http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApgaqIhIWlel.XyCBKax2yjd7BR.?qid=20070302111554AABPEs7
So the belief of everything is natural. Animals kill each other all the time, for many diffrent reasons. Food, Jealousy, Territory. Shoul I be able to kill someone who is higher up in my job, to get a head in the buisness? If someone comes on my property do I have the right to kill him on the spot? If a man is talking to my wife, should I be able to slit his throat, and prove I'm the dominant male?
Once again, I'm not trying to offend anyone, just curious.
2007-03-02 06:25:49 · 12 answers · asked by I Rock For Jesus 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why do we as humans start deciding what killing is wrong, compared to what killings are right?
2007-03-02 06:28:00 · update #1
Why woudln't you urinate on my leg?
2007-03-02 06:30:27 · update #2
Why not, I believe I have justification to do so, why can't I?
2007-03-02 06:34:38 · update #3
No Rock...we cannot just start deciding what killing is right and what is wrong...Christian or not. Yes, animals do kill each other and other animals for a multitude of reasons...but animals do not have the capacity of knowing right and wrong as we do or of appreciating the consequences of what they do. Their natural is really...instinctual.
This is something that all of us are going to have to think about in the future and I see it as becoming a very big ethical and moral factor as we face the future with global warming almost a certainty. How will we house, feed and clothe people as our land disappears into the water? Remember when Katrina hit...the subject came up then when its possible that some people were humanely allowed to die rather than face a more horrible death at the hands of nature.
Grace and Peace
PEG
2007-03-02 06:36:51 · answer #1 · answered by Dust in the Wind 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference between humans and animals is the ability to think abstractly. The biological imperative is to survive, through nutrition, self-protection and/or reproduction. Wolves, mantises and amoebas kill because of evolved instincts that enhance species survival. But they can't take stock of food supply trends, environmental degradation or the "unfairness" of their competitors. They each deal with one bunny at a time.
People can interpret their environment and ascribe "meaning" to events. They can plan ahead and consider consequences. They can learn more from experience than mere technical skill.
WHY a person kills another person becomes important. Revenge and theft are considered unequal motivations, but their relative validity is a social agreement, not an unambiguous law. The "eye for an eye" convention was considered an improvement over the old "death for anything" rule.
Socrates committed suicide at the order of the state. Is that crazy? The Athenians seemed to be okay with it. Would they approve of our electric chair or lethal injection? Some cultures have regarded dismemberment as a fitting and merciful punishment for theft. Others believe family honor is more important than allowing a member who has suffered embarrassment to live. Some believe that the "inalienable" human rights of its citizens can be suspended in time of war.
Every system is a compromise between the right to self-determination and manageable social order. It took a while to assassinate Mussolini; would it have happened sooner if the trains hadn't been made to run on time? Wars start because people don't agree on the "rules".
Yet we still try, because we consistently believe that there is such a thing as the quality of a life, that there is more than mere survival at stake. And every attempt to acknowledge and realize that belief leads to some injustice, some injury and even the death of innocents because no system is perfect. Still, the alternative is even more violent and chaotic.
So we try, promoting this behavior, prohibiting that, allowing these extenuating circumstances, all in an attempt to craft a system that is as just, compassionate and free as life in community will permit. Those who violate the rules are punished so that the rules will have some effect. But their validity is a local agreement, based on cultural values and experience. It isn't and can't be universal.
2007-03-02 07:15:39 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shoul I be able to kill someone who is higher up in my job, to get a head in the buisness?
--Of course not.
If someone comes on my property do I have the right to kill him on the spot?
--If you fear for your life then yes.
If a man is talking to my wife, should I be able to slit his throat, and prove I'm the dominant male?
--Of course not.
Natural does not mean acceptable. The reasons for not acting like this are societal and psychological - both natural influences.
2007-03-02 06:33:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you recognize, it will be prejudice, yet the following we were given a affirming : a guy and not using a spouse will end the daddy of his u . s ., a guy with a spouse will finally end up expanding his own babies. And from existence and journey i visit assert that that is genuine. Politics takes too a lot time if accomplished suitable so as that candidate nonetheless manage to lead a cheerful love existence at living house. And one is a lot more suitable liable to be attracted by technique of violent reason if he does no longer have like to herald its percentage of violent thoughts. there is also an different aspect that say that the a lot less you adore issues in existence, the a lot less you are able to loose. subsequently it truly is gloomy to assert, yet likely sensible, that some baby-kisser could wrestle thier reason because they do no longer have a family members to strengthen and a pair to construct a destiny on. Having a spouse, babies, all those issues can replace you dramatically. You develop into more suitable attentive for your responsibilities as a guy and characteristic already a reason to wrestle for. So voting for the most fanatical candidate act quite usually as a filtering internet for cutting-part baby-kisser. The more suitable they are on my own, rejected, the more suitable they are enraged. The more suitable they are enraged, the more suitable they are going to understand a thanks to carry out the primal instinct of crowds. The more suitable they attempt this, the more suitable they stay on my own... and customarily it finally end up in parliaments, whites residences, t.v. exhibit, protection stress, diplomatic partys... perhaps between the needs to modern-day your self in a political occupation could be to have your babies refer you as an able chief... after all, how's someone no longer able to have the recognize form it truly is family members could ever rule the households of others?
2016-12-05 03:54:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is here, it is right. Unless a higher authority says so.
Does one Human have higher authority over another Human in the scope of the universe?
This is usually where the atheists becomes irrational in their argument. They claim " God " can't tell you what is right or wrong.........BUT THEY CAN!
2007-03-02 06:28:52 · answer #5 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't God say you can stone your wife if she is talking to another male.....
Oh and just because the instinct is natural doesn't mean that it should be practiced in all situations. Urination is natural but I wouldn't urinate on your leg.
Well, if there was a fire on your leg I would, ok... Is that better.
2007-03-02 06:29:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
not even, why in the world would God create us like the animals, when it stated clearly he made man a living soul. So that alone let's you know that man and animal aren't required to play the same roles.
2007-03-02 06:31:01 · answer #7 · answered by Nish 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You shouldn't compare the animal kingdom with the human animal. The human animal is the monster here.
2007-03-02 06:30:43 · answer #8 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
We are governed by a system of laws set into place by God Almighty. We also have intelligence and common sense.
So....no...we can't kill for these reasons.
2007-03-02 06:29:34 · answer #9 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We have absolute morals, that as a society, we should adhere to. Our morals should come from God, not man!
2007-03-02 06:30:03 · answer #10 · answered by michael m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋