Is The Premeditated Killing of any Human Being Ethical and/or Morally Justifiable??

JA you seem to be missing the point even though more then one person has said it.

Why become a killer yourself you ask? Taking a life in self defence does not make you a murderer, its simply what you have to do. You take a life in self defence because YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. THATS WHY. If there is a way to subdue the attacker without killing him then that would be better but not always possible.

In terms of premeditated killing then no you probably dont have the right to kill anyone, although war or the CIA assasinating the leader of a country to sway world events is a different thing (these things are countries trying to gain power).

Due to your responses I am wondering if you understand that self defence in not premeditated because it seems like you think it is which would make your responses make a little more sense.

With reference to "missing the point JayM"

JayM said:

Taking a life in self defence does not make you a murderer

Click to expand...

But it does make you a killer

You have no choice in order to live. A "killer" in your terms is anyone who takes a life regardless of the circumstances, adhereing to your logic then yes I suppose the person would be a "killer" but I dont think that the person or anyone else who knows what happened in that situation would consider the person a killer. Which do you think anyone who has posted on this thread would rather do in that situation?

A killer is someone who premeditates killing. Manslaughter is accidental killing. Self defence is not being a killer or a murderer.

Okay, Tik ~
what about case of assisted suicide?
is or isn't that premeditated?
the final dose given at the hands of another. Do you think they could be considered murderer? Should they be tried accordingly?
As re your above statement to mine ~ in Florida now, a known anti- black racist, followed an unarmed youth and intimidated him until a confrontration ensued. the man shot the youth and killed him, claiming protection of his own life.
leaves too much up for grabs, doesn't it?
and i'm not at all devaluing your story shared or others like them that i know. i'm coming from a place of question as well, but i can honestly say i don't believe one killing another is ever right. no matter what the circumstances. i may want it it my head, but my heart knows it is just as bad.

JayM said:

You have no choice in order to live. A "killer" in your terms is anyone who takes a life regardless of the circumstances, adhereing to your logic then yes I suppose the person would be a "killer" but I dont think that the person or anyone else who knows what happened in that situation would consider the person a killer. Which do you think anyone who has posted on this thread would rather do in that situation?

A killer is someone who premeditates killing. Manslaughter is accidental killing. Self defence is not being a killer or a murderer.

Click to expand...

JayM online dictionary states as follows:

Noun 1. killer - someone who causes the death of a person


i.e. any dictionary in any language tells us that anyone who kills is a killer - so why do you say "adhering to your logic" as if this was somehow "my definition"? That's not "my definition Jay M - that's a dictionary definition of the word killer

Well, if i was to kill in either self defence, or, defence of a loved one, then so be it if i am semantically labelled a killer. It doesnt mean its moraly wrong. Heaven help the human race if a court of law saw things as black and white as that.

JA, i do appreciate the ideal of having everyone learn self defence so no killing is done. I am a person who feels, albeit small, trauma when i kill an insect. Strong Neptunian influences in my being. My abusive ex one evening said to me, "im really going to kill you now". In those split seconds, i did what i could to defend myself. I didnt kill him but if it came down to it, it would have been me or him.

Imo, no human being can determine why or how universal karma works, unless they are a rare Divine being with access to Akashic Records.

Perhaps thats just my Pisces Jupiter, my faith is blending, mutable...

Neptune Rising said:

Well, if i was to kill in either self defence, or, defence of a loved one, then so be it if i am semantically labelled a killer. It doesnt mean its moraly wrong. Heaven help the human race if a court of law saw things as black and white as that.

JA, i do appreciate the ideal of having everyone learn self defence so no killing is done. I am a person who feels, albeit small, trauma when i kill an insect. Strong Neptunian influences in my being. My abusive ex one evening said to me, "im really going to kill you now". In those split seconds, i did what i could to defend myself. I didnt kill him but if it came down to it, it would have been me or him.

Imo, no human being can determine why or how universal karma works, unless they are a rare Divine being with access to Akashic Records.

Perhaps thats just my Pisces Jupiter, my faith is blending, mutable...

Click to expand...

We are told that for every action there is a reaction because that is the law of karma or action – i.e. that actions have consequences.


So the action of not killing an insect has a reaction of not killing an insect (and karma is complex so we have no idea what that reaction could be)... likewise the action of killing an insect has a reaction of killing an insect (and karma is complex so we have no idea what that reaction could be)

But we do know what happens when we plant flowers in appropriate soil at the appropriate time of year and provide them with water - i.e. the result is that flowers grow... the same happens if we plant vegetables... i.e. vegetables grow. We would be very surprised (and I personally would be incredulous) if I planted a row of beans one of which grew into an amazing beanstalk as high as the clouds and featured a giants castle at the top of it .

Actions are just like seeds... except that actions are seeds that sprout consequences... with plant seeds, some seeds sprout on time, others take longer. Karma seeds are similar. We can expect certain kinds of consequences from certain kinds of actions. We don't know the exact consequences (because as you have explained, the law of karma is beyond us humans to comprehend) but we get the general idea. So the result of killing is that we are killers and we are visited with the karma of killing. (Whatever that may be) – that is because we have killed and also because we cannot escape the consequences of our actions.

Courts of law vary considerably depending on cultural differences and the century. It is not unusual for alcohol drinkers in some nations to find themselves being severely flogged, many being seriously injured as a result and for example History reminds us that in England in the 1700's it was not unusual that people were hanged for stealing a sheep. Courts of law are human judgements and notoriously unjust. Too frequently innocent people are killed aka 'executed'

Karma is impartial and is based on our own actions so the result is up to us. IMO it is misleading to give people the impression that killing is not killing if it is in self defense because that is wrong thinking and dangerous because of the karmic consequences for every action.

It is sad that your ex wanted to kill you – sad for both of you. Good thing is that you avoided killing each other... very upsetting for you obviously

JUPITERASC said:

So we now contemplate (a) the scenario of an incompetent gun-owner who could kill themselves as well as other people – albeit in error, due to lack of “a high level of competency” - the implications are thought-provoking to say the least (b) “a strategically placed butcher block of kitchen knives” seems rather convenient, particularly if it is not located as one would normally expect, in a kitchen.


In my opinion an important step is to acknowledge that killing under any circumstances, is wrong


If everyone remembers that killing is wrong then that would assist in any decision making process similar to the one you have outlined above.


Indeed how right you are! Just recently during UK riots three young men of good character aged 31, 30 and 21 were hit by a car in Winson Green and deliberately run over and killed (cctv clearly shows the event). Joshua Donald, 26, Adam King, 23, and a 17-year-old, who cannot be named because of his age, have appeared in court in Birmingham charged with murdering the three men. Showing great nobility and strength of character, following the deaths of the three men in Birmingham, Haroon's father Tariq Jahan urged the community to remain peaceful and united and his words were credited by police for preventing the spread of further tensions and disorder in the city.

He said he was nearby when it happened. "My instinct was to help the three people, I did not know who they were but they had been injured. I was helping the first man and someone from behind told me my son was behind me. So I started CPR on my own son, my face was covered in blood, my hands were covered in blood. Why, why?" He said his son, who was a mechanic, had been trying to protect the community as incidents were taking place elsewhere in the area. He said a petrol station along the road had been attacked. "He was a very good lad, a good man starting at the beginning of his life and had his whole life ahead of him, I've got no words to describe why he was taken and why this has happened and what's happening to the whole of England. It makes no sense why people are behaving in this way and taking the lives of three innocent people.”

Scrolling down this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-14565750 leads to a news clip where a brother of the three murdered men can be heard showing (like his father) great nobility as well as strength of character as he shuns the idea of taking revenge saying to a journalist “That's the beauty of a life... get good deeds done before you go, exactly as my brothers went"

Such a person is a serious danger to themselves as well as to others. Whether their action is premeditated would be difficult to prove (as you have contended regarding another similar question).

Click to expand...

tsmall said:

To summarize then:

The original post on this thread regarded the implementation of the death penalty. As the title of the thread is "Is the Premeditated Killing of any Human Being Ethical and/or Morally Justifiable," I inferred we were speaking of capital punishment only, and answered with a very quick negative. Through further discourse, we have explored the meaning of "premeditated" and determined that any time a life is taken by someone who has given any measure of forethought to the the circumstances surrounding when or if he or she would ever be able to take a life, and subsequently does so, that person would be guilty of premeditated murder?
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC
So we now contemplate (a) the scenario of an incompetent gun-owner who could kill themselves as well as other people – albeit in error, due to lack of “a high level of competency” - the implications are thought-provoking to say the least (b) “a strategically placed butcher block of kitchen knives” seems rather convenient, particularly if it is not located as one would normally expect, in a kitchen.


In my opinion an important step is to acknowledge that killing under any circumstances, is wrong


If everyone remembers that killing is wrong then that would assist in any decision making process similar to the one you have outlined above.

Now we have the clear statement that any killing is wrong, without the earlier qualification of "premeditation." So, do we then come to the conclusion that A) Killing is wrong. (*please note that we are not considering legality here, but morality.) B) I am human, and posses the indomitable survival instinct of just about every living species on this planet, meaning that if my life, or that of my family, or any other person, as life is sacred, is threatened, I will likely do anything I must to save it...up to and possibly including killing another person. C) Killing is wrong.

Could we then perhaps rephrase the original question to be instead "Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong?"

Click to expand...

Killing is wrong. Whether premeditated, sanctioned by the state in the form of execution or war, or acting out of self-defense. The sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shalt not kill." That's it. Not, "Thou shalt not kill, unless thy life is threatened, or the life of a loved on is threatened, or the life of thy neighbor is threatened." Four words. Straight to the point, as it were.

The problem is that we are human. In that respect, everyone commenting on this thread has a point, but in large part is missing the greater point. We are imperfect. We say one thing and then do another. We hold others to certain standards, but exempt ourselves because we feel justified in the moment. And really, isn't that what we all, as astrologers, are trying to figure out? We come into this world (some of us believe) with lessons to learn based on past incarnations, and with things to also teach in this one. We work off karma and accrue karma and work it off some more. Thankfully, the Universe, or God as we each choose to define it, forgives. And gives us another chance. And we evolve. Spiritually, mentally, physically. Unfortunately, we evolve at different rates. So, while some of us have reached the ability to turn the other cheek no matter what happens, or who may die, the rest of us are left to muddle through as best we can, and hope that eventually all of humanity can get it right on this one little issue.

Killing is wrong.

MaeMae said:

Okay, Tik ~
what about case of assisted suicide?
is or isn't that premeditated?
the final dose given at the hands of another. Do you think they could be considered murderer? Should they be tried accordingly?
As re your above statement to mine ~ in Florida now, a known anti- black racist, followed an unarmed youth and intimidated him until a confrontration ensued. the man shot the youth and killed him, claiming protection of his own life.
leaves too much up for grabs, doesn't it?
and i'm not at all devaluing your story shared or others like them that i know. i'm coming from a place of question as well, but i can honestly say i don't believe one killing another is ever right. no matter what the circumstances. i may want it it my head, but my heart knows it is just as bad.

Click to expand...

Hi MaeMae

I would NEVER charge anyone with manslaughter/murder for assisted suicide. If there is no hope, why prolong the pain.
So I have always been YES on assisted suicide because after seeing my aunt dying of cancer in an agonyzing pain and no pain killers were helping.
Doctors couldnt stop giving her painkillers.

dunno
T

This argument itself is flawed, we will never find common ground first because of the linguistic (definition) framing in the question and the very basic fact moral compasses are subjective. One of the first questions posed in Philosophy in college will be the same, is it morally okay to kill? Well, depends on whose morals and their own personal twists. It is a question that can not be answered conclusively.

TK

JUPITERASC said:

Dr Brian Weiss is human and can make errors as we all can. Dr Brian Weiss is not urging everyone to kill everyone else Carris!


The act of killing incurs the karma of having killed. Let's all learn self-defense classes and learn to stand up for ourselves without killing people – thus avoiding the inevitable consequences of killing

Click to expand...

No - you have misinterpreted that quote - that quote means that we need to overcome our VICES - such as cowardice, apathy, greed, jealousy, intolerance, etc. Also - these are not words from Dr Brian Weiss - he is merely reporting what he recorded his patient say during her past life regression (which I completely believe in).

I'm also not talking about killing in self defense in the heat of the moment. I could be a karate black belt and yet not be able to stop a tyrant from torturing my people. If I had no other choice to stop the tyrant, I would definitely kill him, completely premeditated, in cold blood and be HAPPY to accept the "inevitable consequences", and be labelled a "killer". Those are the ethics and morals I believe in - I don't know (or can't accept) any other standards. I also said that I would kill if it was the ONLY choice - I am definitely not fond of killing.

One of the only things that i remember from the Bhagavad Gita, there is action in inaction, and there is inaction in action. Im saying this is my view, my morals depends entirely on my chart and it doesnt mean im right or wrong. And what i am saying is, i see someones life being threatened by someone, i will certainly not take the 'non action' route. I have always fought for the underdog since i was little and if the level of defence involved saving a life by ending another (of course i would try any other way of stopping them), thats what would be done. Again, all parents i know would do the same for their children, to do anything in their power to defend their childrens lives if they were being threatened. If/when you are in a dangerous and possibly life threatening situation, a logical and moral consideration of what is morally accepted, consequences etc, take a back seat - the biological process of sympathetic nervous system arousal shuts down those processes.... the nervous system biology that prepares the body will activate whether a fellow human being, a stressful boss at the office in cases of chronic stress, or, a sabre tooth tiger, comes running up to us or our loved one.

Right and wrong is not black and white.

Humans are not designed to be perfect, thats why we are playing on the school of earth, perhaps lifetime after lifetime. Angels/perfect beings live in the angelic realm, sometimes passing their messages to us as guidance.

wintersprite1 said:

This argument itself is flawed, we will never find common ground first because of the linguistic (definition) framing in the question and the very basic fact moral compasses are subjective. One of the first questions posed in Philosophy in college will be the same, is it morally okay to kill? Well, depends on whose morals and their own personal twists. It is a question that can not be answered conclusively. TK

Click to expand...

If the ability to find common ground is the criteria defining whether an argument is flawed or not, then – (because clearly as this thread has illustrated, individual 'moral compasses' vary) - then all moral/ethical arguments are flawed.

MaeMae said:

Okay, Tik ~
what about case of assisted suicide?
is or isn't that premeditated?
the final dose given at the hands of another. Do you think they could be considered murderer? Should they be tried accordingly?
As re your above statement to mine ~ in Florida now, a known anti- black racist, followed an unarmed youth and intimidated him until a confrontration ensued. the man shot the youth and killed him, claiming protection of his own life.
leaves too much up for grabs, doesn't it?
and i'm not at all devaluing your story shared or others like them that i know. i'm coming from a place of question as well, but i can honestly say i don't believe one killing another is ever right. no matter what the circumstances. i may want it it my head, but my heart knows it is just as bad.

Click to expand...

Clearly, this useful discussion has shown that - as wintersprite1 has drawn to our attention - we are all individuals with our own moral/ethical codes - so therefore when faced with life-threatening circumstances, whether we live or die is a matter of chance, entirely dependent on the random (and completely individual) moral/ethical code beliefs of those we encounter

killing vs. murder

All,

Fascinating discussion! To all who have lost someone through violence, my best to you and yours. To all who have been attacked and survived, my best to you for a speedy and spiritual recovery.

About the discussion itself...

First of all, assuming something is not the same thing as discussing something. Simply saying, "I don't believe people should ever kill each other" is NOT the same thing as discussing WHY people should never kill each other. Beliefs are fine, but they don't contribute to a discussion...because at some point a person can simply say, "That's not what I believe" and the discussion is over. To contribute to a discussion, there must be some effort made for the person to explain why they believe the way they do...and some willingness to listen to points made on the other side opposite those beliefs.

One of the more interesting things I have heard on this topic of killing is the idea that the bible "Thou shalt not kill" has been mis-translated and therefore mis-interpreted over the years. A more correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder", which is a direct reference to the type of pre-meditated personal killing it seems most people in this thread agree is wrong. While "murder" is not permitted, there ARE times when "killing" is acceptable, such as in war, capital punishment, and self-defense (more here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder

This also gets at the "eye for an eye" idea mentioned elsewhere in the bible.

So the short answer according to the bible is: pre-meditated personal murder is unethical. Killing in war, capital punishment, and self-defense IS ethical if done according to the rules.

And if someone is a professional soldier then pre-meditated killing is ethical as well. Using this definition of ethics:

being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession

Click to expand...

(from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethical)

and using the ethics of a soldier, killing is perfectly ethical and necessary to practice the profession of being a soldier. And there certainly is planning in war, and sometimes specific human targets, so in war pre-meditated killing is ethical.

As to whether pre-meditated killing is personally an ethics that you AGREE with...that is something else entirely.

With something different to say,

Tim

Re: killing vs. murder

wilsontc said:

All,

Fascinating discussion! To all who have lost someone through violence, my best to you and yours. To all who have been attacked and survived, my best to you for a speedy and spiritual recovery.

One of the more interesting things I have heard on this topic of killing is the idea that the bible "Thou shalt not kill" has been mis-translated and therefore mis-interpreted over the years.

With something different to say,

Tim

Click to expand...

Interesting that there were originally 252 commandments in the Old Testament!

In Judaism there are 613 commands found in the Pentateuch - the first five books of Moses, a.k.a. The Torah.

The modern day Christian Bible has a mere 10 commandments - not including Psalms and Proverbs.


The original documents written by Moses and others have not survived. Basically, man created 'The Bible' - that's because many men copied earlier documents which were then also later copied, altered and modernized through the ages. We have no surviving tangible evidence as to whether any of the copies made were/are either correct aka exact copies or incorrect aka inexact copies

The New Testament aka modern Christian Bible was written in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine and his Council in his own words... at that time a group of bishops assembled the Bible in the Council at Carthage 397 A.D. The actual books and chapters are credited to various prophets, apostles and disciples but, the book as a whole was created by an assembly. They wanted to collect the most important Christian writings and histories into a single book so they put together the Bible. Unfortunately, the copying of earlier texts... leaving some out and making some up, introduced many errors and inconsistencies in the modern Christian bible.

This is confirmed by the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia which also states that any original text was altered, apparently in order to create some form of consistency across all documents.


In Genesis alone there remain dozens of errors - such as for instance: -


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. .

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.


GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

exactly! to Jupiter

Jupiter,

Exactly! The bible has been mis-translated in many ways, aside from the idea of "Thou shalt not kill." So because of these mis-translations, people have gotten the idea that ALL killing is wrong. This clearly wasn't the case in ancient times and many make the case that it is not so today. The ones which have been most mis-understood seem to be killing for war, capital punishment, and self-defense. Maybe that's the reason some people so mistakenly believe that they are following the "ancient" teachings when they are against ALL killing...when in fact they are doing nothing of the kind: instead they are going against basic biblical imperative.

Getting biblical,

Tim

I once mashed a cockroach to smithereens in front of my then 8-year old son. He said to me, "Mom, I thought you hated people who kill animals." My response was weak and incomplete. Trying to describe the trouble they cause.
He replied, "Well, it's not like he had a choice to be born a cockroach."

killing is killing

wilsontc said:

Jupiter, Exactly! The bible has been mis-translated in many ways, aside from the idea of "Thou shalt not kill." So because of these mis-translations, people have gotten the idea that ALL killing is wrong. This clearly wasn't the case in ancient times and many make the case that it is not so today. The ones which have been most mis-understood seem to be killing for war, capital punishment, and self-defense. Maybe that's the reason some people so mistakenly believe that they are following the "ancient" teachings when they are against ALL killing...when in fact they are doing nothing of the kind: instead they are going against basic biblical imperative.
Getting biblical, Tim

Click to expand...

It is because the original writings of Moses are long since destroyed that there is no common ground on whether killing is right or wrong according to "The Scriptures" aka "The Bible"

Nevertheless, whether killing is 'right' or 'wrong', killing is killing... i.e. (a) murder is killing (b) killing is killing therefore what do murder and killing have in common? Murder and killing have the common feature of both being a form of killing... murderers are killers... killers are killers

Re: exactly! to Jupiter

wilsontc said:

Jupiter,

Exactly! The bible has been mis-translated in many ways, aside from the idea of "Thou shalt not kill." So because of these mis-translations, people have gotten the idea that ALL killing is wrong. This clearly wasn't the case in ancient times and many make the case that it is not so today. The ones which have been most mis-understood seem to be killing for war, capital punishment, and self-defense. Maybe that's the reason some people so mistakenly believe that they are following the "ancient" teachings when they are against ALL killing...when in fact they are doing nothing of the kind: instead they are going against basic biblical imperative.

Getting biblical,

Tim

Click to expand...

Since I'm the one who tossed "Thou shalt not kill" into the discussion...

Tim, I appreciate the links you gave. What I find most interesting is that we can chase the precursors of Mosaic law and the ten commandments back to about 2350 BCE and the first known written code(s) of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

As you point out, all of them have in common the stricture against murder, but allow for the taking of another life (killing) in instances of war, capital punishment, and self-defense. The earliest of these codes does not appear to be divinely inspired, but rather created by men as a system of law and government. It begs the question then if by asserting that all killing is wrong someone is going against basic biblical imperative (since the bible is so contradictory) or rather the societal imperative of 4300 years of acceptance?

sounds right to me, to tsmall

tsmall,

You asked:

tsmall said:

It begs the question then if by asserting that all killing is wrong someone is going against basic biblical imperative (since the bible is so contradictory) or rather the societal imperative of 4300 years of acceptance?

Click to expand...

That sounds right to me...by the Judaeo-Christian perspective. As a Buddhist, since I know all life is suffering, the idea that some people suffer more than others or cause other people to suffer more is not surprising. If, in consequence, those who cause others to suffer have to suffer themselves because of their actions...that seems OK to me, too.

Buddhistically,

Tim