6th Commandment
To kill or not to kill is a question?
Many religious elements of the world have an ‘edict’ against killing. But it is not an observed total proscription. In the main religions that are of note they seem to, by default, allow killing in certain circumstances and have managed to transcribe gods (?) words into a formal diktat suitable for the everyday use for the followers of religions and yet injected into them useable flexibility of the edicts for the specifics at play in this era. (God’s on our side) Today the edict against killing that is transcribed into laws is generally held up for the protection of human life. Yet it is possibly a very narrow protection by law against individual acts but it allows companies and state to kill, as in accidental, corporate killing and state controlled acts.
Is it a natural human inclination to kill? Or is it just that humans have overtime adopted via religion and laws, a reluctance to kill as it acts against the tenet of god or is it just a convenient practice to abstain?
There may be some humans that have a ‘natural’ or learned inclination to kill, these people may have lost (or never had) self-discipline and simply act according to their own drives. It could be that some are incapable of normal or acceptable self-control, have a mental process that is wired so different that understanding or relating to others is near impossible. Others may have learned to suppress the feeling of revulsion to the extent that killing is no more than a power acts for self-gain or to engage in killings carried out at the behest of legal governance. In some cases there is also the supposed justification to kill, judicial or as a calling of gods work in retribution; as if god needs saps to carry out its deeds, is most odd.
This leads to another question, are killer made or born? If one assumes that a human born with no mental defects and is deemed to be passable as ‘normal’, that they are rather like a blank bio computer with the ability to learn, if having access to suitable influence and stimulation, then possibly a balanced human can be created. Assume also that there will usually be the natural tendency for self-preservation and that this will develop and become operational with whatever facilities are to hand to secure life. Also important is the nurture of this human, all-conditional on the basis that a peaceful environment is available. This is the usual nature vs. nurture argument and fabulous sophisticated minds like to take the navel gazing path to press their favoured view. The conclusion may be that killers are not born.
But if there is a preponderance of overt violent exposure, exerted by external surrounding or even willingly adopting self exposure via say violent computer games, then there must be a greater chance of a developed inclination to fall into violent behaviour when the opportunity allows. Without the restraint of an emotional tie there must be the disassociation between the fantasy violent act and reality. Normal adult humans may have learned the relationship difference between fiction and fantasy and may have a measure of choice they can exercise in difficult situations; this may not be possible with a dysfunctional mind.
The ability to choose or rationalise is not generally available to children. It may also be suggested that children are not good at discerning the difference between fantasy and reality until they have gained experience by explanation and association. If they are habitually inculcated with fantasy, where is the emotion link that could allow them to discern the discomfort and pain in other humans when exposed too or inflicting violence?
The balance of the civilised argument would favour that killing is not a natural act and most normal people would accept that they do not have an ability or inclination to kill. However this stance may be modified dependant on a situation, such as, if self preservation or if close relationships ties are evident and in danger, or the threat of personal retaliatory action is lifted or there is a fervent cohesive drive. Then most people might choose to kill or can be persuaded to kill. Much would depend on the emotional drive at play at the time and whether it is being acted on or overruled. If there is no choice of action in play, i.e. forced to kill or be killed, then there is within all humans a potential to be killer and in this there must be the ability to develop the inclination to accept killing in many circumstances. To do otherwise would call for the total abrogation of the need and preference to survive at the expense of something or someone else. Martyrdom is a process that is difficult to rationalise or rank in importance but it may be considered an acceptable selfless good act if done for the survival of another, yet it is probably counter to the supposed natural inclination of self preservation and might be considered the province of exceptional people.
Disregarding the drives, now there are laws and religion to inject a reluctance or hindrance upon people in the willingness to forcibly terminate others. For the sake of a civilised structure that needs to be stable, it is just as well that there is some attempt to control the aptitude to kill but I wonder how strong the developed disinclination is and is it just disguised with a thin veneer of practiced social civility.
Today there seems to be an avoidance of the issues of death, it is not for many acceptable that it is a natural consequence of life and the preference is for the preservation of life at any cost. This is manifest in the west by its ability to prolong life beyond a useful limit and a general avoidance to promulgate deliberate deaths as a topic. The adversity offered against the death penalty or euthanasia / mercy killing are issues that now resist un-emotive discussion. That there is in humans such an adversity to examine the thought of killing or consciously causing death may be caused by an innate fear of their own personal death, or is it just the way it (death) occurs that bring the pressure not to examine possible human predisposition to be a killer?
Humans have a natural life span and death is the one element of physical life that cannot be escaped. However the efforts made to avoid talking about death individually, is countered by the phenomenon that time and again humans have accepted death on a large scale, often propagated by their own actions and the regret of those deaths are soon forgotten by those unaffected by the destruction. In natural disasters there is the actual knowledge that the deaths are accidental, attributable to the natural occurrence and was largely unavoidable. This situation is part of the natural world and although there may be in some cases actions that could have been taken to mitigate deaths in knowing what the cause could be, the means to avoid them is often cost handicapped. In the case of large-scale deaths there is much distress maybe due to the numbers involved and it is difficult to comprehend the emotional magnitude caused by the shock of the scale concerned. It does seem however that it is the little individual deaths that provoke the most angst on a media stage as if it where a very personnel one, one that can be understood in all its causes and ramification. Contrary to this, deaths on a large scale seem more difficult to tackle and lack possession. It probably may have always been the case; it is easier to feel much longer for the known single death than unknown hundreds or thousands.
As a consequence, the ability to assist in the after affect of many deaths is matched by the resource availability and the scale of the disaster. Massive assistance may be provided in the immediate aftermath of an event but eventually as the limited uninvolved emotional link falls this assistance tails off. In deaths caused by inflicting war or corporate malpractice there is judicial or governance process to direct reparation. Whereas little or no help is applied to the unknown compound individual deaths that occur over a year in poor countries, deaths that also run into thousands.
To emphasis the point further, humans must eat to gain energy and want to live; in doing so it has separated the source of the energy into distinct sections of resources – animal, vegetable and mineral with the essence of life only given to one. It is assumed the this essence only applies to all biological creatures / animals – creature that are consider to be alive, yet if we accept that life is also a very elusive essence and that it is based, by humans own account, on that ability to have self movement, preferable a nervous system and have awareness, this leaves out all vegetable matter but is this not also a form of life? With the same parameter restrictions some would argue that even fish are not really alive. Does the essence of life have to have the need for a nervous system, or obvious self-motivation to be deemed to be life or alive? Can the essences of life be aware of its own existence no matter where it is or in what form just by being in our own awareness?
The underlying thread behind all this is therefore that everyone kills.
It is not entirely obvious that this the case but if you consider that that all life exist on the death of something else, then by default all humans kill either directly, indirectly or by negligence in order to survive. So if the definition of life were not so narrow and definitive therefore, for humans to survive they do kill.
In a civilised sense having some form of proscription against killing is a necessary restraint on the fragmentation of a social structure that supports a civilised culture. If it is accepted that humans are at essence natural killers, it does not mean that they have to acquiesce to the ability. The overlay of social mores helps create a divide that adds to a duality in the nature of humans. Unfortunately there are times when the only recourse to stop an action by those motivated on killing others, for their own need, is to apply similar force and if necessary kill them. It is a strength and a weakness that the humans have adopted, operating a perfunctory duel standard, they will accept killing at a time of war when large number are involve but hesitates to place a individual person in a position of death even if that person attempts to kill or actually kills others.
Most cultures would hold that life is precious but all cultures have at times deliberately overlooked the adopted dictates that help guard against taking of life. It is ignored on an individual basis, corporate and on organised state instructions as in murder, genocide, starvation, and war. So it would seem that life is only precious and to be preserved in certain circumstance. It may offend the sensitivities of humans to regards themselves as killers and hence they have to adopt actions as a constraint to avoid the desire to kill but never the less I would argue that on a much broader scale all humans do kill on a regular and consistent basis.
In view of this, it would seem acceptable that in the case of individual acts of wonton murder, when individuals do not care that the action that they take will result in the unwarranted death of others, that they themselves should therefore forgo the luxury of protected life.
Further it does seem strange to me, that at a time when a person is in a position of terminal illness in which no amount of medical assistance will give back their quality of life and in knowing this they are deprived in seeking the means to die. Currently no one can easily ‘legally’ help them or take the decision for them, (although this does take place) without the risk of state intervention or being castigated by others who consider them selves to be pro-life non-killers at any cost. Also issue relating to euthanasia and abortion are very emotive subjects but there has to be a point when the decision to cause death is allowed and taken by the main individuals concerned without the interference of state or uninvolved parties that do not have, or carry, the responsibility of maintaining the life.
How much better might it be to recognise that humans have not developed so far from their animal heritage that they still retain at least the aptitude to kill and accept death as the culmination and part of life. In doing so guard against the unthinking application of restrictive ‘pro life’ diktats that are at times fraudulent and honestly take responsibility for the taking of life in situations that calls for it. Killing is natural but to avoid it and choose not to requires more effort than a laudable proscription dictates.
P. 1.01.06
Recently this has raised the debate by M. Portillo of a question, is there a humane way to have a death penalty? He examined a number of ways and came to the conclusion that anoxia provided the most humane way! In actually fact there is no humane way to cause the death of another. How can one gauge the stress or anxiety of all the participants so that one can be absolutely sure that no one is affected by the causing of a death? There may be some relief from the accusation of an un-humane infliction of death as in the case of voluntary euthanasia but causing the deliberate death of another without the willing consent of all concerned may never be considered a humane act.
P. 11.1.08
Many religious elements of the world have an ‘edict’ against killing. But it is not an observed total proscription. In the main religions that are of note they seem to, by default, allow killing in certain circumstances and have managed to transcribe gods (?) words into a formal diktat suitable for the everyday use for the followers of religions and yet injected into them useable flexibility of the edicts for the specifics at play in this era. (God’s on our side) Today the edict against killing that is transcribed into laws is generally held up for the protection of human life. Yet it is possibly a very narrow protection by law against individual acts but it allows companies and state to kill, as in accidental, corporate killing and state controlled acts.
Is it a natural human inclination to kill? Or is it just that humans have overtime adopted via religion and laws, a reluctance to kill as it acts against the tenet of god or is it just a convenient practice to abstain?
There may be some humans that have a ‘natural’ or learned inclination to kill, these people may have lost (or never had) self-discipline and simply act according to their own drives. It could be that some are incapable of normal or acceptable self-control, have a mental process that is wired so different that understanding or relating to others is near impossible. Others may have learned to suppress the feeling of revulsion to the extent that killing is no more than a power acts for self-gain or to engage in killings carried out at the behest of legal governance. In some cases there is also the supposed justification to kill, judicial or as a calling of gods work in retribution; as if god needs saps to carry out its deeds, is most odd.
This leads to another question, are killer made or born? If one assumes that a human born with no mental defects and is deemed to be passable as ‘normal’, that they are rather like a blank bio computer with the ability to learn, if having access to suitable influence and stimulation, then possibly a balanced human can be created. Assume also that there will usually be the natural tendency for self-preservation and that this will develop and become operational with whatever facilities are to hand to secure life. Also important is the nurture of this human, all-conditional on the basis that a peaceful environment is available. This is the usual nature vs. nurture argument and fabulous sophisticated minds like to take the navel gazing path to press their favoured view. The conclusion may be that killers are not born.
But if there is a preponderance of overt violent exposure, exerted by external surrounding or even willingly adopting self exposure via say violent computer games, then there must be a greater chance of a developed inclination to fall into violent behaviour when the opportunity allows. Without the restraint of an emotional tie there must be the disassociation between the fantasy violent act and reality. Normal adult humans may have learned the relationship difference between fiction and fantasy and may have a measure of choice they can exercise in difficult situations; this may not be possible with a dysfunctional mind.
The ability to choose or rationalise is not generally available to children. It may also be suggested that children are not good at discerning the difference between fantasy and reality until they have gained experience by explanation and association. If they are habitually inculcated with fantasy, where is the emotion link that could allow them to discern the discomfort and pain in other humans when exposed too or inflicting violence?
The balance of the civilised argument would favour that killing is not a natural act and most normal people would accept that they do not have an ability or inclination to kill. However this stance may be modified dependant on a situation, such as, if self preservation or if close relationships ties are evident and in danger, or the threat of personal retaliatory action is lifted or there is a fervent cohesive drive. Then most people might choose to kill or can be persuaded to kill. Much would depend on the emotional drive at play at the time and whether it is being acted on or overruled. If there is no choice of action in play, i.e. forced to kill or be killed, then there is within all humans a potential to be killer and in this there must be the ability to develop the inclination to accept killing in many circumstances. To do otherwise would call for the total abrogation of the need and preference to survive at the expense of something or someone else. Martyrdom is a process that is difficult to rationalise or rank in importance but it may be considered an acceptable selfless good act if done for the survival of another, yet it is probably counter to the supposed natural inclination of self preservation and might be considered the province of exceptional people.
Disregarding the drives, now there are laws and religion to inject a reluctance or hindrance upon people in the willingness to forcibly terminate others. For the sake of a civilised structure that needs to be stable, it is just as well that there is some attempt to control the aptitude to kill but I wonder how strong the developed disinclination is and is it just disguised with a thin veneer of practiced social civility.
Today there seems to be an avoidance of the issues of death, it is not for many acceptable that it is a natural consequence of life and the preference is for the preservation of life at any cost. This is manifest in the west by its ability to prolong life beyond a useful limit and a general avoidance to promulgate deliberate deaths as a topic. The adversity offered against the death penalty or euthanasia / mercy killing are issues that now resist un-emotive discussion. That there is in humans such an adversity to examine the thought of killing or consciously causing death may be caused by an innate fear of their own personal death, or is it just the way it (death) occurs that bring the pressure not to examine possible human predisposition to be a killer?
Humans have a natural life span and death is the one element of physical life that cannot be escaped. However the efforts made to avoid talking about death individually, is countered by the phenomenon that time and again humans have accepted death on a large scale, often propagated by their own actions and the regret of those deaths are soon forgotten by those unaffected by the destruction. In natural disasters there is the actual knowledge that the deaths are accidental, attributable to the natural occurrence and was largely unavoidable. This situation is part of the natural world and although there may be in some cases actions that could have been taken to mitigate deaths in knowing what the cause could be, the means to avoid them is often cost handicapped. In the case of large-scale deaths there is much distress maybe due to the numbers involved and it is difficult to comprehend the emotional magnitude caused by the shock of the scale concerned. It does seem however that it is the little individual deaths that provoke the most angst on a media stage as if it where a very personnel one, one that can be understood in all its causes and ramification. Contrary to this, deaths on a large scale seem more difficult to tackle and lack possession. It probably may have always been the case; it is easier to feel much longer for the known single death than unknown hundreds or thousands.
As a consequence, the ability to assist in the after affect of many deaths is matched by the resource availability and the scale of the disaster. Massive assistance may be provided in the immediate aftermath of an event but eventually as the limited uninvolved emotional link falls this assistance tails off. In deaths caused by inflicting war or corporate malpractice there is judicial or governance process to direct reparation. Whereas little or no help is applied to the unknown compound individual deaths that occur over a year in poor countries, deaths that also run into thousands.
To emphasis the point further, humans must eat to gain energy and want to live; in doing so it has separated the source of the energy into distinct sections of resources – animal, vegetable and mineral with the essence of life only given to one. It is assumed the this essence only applies to all biological creatures / animals – creature that are consider to be alive, yet if we accept that life is also a very elusive essence and that it is based, by humans own account, on that ability to have self movement, preferable a nervous system and have awareness, this leaves out all vegetable matter but is this not also a form of life? With the same parameter restrictions some would argue that even fish are not really alive. Does the essence of life have to have the need for a nervous system, or obvious self-motivation to be deemed to be life or alive? Can the essences of life be aware of its own existence no matter where it is or in what form just by being in our own awareness?
The underlying thread behind all this is therefore that everyone kills.
It is not entirely obvious that this the case but if you consider that that all life exist on the death of something else, then by default all humans kill either directly, indirectly or by negligence in order to survive. So if the definition of life were not so narrow and definitive therefore, for humans to survive they do kill.
In a civilised sense having some form of proscription against killing is a necessary restraint on the fragmentation of a social structure that supports a civilised culture. If it is accepted that humans are at essence natural killers, it does not mean that they have to acquiesce to the ability. The overlay of social mores helps create a divide that adds to a duality in the nature of humans. Unfortunately there are times when the only recourse to stop an action by those motivated on killing others, for their own need, is to apply similar force and if necessary kill them. It is a strength and a weakness that the humans have adopted, operating a perfunctory duel standard, they will accept killing at a time of war when large number are involve but hesitates to place a individual person in a position of death even if that person attempts to kill or actually kills others.
Most cultures would hold that life is precious but all cultures have at times deliberately overlooked the adopted dictates that help guard against taking of life. It is ignored on an individual basis, corporate and on organised state instructions as in murder, genocide, starvation, and war. So it would seem that life is only precious and to be preserved in certain circumstance. It may offend the sensitivities of humans to regards themselves as killers and hence they have to adopt actions as a constraint to avoid the desire to kill but never the less I would argue that on a much broader scale all humans do kill on a regular and consistent basis.
In view of this, it would seem acceptable that in the case of individual acts of wonton murder, when individuals do not care that the action that they take will result in the unwarranted death of others, that they themselves should therefore forgo the luxury of protected life.
Further it does seem strange to me, that at a time when a person is in a position of terminal illness in which no amount of medical assistance will give back their quality of life and in knowing this they are deprived in seeking the means to die. Currently no one can easily ‘legally’ help them or take the decision for them, (although this does take place) without the risk of state intervention or being castigated by others who consider them selves to be pro-life non-killers at any cost. Also issue relating to euthanasia and abortion are very emotive subjects but there has to be a point when the decision to cause death is allowed and taken by the main individuals concerned without the interference of state or uninvolved parties that do not have, or carry, the responsibility of maintaining the life.
How much better might it be to recognise that humans have not developed so far from their animal heritage that they still retain at least the aptitude to kill and accept death as the culmination and part of life. In doing so guard against the unthinking application of restrictive ‘pro life’ diktats that are at times fraudulent and honestly take responsibility for the taking of life in situations that calls for it. Killing is natural but to avoid it and choose not to requires more effort than a laudable proscription dictates.
P. 1.01.06
Recently this has raised the debate by M. Portillo of a question, is there a humane way to have a death penalty? He examined a number of ways and came to the conclusion that anoxia provided the most humane way! In actually fact there is no humane way to cause the death of another. How can one gauge the stress or anxiety of all the participants so that one can be absolutely sure that no one is affected by the causing of a death? There may be some relief from the accusation of an un-humane infliction of death as in the case of voluntary euthanasia but causing the deliberate death of another without the willing consent of all concerned may never be considered a humane act.
P. 11.1.08
posted by Renot at 7:06 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home