the morality of killing....

I remembered this quote from years ago but I'm not sure who it was. If anyone can tell me or give me the exact quote that would be great.


"When the poor want to make war on the rich they use terrorism , when the rich want to terrorise the poor they make war"

My thoughts are that we always use the term terrorism to relate to rucksacks and planes flying into buildings etc. But anyone who has ever seen an F-16 in action will know how terrifying it would be to have that thing rain down on you with it's missiles.

So is the moral dividing line between Bush and Osama really that big?

Is it ever moral? I think not. It's all retaliation the only way forward is forgiveness.

Originally posted by yo its me
Is it ever moral? I think not.

I disagree. Killing in self-defense can be moral.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think killing is justified only in the rare instance of an immediate, legitimate threat to one's own life, or the lives of other innocents. I'd say the Iraq war doesn't qualify as one of those instances.

But why does man kill? Not for bread alone, for frequently there must be a beverage.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I disagree. Killing in self-defense can be moral.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think killing is justified only in the rare instance of an immediate, legitimate threat to one's own life, or the lives of other innocents. I'd say the Iraq war doesn't qualify as one of those instances.

Yes I guess that makes it justified, not sure if that's moral though, just what needs to be done- but I guess here is where there is confusion because a threat to someones way of life could be considered a need to kill- as at least one religion I can think of dose.

The fatal equilibrium: if murder is truly justified by a good cause for the common people and the general population whom the murder affects all unanimously believes that (family and close friends included), then the killing is ethical. Thus, if I were to meet Jack the Ripper's reincarnation's son (of which the Bride of Frankenstein was the mother), of course I would kill the son before he did any harm. If there was a random guy walking down the street who was unarmed and had no intention of breaking the peace, it would be wrong.

Originally posted by scherzo
The fatal equilibrium: if murder is truly justified by a good cause for the common people and the general population whom the murder affects all unanimously believes that (family and close friends included), then the killing is ethical. Thus, if I were to meet Jack the Ripper's reincarnation's son (of which the Bride of Frankenstein was the mother), of cours ...[text shortened]... down the street who was unarmed and had no intention of breaking the peace, it would be wrong.

The ol' pre-emptive strike eh?

Originally posted by yo its me
Yes I guess that makes it justified, not sure if that's moral though, just what needs to be done- but I guess here is where there is confusion because a threat to someones way of life could be considered a need to kill- as at least one religion I can think of dose.

But why does it need to be done? Presumably because some morally wrong, heinous act will take place if it is not. Killing in self-defense may mean that a guilty person [the initiator of force] has died instead of an innocent one. That result is morally preferable to letting an innocent be killed. The killing is thus a morally good act.

I do not think the goal of self-defense must be to kill the attacker. If I have a non-lethal option that still saves me, I am morally obligated to choose that.

As for religions, they tend to take the self-defense idea way too far. Same goes for some countries and their governments when they make war.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The ol' pre-emptive strike eh?

Glad to say that's never happened to me. 😉

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But why does it need to be done? Presumably because some morally wrong, heinous act will take place if it is not. Killing in self-defense may mean that a guilty person [the initiator of force] has died instead of an innocent one. That result is morally preferable to letting an innocent be killed. The killing is thus a morally good act.

I do not think ...[text shortened]... defense idea way too far. Same goes for some countries and their governments when they make war.

Very true.
You sound very rational.

It is irrational, in my opnion, to kill all one can in a counrty becasue someone from that country organised a sucide bomber to kill in yours.

Originally posted by yo its me
Very true.
You sound very rational.

It is irrational, in my opnion, to kill all one can in a counrty becasue someone from that country organised a sucide bomber to kill in yours.

It's a war and wars can be for a good reason, a just war.

Originally posted by daniel58
It's a war and wars can be for a good reason, a just war.

No, NO ,NOOOO!! daniel!!! wars dont ever have a good reason .
Historically i suppose that i have been sympathetic to some causes in a few wars but if we are going to make that 'new earth' that robbie was talking about there will have to be no more wars. Not just no more wars , even any thought of 'war' at all!!

Attention all other posters! The THOUGHT of war on any level is 'bad' . If any 'spiritual' people have a beef with this feel free to take it up with me although i would suggest that 'spirituality' and 'war' 'do not mix'(as fabs would put it) .
(then again theres the 'Art of War' ,but thats a different thing altogether)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Attention all other posters! The THOUGHT of war on any level is 'bad' . If any 'spiritual' people have a beef with this feel free to take it up with me although i would suggest that 'spirituality' and 'war' 'do not mix'(as fabs would put it) .
(then again theres the 'Art of War' ,but thats a different thing altogether)

Not two
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Not two
😵

nope! not even one!