Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, killing just isn’t justifiable unless you are actually confronted with a life-threatening situation, and even then you can’t translate it to a whole sector of society. In other words, if I were attacked by, say, a midget, and feared for my life, it could be justifiable to kill that individual, but not to kill all like him or her.
Paranoia isn’t a reason to kill. I don’t even think Hitler was paranoid, just prepared to take power and follow through on whatever he said to get there.
He was likely paranoid. I read a short biography of Hitler once which mentioned the fact that his amphetamine usage worsened as time went on and he did in fact become legitimately paranoid. Not sure if that account is conclusive (I will now google!) but the telling of the story was authoritative enough to make a believer out of me.
[Mod cut: rude!]Again, referencing philosophers and their accompanying theories (opinions) does not equate referencing immutable objective fact.
Yawn. You can do better. Kant's universal law and categorical imperative is not my 'logical fallacy'. That said, you've contributed nothing but (nonsensical) insults and overly simplistic statements rather than any attempt to discuss philosophical concepts and universal principles of ethics, as it pertains to a thread in a Philosophy Forum. My point was not simply to reference it - but to introduce it for further discussion (and/or expect the introduction/discussion of others as well). My mistake, as I expected (some sort of) contribution from at least a few who could/would go beyond one-dimensional (meaningless) opinion/insults with a substantiated basis/logical reasoning in which to openly and intelligently discuss the subject of morality as it pertains to killing specifically, per the thread. Obviously, I was wrong; and I don't have the time/interest in the nonsense and grade-school antics/behavior over intelligent discussion. Enjoy!
I think he does; otherwise, he would not be a hangman. His is not the only profession that people go into to pursue a dream career. Lots of jobs are lousy but the only way to earn a living. Garbage men, prostitutes, slaughterhouse butchers, you name it. Think about the guy piloting a strategic nuclear bomber or captain of a nuclear sub. They sleep well too, and they had better.
...i appreciate your input but you missed the entire point of my post, carry on...
...i appreciate your input but you missed the entire point of my post, carry on...
Your point is that killing is a conscious act of the individual regardless of societal decree. Right? And you wonder if individuals who kill other people as an agent of the state would sleep well and unaffected by a troubled conscience. I said they are all sleeping quite well all over the world as we are reflecting on this matter. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Yawn. You can do better. Kant's universal law and categorical imperative is not my 'logical fallacy'. That said, you've contributed nothing but (nonsensical) insults and overly simplistic statements rather than any attempt to discuss philosophical concepts and universal principles of ethics, as it pertains to a thread in a Philosophy Forum. My point was not simply to reference it - but to introduce it for further discussion (and/or expect the introduction/discussion of others as well). My mistake, as I expected (some sort of) contribution from at least a few who could/would go beyond one-dimensional (meaningless) opinion/insults with a substantiated basis/logical reasoning in which to openly and intelligently discuss the subject of morality as it pertains to killing specifically, per the thread. Obviously, I was wrong; and I don't have the time/interest in the nonsense and grade-school antics/behavior over intelligent discussion. Enjoy!
Your point is that killing is a conscious act of the individual regardless of societal decree. Right? And you wonder if individuals who kill other people as an agent of the state would sleep well and unaffected by a troubled conscience. I said they are all sleeping quite well all over the world as we are reflecting on this matter. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
...unless you're a dog, yes...
...you know for a fact they're all sleeping well?...this one isn't...and i personally know a whole bunch of guys that aren't either...so, you don;t know what you're talking about...
...you know for a fact they're all sleeping well?...this one isn't...and i personally know a whole bunch of guys that aren't either...so, you don;t know what you're talking about...
I (mistakenly) assumed people were able/open to (logically) discuss philosophical concepts and universal principles of ethics (which are applicable to the thread), given the fact it's a Philosophy Forum. :-)
Ha - this is c-d! The Psychology forum is even more lacking and hilarious.
...not really...but i am good at calling out blowhards who, because they have read a few articles and saw a few movies, form their lofty world view, that when held up to real world circumstances, fail miserably...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
