldn't happen," and saying "X and Y make Z happen."

I have already noted how narrow-minded this view relates to something extremely complex - something which necessarily involves and is driven by other forces other than those you mentioned. Why? I have already explained:
1. If you were correct, these 'driving forces' would lead to nothing, for everything would be dead and destroyed in the chaos...
2. Your claim ignores the actualities of evolution... namely the creation necessary for destruction, the life necessary for death, and the order necessary for chaos.

After all, something can't die unless it's alive - something can't be destroyed unless it was created - and something can't be chaotic if there wasn't some semblance of order for comparison. Your claims are too simplistic...

"Driving forces" are perspectives - the only driving force which can be attributed to evolution is reproduction and survival. The purpose of evolution is to further one's genes, and this is done through surviving long enough to reproduce. That's it - take your dark portrait of life elsewhere.



Just like a government that is left to be decadent and corrupt. The only
real way to change it is for a catalyst to trigger a bloody revolution.

So please quit trying to twist my words and set up strawman arguments that I never even said.

I don't have to twist anything, your arguments are strawmen. This one above, that I just quoted, for example:
You are positing that social structures (which are created by human beings) mimic, or are analogous to, non-social structures (such as evolution - which is merely a process). What this means is that social structures may evolve, but not necessarily along the same lines as biological structures. You are making this extension without justification.



Once something is perfectly adapted to an environment, there will be no real evolution or radical change to that organism. Things only evolve when the shit hits the fan. That is ALL I meant by chaos and death being the driving forces behind evolution.

Ok, but this is still a weak argument. You are assuming a constant environment when you claim "perfectly adapted" because something can only be perfect within a given context (ex: a shark - arguably a perfect predator - is a terrible predator on land).

Environments are constantly changing, hence perfection is meaningless - only adequacy matters in an evolutionary context. So long as you can reproduce, you are 'evolutionarily fit.'

Furthermore, you seem to think I think killing is 'wrong,' simply because I have deconstructed your claims. I haven't cast moral judgment on that act here on this forum, merely noted that your arguments for killing being acceptable are weak and/or non-arguments.

- August

[InvileMachina]

I don't, you're original claim was:
I rightfully noted that the second claim ("Is it wrong? Of course not.") doesn't follow from the first ("Morality IS natural"). You still have not said anything to this point, only reiterating that morality is natural... I understand this, I am telling you that it doesn't follow that just because something is natural it's 'right.'


I don't believe in a universal right or wrong. Dropping bombs on Afghans seems like a just revenge for a lot of Americans, However the children who get injured or lose their entire family in that explosion might have a different take.


I'm merely saying that nobody can say that killing is wrong and be correct without being hypocritical. It's just an act, like breathing, or screwing, ect.


My reason for killing someone may go against your moral values, but it would be perfectly just in mine. Who's to say what is right or wrong? Sure a large number of people can agree on something but that doesn't get rid of the fact that it's subjective.


Really, that was the entire point I was hinting at in my post and you sorta ran off with it. Maybe a misunderstanding? I'm not sure.






This is obvious. But this was not your original claim. And since you seem to think I am 'mangling' your words, I'll quote you. Here's your original claim:
There is a difference between saying "without X and Y, Z couldn't happen," and saying "X and Y make Z happen."

I have already noted how narrow-minded this view relates to something extremely complex - something which necessarily involves and is driven by other forces other than those you mentioned. Why? I have already explained:
1. If you were correct, these 'driving forces' would lead to nothing, for everything would be dead and destroyed in the chaos...
2. Your claim ignores the actualities of evolution... namely the creation necessary for destruction, the life necessary for death, and the order necessary for chaos.
... but if x and y doesn't occur, then z doesn't either, right? All I meant was that chaos, death, destruction are all fuel for the vehicle that is evolution.


I can't start my car without gasoline(or some other fuel) can I? All the bells and whistles of my car, all the complex inner workings, ect don't mean shit if I don't have the fuel to run the damn thing. That's all my statement was intended to mean. I honestly think you misunderstood what I said, or you are looking far deeper into my statement than you should have.


I never was like "omg! death! destruction! chaos! only things in the world that matter! YEAH! KILL EVERYONE!!!!!!"


Your responses make it out to look like I did. Chaos, Destruction, ect. all spell death for 99% of living creatures(hypothetical, of course), it's that 1% that actually thrive in the chaotic environment that end up populating the planet. However, if it wasn't for chaos and the death of the majority of living things, that 1% would have never been able to rise to prominence. Thus, chaos, death, destruction, ARE the driving force, the gasoline behind evolution.


After all, something can't die unless it's alive - something can't be destroyed unless it was created - and something can't be chaotic if there wasn't some semblance of order for comparison. Your claims are too simplistic...

"Driving forces" are perspectives - the only driving force which can be attributed to evolution is reproduction and survival. The purpose of evolution is to further one's genes, and this is done through surviving long enough to reproduce. That's it - take your dark portrait of life elsewhere.

Too simplistic? No. You're just trying to make it out that way ;)


Yes. However, what organism do you know that survives without exploiting some other form of life/energy? Life, and evolution, is a constant cycle of endless competition with and exploitation of other life forms. Screwing and breathing isn't enough alone to survive and thrive. What gives a said organism the energy to even move, let alone breed, is the consumption/exploitation of another organism.


It's not a dark portrait. It's a realistic one. All of the philosophy in the world won't change this fact.



I don't have to twist anything, your arguments are strawmen. This one above, that I just quoted, for example:
You are positing that social structures (which are created by human beings) mimic, or are analogous to, non-social structures (such as evolution - which is merely a process). What this means is that social structures may evolve, but not necessarily along the same lines as biological structures. You are making this extension without justification.
Human beings are a part of nature. Everything we are made of is natural. Everything we do comes from nature, uses nature, ect. There is nothing we can do to seperate ourselves from nature. Morals, social structures, ect, are all systems. A system is a system is a system. That's all I'm saying.


To say something is "man made" doesn't make it unnatural. No more unnatural than a beaver building a dam. No matter how hard man tries or what man does he will never be capable of escaping nature, because he IS nature.





Ok, but this is still a weak argument. You are assuming a constant environment when you claim "perfectly adapted" because something can only be perfect within a given context (ex: a shark - arguably a perfect predator - is a terrible predator on land).

Environments are constantly changing, hence perfection is meaningless - only adequacy matters in an evolutionary context. So long as you can reproduce, you are 'evolutionarily fit.'

Furthermore, you seem to think I think killing is 'wrong,' simply because I have deconstructed your claims. I haven't cast moral judgment on that act here on this forum, merely noted that your arguments for killing being acceptable are weak and/or non-arguments.

- August
If you read my post, you'd have noted that I never assumed a constant environment. I merely said that once an organism is very well adapted to a certain environment that there will be no radical change or evolution until that environment is shaken and changes.


I've never seen someone with such a talent for reading something and yet missing the point entirely.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't believe in a universal right or wrong. Dropping bombs on Afghans seems like a just revenge for a lot of Americans, However the children who get injured or lose their entire family in that explosion might have a different take.

Surely because you posit beyond human beings. If human beings weren't around, and there was no other being capable of conceptualizing a morality, would there be morals? Of course not, this is obvious.

But if this is your point, it's pointless. Why? Because there are human beings. Hence morality is "universal" in the sense that it applies to all agents - simple philosophy.


I'm merely saying that nobody can say that killing is wrong and be correct without being hypocritical. It's just an act, like breathing, or screwing, ect.

If the act of killing is framed as "murder," then many can argue that 'murder is wrong.'

No one argues that 'killing' is wrong - not even vegans.


My reason for killing someone may go against your moral values, but it would be perfectly just in mine. Who's to say what is right or wrong? Sure a large number of people can agree on something but that doesn't get rid of the fact that it's subjective.

There are many ways to say what's wrong and right:
Rawls used reason through the argument of utility.
Nietzsche used intuition.
Kant used reason through the categorical imperative.
Religion uses fear and fairy tales.

Most people know its subjective, but this point is irrelevant. Ok, so it's subjective, so what? I am still entitled to say that an act is right or wrong, morally acceptable or not, simply because I'm an agent.


Really, that was the entire point I was hinting at in my post and you sorta ran off with it. Maybe a misunderstanding? I'm not sure.

Almost always a misunderstanding...


... but if x and y doesn't occur, then z doesn't either, right? All I meant was that chaos, death, destruction are all fuel for the vehicle that is evolution.

Fine, but you do yourself a disservice by framing your argument in a poor fashion. Death, destruction, and chaos are some driving forces, but life, creation, and order are others - neither is more important, they all are necessary.


Your responses make it out to look like I did. Chaos, Destruction, ect. all spell death for 99% of living creatures(hypothetical, of course), it's that 1% that actually thrive in the chaotic environment that end up populating the planet. However, if it wasn't for chaos and the death of the majority of living things, that 1% would have never been able to rise to prominence. Thus, chaos, death, destruction, ARE the driving force, the gasoline behind evolution.

Too simplistic? No. You're just trying to make it out that way ;)

What environment are you looking at? Most environments on our planet are fairly uniform and stable - there exist weather patterns, wind channels, currents, seasons, etc...

You also seem to think that BAM! Evolution happens! BAM! Drastic event caused evolution to lurch forward! BAM! Huge environmental shift means a bunch of shit dies and the leftover shit survives and evolves.
Wrong. Evolution occurs very, very, very, very, very, slowly... why? Because it's constant.... it's not traumatic, dangerous, or violent. It's like time - a constant framework for living things (though unlike time which is a framework for all things, living things included). Small environmental changes factor into evolution, large ones too...

You site the dinosaurs as an example, but this is silly. That was one large event, but species are evolving every time they reproduce...


Yes. However, what organism do you know that survives without exploiting some other form of life/energy? Life, and evolution, is a constant cycle of endless competition with and exploitation of other life forms. Screwing and breathing isn't enough alone to survive and thrive. What gives a said organism the energy to even move, let alone breed, is the consumption/exploitation of another organism.

Consuming things/beings to survive isn't considered "exploitation." Here's the definition of exploit:
"1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor.
3. To advertise; promote."

Feeding oneself does not satisfy this definition. I consume things/beings to survive yes, but I do not necessarily exploit them.


It's not a dark portrait. It's a realistic one. All of the philosophy in the world won't change this fact.

It is dark:

However, what organism do you know that survives without exploiting some other form of life/energy?You use the word "exploit" instead of "consume", thereby attaching a negative conotation to the necessitites of existence.

All I meant was that chaos, death, destruction are all fuel for the vehicle that is evolution.You ignore the logical half of your argument about the driving forces of evolution.

Your responses make it out to look like I did. Chaos, Destruction, ect. all spell death for 99% of living creatures(hypothetical, of course), it's that 1% that actually thrive in the chaotic environment that end up populating the planet. However, if it wasn't for chaos and the death of the majority of living things, that 1% would have never been able to rise to prominence.You make evolution appear to be violent, dangerous, and radical when it has no form.



If you read my post, you'd have noted that I never assumed a constant environment. I merely said that once an organism is very well adapted to a certain environment that there will be no radical change or evolution until that environment is shaken and changes.

Ugh. Really? Is that what you said? Because here's what you actually said:

Once something is perfectly adapted to an environment, there will be no real evolution or radical change to that organism. Things only evolve when the shit hits the fan. That is ALL I meant by chaos and death being the driving forces behind evolution.You see that first sentence? So, I guess I did have an argument...

And I have already explained how things don't "only evolve when shit hits the fan." Evolution is a constant process. How hard is this to understand? It's basic biology...

- August

[InvileMachina]

It's really quite funny. Seeing as how I agree with most of what you say. You just take the bread and butter of my statements, cook them, and then try to serve it as something different. Seems to me as if we are saying the same thing but just using different languages ;)



... and you absolutely have the right to say something is right or wrong. It doesn't make it universally true though. You know this though, so there really is no point in discussing it further since we seem to agree.


Evolution is constant, this is true. It's also painfully slow. This is also true. Hell, even with a cataclysmic event it takes quite a while for things to fall in place. However, the more drastic the change to an environment, the faster something evolves. Sharks have remained considerably the same since before T-rex was walking around. We both know it's because they are incredible at surviving in their environment.



The whole bread and butter of my post is that chaos, death, destruction, are the basic driving forces behind evolution.



Life, survival, reproduction are the vehicle that the above power.



One doesn't work without the other.



I just sorta assumed people would understand that this was a given. That was a big mistake.



I must say though, I'm glad you made the challenges you did. I could have avoided this whole thing if I had worded it slightly different.


So for that, I thank you :)

[Decolonize The Left]

It's really quite funny. Seeing as how I agree with most of what you say. You just take the bread and butter of my statements, cook them, and then try to serve it as something different. Seems to me as if we are saying the same thing but just using different languages ;)

I don't like the way you cook your bread and butter - tastes bitter, burnt, and offends my palate. My bread and butter is delicious, savory, and leaves one craving for more while being satisfied in the same moment. :D



Evolution is constant, this is true. It's also painfully slow. This is also true. Hell, even with a cataclysmic event it takes quite a while for things to fall in place. However, the more drastic the change to an environment, the faster something evolves. Sharks have remained considerably the same since before T-rex was walking around. We both know it's because they are incredible at surviving in their environment.

You need to get over your tendency to characterize evolution as "slow" or "fast" or whatever - it is constant - it has no form.


The whole bread and butter of my post is that chaos, death, destruction, are the basic driving forces behind evolution.

Life, survival, reproduction are the vehicle that the above power.

Reproduction and survival are observable facets of evolution - namely the purpose of evolution is reproduction, and the process is through survival. Anything beyond, such as demanding some sort of "driving forces" is pure induction, positing, and extrapolating on your part.


One doesn't work without the other.

So why say one is a "driving force?"


I must say though, I'm glad you made the challenges you did. I could have avoided this whole thing if I had worded it slightly different.


So for that, I thank you :)

Most all problems which occur over a dry, sterile, medium of communication such as a forum are the result of poor word choice or misunderstandings on behalf of both parties involved. It is a common phenomenon, hence why I try and be as precise as possible with my word choice.

- August

[freakazoid]

there's also the matter that evolution through natural selection occurs through genetic mutations resulting in character traits which are useful for survival.


mutations that make the organism adapt and eventually thrive in a certain environment.

Evolution/genetic mutation are not always useful, they don't have to do anything, they could just be a mutation.

[Comrade B]

earth isnt overpopulated?
No. No it isn't. We have plenty more room for humanity. Go visit North Dakota.
There is plenty of food, and the potential to create more, it just is used in slimy ways to keep the prices high (I live in an agricultural community, and when there is a surplus after a harvest, they burn it as to not lower the prices.)

If we were to encounter the problem of overpopulation, it could easily be solved by child limit laws.

[Decolonize The Left]

Evolution/genetic mutation are not always useful, they don't have to do anything, they could just be a mutation.

So? Without genetic mutations there could be no evolution by natural selection, hence they are useful...

- August

[InvileMachina]

It's perfectly logical to say that evolution happens at different speeds.

Biology is my passion, and while you seem to be fairly well informed, taking a deep look into various aspects of it, you learn that there are driving forces. Yes, things are constantly evolving, however for large scale evolution, for example speciation, it needs some kind of push. Something to accelerate it. At least that is the case when it comes to the most drastic changes in life on this planet.


That is all I meant. I really don't think you'll argue that.


If you'd like I could direct you to some literature that might explain what I'm getting at in further detail.


I'm majoring in biochemistry, and my nose is constantly in literature regarding biology. Maybe my school of thought is a bit different from the one you came from. Considering there is still a bit of debate regarding certain semantics of evolution.


I lean more towards Punctuated equilibrium. You seem to lean towards Phyletic gradualism. The majority of evolutionary scientists have leaned away from Phyletic gradualism and more to Punctuated equilibrium.


I think that is why we can't seem to agree on certain aspects of evolution. You come from a rather out dated school of thought, although there are still those in the scientific community who still stand by it. However they are in the minority.

Anything can mutate. Mutations are common. However, for a mutation to actually spread rapidly there must be some kind of radical push, some kind of driving force. So while evolution may be constant in the sense that it is always happening, to say that it doesn't happen at different speeds would be pretty blind. It would also be blind to ignore the fact that the most radical changes to life on the planet is a result from some form of catalyst.



Even then, it still does take time. However, without that initial shove the types of changes I was referring to become extremely more difficult.



I could talk about evolution and the various schools of thought for days.. So if you'd like to argue for Phyletic gradualism, I would be more than happy in making a new thread for this debate.

[freakazoid]

[quote]So? Without genetic mutations there could be no evolution by natural selection, hence they are useful.../quote]

I'm just saying that they are not always useful. I'm not disagreeing with everything else you are saying because of it, I'm just putting it out there. Also sometimes genetic mutations are very harmful, so they are not always useful.