How do you feel about murder? or more specifically, when is it OK to take a life?

Question

I'm not looking for "death penalty" type answers... I want you to put yourself in a place with no laws, and give me your honest opinion! In a world with no consequence, when is it OK to kill another human being?

Answer 1

I think one of the answerers has a good idea in looking at animals and seeing how they treat killing. The only problem with their response was that they clearly haven't the slightest idea about how animals behave.

Take your average housecat. Cats are well known for 'playing' with mice... though in their case it involves repeatedly attacking a terror-stricken animal and letting it go only to pounce on it again. The game ends only when the cat accidentally kills the victim or gets tired of the game and finishes it off. Cats will often play this game when they're not hungry - it is just for sport and perhaps practice.

Or there's always wolves. An alpha male has no compunction about driving off and killing its own male children (he'll mate with his daughters) if they don't submit to the results of ritual fights. Male rats are well known for eating their own young before they can even begin to be a threat. The link below describes the many ways and reasons which animal parents kill their own young in many species.

And certainly almost no animal shows much compunction in killing members of other species. The exceptions are SO exceptional that they get vast attention.

All this certainly suggests that if humans were in a similar position, we would if anything be even more creative and diverse in our reasons for killing one another. Stories abound of men in the lawless 'wild west' of American history killing each other for snoring too loud or looking at each other oddly.

Those who take the high road and refuse to accept such a standard were - according to your typical Western movie - just the prize for the most violent person to dispense with as he wished. So it goes.

Answer 2

That is a very skewed question. In a world with no laws and no consequence, when would it not be OK to kill some one? Good lord can you imagine that kind of society, people would be dropping like flies.
The speed limit is 55mph. and who drives only at 55mph? The majority or the minority?
How many of us just keep up with the flow of traffic because we know that the chances of us getting pulled over and given a ticket are actually very small ?
In a world with no repercussions to murder it would not only be tolerated by society but considered the norm.

Answer 3

It is never OK to kill another human being.

There is such a thing called Natural Law and it states that everyone has the natural right to life, liberty, and property.

Killing someone would be interfering with natural law.

No human has the right to EVER take a life.

Check out these quotes:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Answer 4

I would refer you to the book "Before the Dawn" by
Nicholas Wade. He examines the evolution of man from out of Africa to today. He gives some interesting stats on murder. In most "primitive" societies, including modern tribes in New Guinea and South America, the murder rate is astounding. As many as 35% of all deaths. Their reasons for murder vary of course, from a good meal to stealing women to proving your own manhood. I've heard of men killing in New Guinea because a neighbor in another village "stole" his artistic motif. Copyright law seems to be stronger there than here! Don't forget Ghanis Khan. He killed a lot of people. Practically entire societies, and he fathered more children than any man in history. Hope this helps!

Answer 5

Mercy killings or killing out of love is one example, anybody who says otherwise is a torturer.

Another might be limited resources when in a position of authority and responsibility.

Far fetched example:
You’re a captain of some colonist space ship and you find out half way there that there is not enough air for all the passengers to make it. It is your responsibility to kill half the passengers so the other half can make it.

Doctors make similar decisions all the time.

It is less an evil if you kill for selfless reasons.

Answer 6

I don't think it's ever OK to physically take another person's life, unless it's an act of self-defense. If a court and jury collectively decide, that's one thing, but for one person to make the decision and carry out the plan to kill someone - it's never okay.

The honest truth is no matter how much you think you know about someone, and how justified you are in your mind that they deserve it, you can't possibly know everything you need to know about that person or their situation to play "god" and take their life.

So unless you're defending your own life or the life of someone else, in a moment of physical threat, killing another is not okay.

Answer 7

Your "main" question was incongruous with your "details", because you changed the tone of the former with the latter, so you might not get "valid" answers, especially if those who answer the "main" question ignored the "details", as I suspect will be the case. Next time, ask a more thorough "main" question, such as, "In a world without laws or consequences, is it ever okay to murder?" Even then, there are those who simply cannot put aside their feelings (personal, political, or religious, etc), so they will be unable to give you an unbiased answer.

Regardless, given the conditions of your "details",
and putting aside my personal feelings:

In the wild, animals rarely kill for any reason other than to obtain food; only man kills for sport. Anyone who kills for any reason (sanity not withstanding) has made the choice that other human beings are worthless to him or her (or, if insane, is incapable of understanding that), and, thus, has abrogated his/her right to live among other human beings.

Of course, given that definition, anyone taking the role of executioner of that murderer, has, himself (or herself) now been condemned.

Vicious circle, no?

Answer 8

It isn't, and that includes killing yourself.

In a world without laws, you would have to extrapolate a little further and say that it is a world without God (or anything similar), which means life is the only certainty you have. To rob yourself or someone else of their only certainty is the worst possible offence a person can commit.

Besides, if everybody realized that it is never acceptable to kill another human being, there would never be a need to using killing as a punishment.

Answer 9

I think it is OK to defend yourself, meaning if someone comes into your home with a gun or knife, you can defend yourself, and if that means taking the life of someone wanting to take yours, then OK.

Any other time, it's wrong and sinful, primarily because it brings hurt and sorrow to others who you did not have a grudge against (or in some cases whom you don't even know).

Answer 10

Taking life presumes that the life taker and the life taken actually exist. Actually, both are illussions and the action only results in making the ilussion all the more real to both consciousness causing mental suffering for both.