Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

Do you want non-defensive, intentional killing of born, brain-alive humans to always be prohibited?

Yes, I want it to always be prohibited.
13
33%
No, I have exceptions. (Please explain.)
27
68%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by LuckyR »

Intellectual_Savnot wrote: March 7th, 2019, 1:27 pm LuckyR either way
Okaaay, do you consider the two similar?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Intellectual_Savnot
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California
Contact:

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Intellectual_Savnot »

Equal action on different entities is never the same, but I would say both are similarly free to occur in a theoretical optimal situation
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by LuckyR »

Intellectual_Savnot wrote: March 8th, 2019, 1:35 pm Equal action on different entities is never the same, but I would say both are similarly free to occur in a theoretical optimal situation
I believe essentially everyone agrees that murder and suicide in fact do "occur", though that seems to be relatively low hanging fruit.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Terrapin Station »

I answered "No."

First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.

I'd also allow assisted suicides. I'd just require that consent/an absence of being threatened into it is well-documented.

Another category is killing for political purposes--wars, revolutions, etc. Sometimes that's the only practical option to avoid living under intolerable conditions.

Aside from that, I'm sure there are other situations where I'm not against intentional non-defensive killing. It would be difficult to list them all. And they'd include things like the classic moral dilemmas a la needing to kill one person to save a million, etc. (Although I suppose that could be framed as "defensive," but it's not the traditional sense of self-defense.)
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.
You've stated this position of yours on abortion before, and I've briefly discussed it with you. As far as I recall, you've stated that you would allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy, without requiring there to be an illness or disability. I think your reason for this was due to the foetus "occupying" the mother?

You've stated here that you would allow infanticide up to a certain age, but, unlike with abortion, you would require a reason like serious chronic illness or disability. Is this extra requirement due to the fact that the baby no longer occupies the mother?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 9:56 am
Terrapin Station wrote:First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.
You've stated this position of yours on abortion before, and I've briefly discussed it with you. As far as I recall, you've stated that you would allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy, without requiring there to be an illness or disability. I think your reason for this was due to the foetus "occupying" the mother?

You've stated here that you would allow infanticide up to a certain age, but, unlike with abortion, you would require a reason like serious chronic illness or disability. Is this extra requirement due to the fact that the baby no longer occupies the mother?
Yes.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:(up to say 18 months of age)
What would be the criterion you would use for deciding on an age limit? Would it be related to the extent to which we regard the baby as having developed into a being which is capable of giving/withholding consent? Or would it be related to the more technical consideration of the length of time that it takes to establish the seriousness of any serious chronic illness or disability?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 10:14 am
Terrapin Station wrote:(up to say 18 months of age)
What would be the criterion you would use for deciding on an age limit? Would it be related to the extent to which we regard the baby as having developed into a being which is capable of giving/withholding consent? Or would it be related to the more technical consideration of the length of time that it takes to establish the seriousness of any serious chronic illness or disability?
An arbitrary designation prior to the point where people would have later detailed memories of that time of their life.
User avatar
Grecorivera5150
Posts: 677
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bruce Lee

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Grecorivera5150 »

Well said Greta. Your account ignites me a palpable way as if my face was being smashed into a roiling cauldron of culpability.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Ecurb »

I haven't read this entire thread, but since it's just been reactivated, I will chime in. I read a book by Oliver O'Donovan. I read it only because I was friends with his brother, and both of them are the sons of famous short story writer Frank O'Connor (nee. Michael O'Donovan).

Oliver is a cleric -- he was once the Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford. I mention it only because I never would have read the book but for the personal connection.

In any event, my somewhat blurry memory is that O'Donovan (speaking as a Church of England cleric) thought that self-defense was not an appropriate reason for killing. Christians, he wrote, are required to turn the other cheek. (One of the subjects on which he was an expert was the Christian approach to war.) However, violence can sometimes be justified -- and it's justification involves restoring JUSTICE.

I thought this was reasonable.
'
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Ecurb wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:02 pmIn any event, my somewhat blurry memory is that O'Donovan (speaking as a Church of England cleric) thought that self-defense was not an appropriate reason for killing. Christians, he wrote, are required to turn the other cheek. (One of the subjects on which he was an expert was the Christian approach to war.) However, violence can sometimes be justified -- and it's justification involves restoring JUSTICE.
Thank you for providing the example of turning the other cheek in Christian teachings. In addition to some Christians, I am sure there are many others who as a matter of religion, their moral beliefs, or just the nonreligious amoral personal preferences would choose to not engage in self-defense

However, it's important to note the difference between saying, "I wouldn't do X," versus saying, "I want X to be illegal". The latter requires state-sponsored violence, or at least coercion using the threat of state-sponsored violence.

With that noted, I think we can agree that O'Donovan would presumably want it to be legal for one to engage in self-defense, rather than have government agent's directed to commit non-defensive violence against those engaging in self-defensive. That is despite the fact that he might choose not use his legal right to self-defense, due to his religious or moral beliefs.

Scott wrote:Do you want non-defensive, intentional killing of born, brain-alive humans to always be prohibited?
Intellectual_Savnot wrote: March 7th, 2019, 2:39 pm Scott took argument: a or b, where a must make b not the choice and vice versa. He took any situation where b was the choice and said "that is excused and does not count" thus confirming a. He took all the value out of the argument by making the definition of a non-applied to the question: a or b? By committing this logical fallacy, he makes the question posed different than the one answered.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection. Is it possible to reword it a bit for me? What fallacy specifically do you think I committed?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Steve3007 »

I am not against killing defensively, but I think my stating that is almost worthless by itself because of the practicalities of defining what actually constitutes defence. All countries with a military, as far as I'm aware, refer to that military as a "department of defence" or something similar.

In the context of philosophy we often take the view that practicalities like that are for other subjects, like politics or science (as opposed to "the philosophy of..." those subjects), to discuss. We concern ourselves with broad, overarching principles, not practical details. But I think there are examples where the practicalities render the principles moot, so can't be ignored even by philosophers, if we want to say something meaningful. I think this is one example and there are others in things like the philosophy of science.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by LuckyR »

The most obvious answer to the title is the "Trolley Problem".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Steve3007 wrote: January 28th, 2021, 7:25 am I am not against killing defensively, but I think my stating that is almost worthless by itself because of the practicalities of defining what actually constitutes defence. All countries with a military, as far as I'm aware, refer to that military as a "department of defence" or something similar.

In the context of philosophy we often take the view that practicalities like that are for other subjects, like politics or science (as opposed to "the philosophy of..." those subjects), to discuss. We concern ourselves with broad, overarching principles, not practical details. But I think there are examples where the practicalities render the principles moot, so can't be ignored even by philosophers, if we want to say something meaningful. I think this is one example and there are others in things like the philosophy of science.
Steve, I agree with you about those points. To discuss one's feelings or opinions, even philosophically, about defensive killing calls for much more nuance than is needed for the topic at hand: intentional non-defensive killing.

In this topic, I seek not to discuss situations in which the killer genuinely believes they are defensively killing or in which the killing is otherwise alleged to be defensive.

Rather, in this topic, I seek only to discuss situations in which the killer is intentionally committing non-defensive killing of another human against the other human's will, and even then only in cases where the other human is already born and brain-alive.

By comparison to the topics you mention, this topic is much more philosophically simple. Thanks to that relative philosophical simplicity, I and about 35% of the poll respondents can say resolutely that we always oppose such non-defensive intentional killing of born brain-alive humans. Perhaps more importantly, those ~35% of respondents and I can therefore presumably each make a personal commitment to ourselves to not engage in such intentional non-defensive killing of our fellow human being, a sort of self-chosen diet of behavior much like one might commit to a food diet.

For those who make exceptions and do support and/or who would willfully and intentionally commit non-defensive killing of other humans, I would love to learn more about what those exceptions that they make are exactly, why they make those exceptions, and if that reasoning is consistent and logical (i.e. doesn't involve contradictions).
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Post by LuckyR »

If you had Huntington's chorea and were starting to have symptoms at age 40 and your 20 year old daughter needed a heart transplant, would you donate your heart? Would the transplant surgeon behave immorally in your estimation ?
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021