'if killing is wrong, war is too'

This is going to be a short thread.

I've been pondering about this for a long, long time.

I've read this statement somewhere, it goes like this.

'if killing is wrong, war is too'

I actually agree wholeheartedly with this statement or assumption. (call it whatever you will)

What does ATS think about this?

And for the people disagreeing please explain why.

Thanks ATS

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Both have always been and always will be wrong, However a persons natural urge to kill and conflict with others far too commonly influences the decisions of fools handed the power to influence others

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Sounds very similar to the Voltaire (?) quote:"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

War is Hell.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

Sounds very similar to the Voltaire (?) quote:"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

War is Hell.

thanks didn´t know of this quote

much like that one from Stalin

´the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million a statistic´

Killing is wrong, but sometimes it may be justified (or less wrong than the alternative). For example in self-defense or defense of others. So is war.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


'if killing is wrong, war is too'


If you choose to violate someone else's rights, yours may get violated too...


Pretty simple really...and of course case-by-case. Being a Pacifist doesn't shield you from experiencing the chaos of the world.

Since this is the philosophy section we have to first look at the heart of the matter. Is killing really wrong or is this just a concept people have invented? Is there really a universal law that states this is wrong? Somehow even if there was a superior godlike being I believe that it would be so far beyond our concepts of right and wrong that the act of killing would be beyond insignificant.

Right and wrong are also variable and far from concrete. It is all a matter of perspective. Even as a society we acknowledge this with the self defense claim. Somehow everyone agrees killing is wrong but we manage to make exceptions.

For example:
(Two men killed another man in a fight while out in the park.) Is what those two men did wrong?

(Two men killed another man in a fight while trying to rescue a 4 year old girl who the man was sexually assaulting while out in the park.) Is what these two men did wrong?

So now we not only have to prove that killing is somehow innately wrong and not just our concept we also have to define right and wrong. If killing is wrong completely then taking any life is wrong. Then what of plant or animal life. Is this wrong? If we kill a chicken to save our starving child is this wrong? It is we who judge whether an act is good or bad. Not everyone will always agree with this judgment for good or ill.
Fortunately at least most of us look at killing as something that just shouldn't be done at least in the respect of murder.


Lastly, a war can be waged and won through many means and all need not involve the loss of life. So no if killing is wrong then war does not inherently become wrong.

Killing is not wrong. It cannot be wrong, all we do is kill. Everything in the world kills something else to live. It's the way of the world. Even plants are alive, cows kill them to live. We kill the cows to live. Are we, somehow, above everything else? Were we created in someone's image, to rule the planet, and kill everything with impunity? Sounds kind of crazy, there. So, obviously, killing is allowed. If you TRULY believe it is so wrong, you should starve yourself to death.

Even in your "book" it does not say not to kill, it says not to commit murder. Big difference.

Killing for no reason, or for gain (money) is murder. Killing to defend yourself, from someone who is trying to kill you for gain, is righteous.

War is just mass murder, for plunder, now called in Newspeak "privatizing". No other reason, no matter what they tell you. It's about as wrong as you can get. Unfortunately, and unforgivably, the masses are brainwashed into thinking they are doing these murders for some good reason. Or, worse, just "doing their job". Doesn't make it right, and if there ever is any kind of Judgement, well, they are all bound for Hell.

However, if it gets to the point that everyone is starving, then killing others en masse to secure enough food for your group becomes the only survival. Then is it murder? Here's where it gets deep.

Any extrapolation of current trends in every aspect of society, leads to this end. So we all should think about it. But few will. If these trends don't change, and there is no indication that they will, we are in big trouble.

We should have progressed beyond war as a society by now.

I dont think anything dies, so how can anything be killed. The shell may perish but thats it. I do feel the greatest crime would be to unduely tramatize anything while seperateing the two.

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
This is going to be a short thread.

here let me help you lengthen your thread:

it aren't murder when you is killing unbelievers for Jesus....!

Edit to add
Ps flag and star OP

War is a mistake an error.Yes killing is bad in war, that's why it drives those who do it crazy with guilt.We knew that going in, but there are some really bad people who really don't like us,and there are these other people who REALLY like money and they decide what we do.
We are very good at this ,but we really need a lot more fore thought before we are sent.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Meh.

Yeah, war is wrong, the way we do it today.

However, if people wanted to go back to sword and shield, and fight it out for whatever reasons they wanted to, fine, no issues at all.

That keeps the "collateral" damage at basically 0, no "innocent" deaths as people know what they are going to get themselves into.

That's the only way I condone any sort of war.

~Tenth

reply to post by cavtrooper7


star that

to ToThe Tenth
yeah thats probably the best idea
then eventually the urge to solve problems that way will hopefully darwinate itself right off the pages of history
as those willing to back thier own stupidity up by hand eventually kill them selves off

reply to post by CaptChaos


funny thing
If everyone had to eat what they kill as us hunter fisher gatherer types are expected to do to honor the gift the spirit of the prey....I think that would slow down the carnage a little bit
especially if the food had to be aged a few days in the field

reply to post by kn0wh0w


this confusion is evil, in truth killing and fighting are totally opposite

truth is absolutely right, free

if killing is true then killing would b the free move end absolutely right, in self defense yes only, so it is a very critical case that cant b proven happening
as to what is self, how absolute right could end in defense or even how absolute right could be attacked n violated? how absolute evil is a fact, who is gonna prove it and assert it

that is why for me the word killing is evil invention, as it can b true or rarely so from very far relative abstraction to right, which is the way of evil in forcing an absolute fact reference as a creation living from weakest concept of right possessed and abused

that is why the word killing has no synonyme so it is not existing in truth nor of its realisation, that is how killing even as a reality cannot be described nor meant objectively, what does it mean smthg killed, it is an agression that will always be free from killing fact

while fights is a whole another concept that exist clearly and absolutely in truth

principally, one as a concept and fact is wrong in truth, in truth only freedom is the stillness fact, so as nothing objectively

so logically in truth if there is one then others also necessarily, there will b too much fights for sure

if freedom is not respected as the rule of objective and subjective existence and absolute existence fact superiority value, then existence realities will b through fights, in meaning freedom wills or objective positive freedom values possessions for granted

that is why the word fight has a lot of synonyms since truth realize it, from superificial disagreements ways in respect of else existence rights, to deaths ways of else existence rights, fights stay relative to objective existence
so always meaning the reality fact not the freedom out that do not exist

this is confirmed from truth conception right, in looking to the absolute opposite of each word

the opposite of killing is living, living is surely right then living is the true and killing is evil invention

the opposite of war is peace, peace is evil invention then war is the true

what is peace? wat does it mean? objectively what it looks as ? try to find a synonym to peace, there is not

and peace is never free, it is always through compromises in limited perspective of else deluding absolute facts existence