If we are just evolved "apes" why is it wrong to kill others?

Question

We kill and eat animals that are more intelligent than some of our species so it can't be intelligence. We kill and eat those creatures that are self aware so it can't be that.

Is it wrong just because some ancient people said so? Isn't that the same thing those that believe in God say?

Strictly scientifically speaking, why would it be wrong to kill the weak among us to further our genetic material? Every other species on the planet does whatever it takes to strengthen and propagate its genetic line.

I know the reason if you believe in God but I am trying to get an answer from those that don't. Shouldn't we just let the handicapped die at birth like all the other species? What purpose does your compassion have other than to make you feel good. And why does it make you feel good? What evolutionary benefit comes from helping the weak? Evolution is survival of the fittest and not saving the weak.

Many species kill their own kind so that is no evolutionary reason. Try thinking outside the box you are in.

I see some can't understand what they read. Some call me a monster for even asking. I don't hold these beliefs, I am just trying to understand why it would be that way strictly from an evolutionary stance.

I also see some that can't answer so they simply post drivel. Nice! If you have no reason, just say so. I can accept that you have no reason and just follow what society has taught you like a good little sheep. We all do it for some things.

Apes don't care for or keep the injured around. They are kicked out of the pack and left to die. The apes that are born with any defects are cast out and left to die.

I am not religious nor a bible thumper. But nice how so many attack me for just asking the question. Speaks volumes about the attackers. They can't answer logically so they attack. NICE!

I don't fear my death nor do I live my life in fear of doing bad. I am not a Christian either.

Answer 1

Ok. I like how you are trying to find a consistent view point. On the one hand we say killing animals is okay and then we say killing people suffering from mental retardation is wrong. How can we draw the line here, when both have low IQ? It's a good question, and it is all too easy to just accept the majority view, without even thinking.

If we can't find any reason to draw the line, then we have to attack either 1) the idea that killing animals is ok or 2) the idea that killing the disabled is wrong.

I think disabled people suffer enough without people killing them as well. Doubting 2) is a slippery slope. If it's okay to kill the disabled then it's okay to kill the HIV positive. If it's okay to kill those who are HIV positive then it's okay to kill those with malaria. etc. All because it would "benefit" the human race. It would seem saying "every other species on the planet does whatever it takes to strengthen and propagate the genetic line." is a bit dangerous! Again the question is: where do you draw the line? At measles? At the common cold? We wouldn't have anyone left!

You also mention self-awareness as a criteria for drawing the line between those that deserve to live and those "things" that don't. You feel animals are self-aware and so we can't draw the line. For what reason do you say animals are self-aware?

Personally I am vegetarian because I think it is so hard to draw the line. However there is always a weakness in my position due to the fact that I *have* to draw a line somewhere. If I don't then I end up saying "don't hurt vegetables - they have feelings too man".

Ultimately I think the problem lies in that we don't really know what a person is, what a mind is, what a brain is, what we are thinking, what animals are thinking, what is the basis for acquiring rights etc. Too many unanswered questions due to the fact that science is still relatively new.

Answer 2

Have you ever seen a family of apes on Discovery channel?

They don't kill each other, either. Why is that?

If you do a little research, you'll discover the term "social contract". That should help you understand a bit better.

Edit - regarding pack animals making the weak outcasts and such... hate to break it to you, but humans do this every single day. Those starving people you see on the TV every night? I imagine you look at them and say "Oh, that's too bad, I wish I could help them..."

Well, guess what? You can. You could give up half of what you own, and feed an entire village of those people for a year. But you don't do that? Why not? Because you don't feel it's your responsibility to do so. You are not the weak one. They are. And though thousands of weak, frightened children starve to death every single day, around the world, you and I both are not afraid to spend enough money on a single meal to save all of their lives...

We don't have any more morality than any other animal. Some people just like to think they do.

Answer 3

What is wrong with killing? Nothing, that is according to the Bible. If a person has convulsions, which we now know is epilepsy, the text says to stone them. If you have a rebellious son, which we now know is perfectly normal with hormonal imbalances of adolescence, stone them. If you children worship another God, stone them. If a woman is raped and doesn't scream loud enough, you get the drift, stone them. Violence is condoned and often encouraged in the name of martyrdom.

Traces of morality trace back far beyond monotheistic faiths to the earliest polytheistic faiths we have traces of, and there were almost certainly moral structures even before religion formed.

You're argument is for paper thin morality. Morality comes from intelligence, and this is a much more meaningful morality than what you are spurting. Only acting moral because you fear punishment or crave reward is a pretty superficial way to live.

As homo sapiens began to become more intelligent, we could start to actually think about the benefits and consequences of our actions. This is a magnificent thing, and those who truly do use this ability, to form their own decisions on what is right and wrong, are usually the one's I run across that I'd consider moral.

Answer 4

There are plenty of exceptions made for killing others; self defense, war, high crimes. Other societies have allowed it for other reasons as well.

But, it's generally wrong to kill others, because none of us wants to be the victim. Compassion is what allows us to be social animals, which has tremendous survival advantage.

However, if at heart, you are an abject sociopath who can't figure these things out without an ancient book telling you how to behave, then by all means, please keep believing!

Answer 5

Society is a form of evolution. We make a social contract with one another to help each other make it through life as a team. One man makes food, another buys it. Killing is wrong because it goes against the fabric of society- otherwise known as crime. You see, apes or no, your premise has no solid foundation. Keep thumping bible thumper, keep thumping...

-Edit- Of course this question gets me heated. We used to be the country with the thinkers, the cutting edge, the big name schools. It's all going down the crapper mostly thanks to religious nutjobs who don't want the main purpose of school to be education. Now I gotta entertain morons who can't understand 3rd grade scientific theory. There are over 20,000 people in jail right now in Saudi Arabia on convitions for 'sorcery'...SORCERY!!! If people don't make a stand against the zealots in the US, a Bic lighter will get you 10 to 20 in a few decades for evil magic.......

Answer 6

Being nice to people makes you feel good because we evolved in small, close-knit groups. People that individuals interacted with for the last million years were likely to be a) relatives with similar genes or b) people you were likely to see again and thus would probably reciprocate. These are two examples (kin selection and reciprocal altruism) out of many situations where helping others improves your own fitness.

Have you ever noticed that when someone you've helped fails to reciprocate, you become less likely to help them again?

Answer 7

Because our society evolved from social animals, where survival was as a group. The weak can and do help society, and everyone makes contributions.

Even the mentaly ill help-they give the rest of us insight into how our minds work, as well as provide jobs for mental health personell.

Answer 8

Because we can think. We can reason. We have compassion. That is what separates us from other animals. Plus, I'd like to see you let your handicapped child die without trying to save him/her. It is easy to ask and argue the point, but a lot harder if it happens to you.

Answer 9

it's "homocide"

Killing one of your own species...I have never intentionally ended an animal's life

I DO think we are saving far too many people on this planet, but I know this is an unpopular stance...if you're incapable of self sustaining, you should be let go...

at any point I become a burden on society, or a burden on my loved ones, i have every intention of kicking the bucket...

Answer 10

No, seriously, do you not understand the societal and evlutionary advantages of group dynamics and the higher mental functions associated with a conscience?

Because it sounds like you've never taken a sociology class.