Monday, July 07, 2008

Is It Wrong To Kill?

Is it wrong to kill a human being?

Most people, darwinian atheists included, would say, "yes". Although, push come to shove, the best reason they could probably come up with is because humans' chances for survival are greater if we don't kill one another.

But let's consider this. Is it wrong for, say, a bear to kill a human being? Would we say that the bear was immoral, or committed an act of immorality, or that there was right and wrong behavior for a bear, and this was wrong? Probably not. Why? Because bears are not moral creatures, they do not have a moral sense, they act purely from instinct. And so, it would not be wrong for a bear to kill a human.

Why then is it wrong for a human to kill another human? Not because it's intrinsically wrong (as we demonstrated with the bear), but because we have a moral sense, and it would be a violation of this moral sense.

But where did this moral sense come from? Evolutionists claim "it just happened"; it's a product of mindless, uncaring evolution. If that's the case it's really just a con. If killing a human is wrong only because it violates our moral sense, and this moral sense is the product of mindless evolution, then, get over it, one person killing another human being is no more morally wrong than a bear killing a human.

Unless.

Unless a moral God created us and embedded within us a moral sense and moral behaviour is an objective reality and not just the collision of mindless atoms inside our evolved brains somehow tricking us into thinking that something called morality really exists.

Consider the flip-side. If moral sense developed from mindless, uncaring evolution, and the highest goal, a la Darwin, is survival, and killing another human being is wrong only because it lessens our chances for survival, then what if it could be demonstrated that killing some people, say the old, the infirm, the defective, the sterile, non-breeders, etc. would further optimize our chances of survival? Knowing nature's plan -- reproduction and survival of the fittest -- would it not be OK to override our defective ingrained morality and, taking our cue from what we think we know about nature's highest goal, kill other humans? If not, why not?

So, let me ask the question. Is it wrong to kill?

6 comments:

DJeffery said...

Eugenics as practiced in the Hadamar Clinic would agree with your epexegetic, never forgetting the Holocaust.

Lore_Weaver said...

I think I debunked this line of thought by alluding to r-type and k-type breeding.

Uncaring as it may be.

Bears are not sentient, Humans are.

We aren't able to personify a bear to the point where it can make a choice outside of it's base instincts.

---

We could segue into a discussion about war perpetrated by Christians, Muslims, Aztecs, and others at the behest of their God(s), we could then debate if God really does view killing as "Wrong". Why would God incite Humans to kill each other?

This gets back to your "original sin" argument. I deny your "original sin" on the basis that Adam, Eve, and talking snakes never existed (in our universe).

DJeffery said...

r-type and k-type breeding: Inferring killing is wrong for mammals, but not reptiles?

RkBall said...

dj - Lore says "something" and assumes that what ever it was it has cleverly "debunked" whatever it is I have said.

Don't get me wrong -- often he says something very pointed and pertinent. But at this point I think my argument is left standing.

Let's take it further. Alien life. Comes to earth. To them, we are BBQ fodder. Would it be morally "wrong" for them to kill us and also kill steers for beef? The darwinian atheist must conclude that it is a matter of sheer indifference - that the human species is not differentiated in any meaningful way from other species.

The darwinian is left with the idea that it is "wrong" to kill another human being because "evolution says so". But evolution doesn't think, plan, or care. If that's all that morality is, it can be safely over-ridden whenever it suits us -- to override our moral sense would be no more of a sin than slipping on a condom to frustrate evolution's relentless push at reproduction.

Lore_Weaver said...

"Let's take it further. Alien life. Comes to earth. To them, we are BBQ fodder. Would it be morally "wrong" for them to kill us and also kill steers for beef? The darwinian atheist must conclude that it is a matter of sheer indifference - that the human species is not differentiated in any meaningful way from other species."

This is really awesome.

Would it be immoral for us to destroy sentient alien life? Depends on the conditions, I suppose.

Would it be immoral for them to do it to us? Depends on the conditions.

Here's a tricky one for you Rick. Are the aliens free from original sin? Are they capable of evil? Should this be true, would that require that all Aliens help humanity see the wisdom of God?

If extra-terrestrial aliens come down and believe in Christianity, I will convert.

Is it immoral to kill a non-sentient cow for food? Is it immoral to kill a sentient extra-terrestrial alien for 'food'?

I dunno where I'm going with this... fun to think about.

Lore_Weaver said...

"r-type and k-type breeding: Inferring killing is wrong for mammals, but not reptiles?"

Sort-of? Is it wrong for a fish to eat it's young? Or is it natural? Or is it both? Are the reptiles and fish defined by divine providence? If so, it isn't wrong, is it?

If it is wrong, then God is not all good.

These animals would not be burdened by original sin, thus, where does their wrong come from? Does the original evil of man spread into the "original animals" of the "Garden"?

That sure is one uncaring and imprecise God. All for want of an apple he chose to create. *giggles*

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"