Why is killing bad?

Why is killing bad?

Do you want to be killed?

Yeah

Then kill yourself

No

I don't want to listen to Jazz either but that doesn't mean i think listening to Jazz is bad.

Why not? You said that you want to be killed, you are capable of doing it yourself, whats stopping you?

Someone else has to do it

Why?

Suicide a sin dumbo

You think suicide is a sin but don't see how killing (specifically: murder) is a sin?

They're a sin for the exact same reason

You're literally stupid. Killing ain't a sin.

It isn't. It is a quintessential action of intra and interspeicies. That it isn't looked kindly upon today is because our ingroups have over grown and everyone is interdependant. The ones that contribute least (see: Sand People) still get shit on most often (see: American proxy wars), which supports my observation of the factors in the past and their translation into the present.

King James Bible
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Well, life is precious, but life never dies, it just moves from organism to organism. Living systems have moved far beyond the level of the organism, an individual life is like a cell dying.
The only time killing is bad is when the system is harmed by a self-aware action.
Killing is also "bad" if you find it immoral, that degrades the self

thou shalt not kill


etc etc

>all these faggots trying to prove that something is inherently wrong

Killing is only bad if it hurts me in some way.

"me" is a spook, what really separates the atoms of your hand from the atoms of your phone?

Nothing really. Losing either one would not be the end of "me". Also, asking what is "me" is irrelevant. I am conscious and that's enough proof that "I" exists. I already know I exist, because I'm writing this.

Disruption of society, removal of societal resource, traumatic effect on the survivors cascading to further disruption of society, and quite often, among the traumatized young, creating more dysfunctional individuals who sometimes become murders themselves.

Granted, it's not *always* bad... Even with the related commandment, the core translation deliniates between killing and murder. Then you get into gray zones like assisted suicide for elderly cancer patients and the like. If both the family and the patient approve of it, it's hard to justify it being "bad" other than through religious means.

Bad argument.
>muh society
>muh logic
Irrelevant.

>muh society
>Irrelevant
Society is key to collective survival, you may come across the conundrum that killing maybe required to sustain it, but if you can't set the axiom that survival itself is desirable, even though the fact that you're still here suggests every fiber of your being, as well as all that came before back to the dawn of life, screams otherwise, then you've entered a level of insane nihilism that can't be discussed, and are no longer a functioning human being.

>muh logic
>Irrelevant.
Then you've entered a level of insane nihilism that can't be discussed, and are no longer a functioning human being.

One cannot debate insanity.

>Society is key to collective survival,
Irrelevant.
>Then you've entered a level of insane nihilism that can't be discussed, and are no longer a functioning human being.
OMG I CANT EVEN YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE YOUR JUST A FUCKING NAZI NIHILISTIC NIETZCHEAN NECROPHILIAC NARCOLEPTIC NODDY

I rest my case.

he sound stupid so im right haha im a platonist but also believe truth is defined by social status!

>Then you've entered a level of insane nihilism that can't be discussed, and are no longer a functioning human being.

Logic is a tool. There is no reason to respect something because it's logical. You should also stop using the word nihilist for people who aren't obsessed with the same thing as you are.

Assuming you aren't samefagging...
>There is no reason
That is the problem, right there.

You can't have a debate, or even proper discussion, with someone where no reason is involved.

If someone claims reason is invalid, then there's no position you can take for or against any position they may declare.

Nice taking word twisting. I never claimed reason doesn't exist. Logic is a great way to find out if something is logical. That's the only thing it does though. I'm not going to do anything just because it's logical.

Let's take your first comment for example. It's very logical, I agree. The problem is, I have no motive to do as you say however logical you might be. Just because you think everything logical is good doesn't mean everyone else does too.

And before you go "fucking nihilist" I would like to make clear I'm not one. I don't like repeating myself, but just because I'm not on the same homy crusade of logic as you are doesn't mean I don't care about anything. There are many things I enjoy and reasons to live for me, some of which are even logical.

I'm not the guy who responded to you first btw.

Logic is reason, just boiled down.

If you claim logic is invalid than reason is invalid.

Now, yes, I will give you that people do not always act sanely - they do not always act according to reason, therefor they do not always act logically, obviously.

But to say, in a debate, that "logic is irrelevant", then the debate itself, is impossible. Yes, you can often get into arguments with people who are being unreasonable, but if you can't calm them in order to reason with them, you've left the field of debate, and are effectively in a yelling match with a child.

When the discussion is question "why is murder bad", one assumes an explanation as to the reason it is bad is requested. If reason is invalid, then there can be no reason.

Thus, in this this context, the statement "logic is invalid" is invalid.

>Just because you think everything logical is good doesn't mean everyone else does too.
Also, that wasn't the claim - the claim only rests on the axiom that collective survival is good, and uses logic to demonstrate why killing is generally detrimental to it.

Logic itself isn't inherently good, but if you want a reason for something, reason is required. Whether it is the explanation provided, or it is instead "Cuz God says it's bad", there's still logic involved.

The problem is that there wasn't a debate. You were just answering a question. What we're doing right now is a debate, which is why I'm using logic (and other methods) right now.

Reason also has 2 meanings which you use at the same time. It can mean logic ("I'm using reason") or a cause/motive ("the reason I did X"). OP did ask for a reason, but it had nothing to do with logic.

Logic is not invalid, but it is irrelevant. You saying "murder is bad because not murdering is logical" is the same as saying "bananas are bad because they're yellow". You need to explain why unreason or yellowness is bad, which you can't do because it's just your preference.

>Logic itself isn't inherently good
The foundation of that sentence, the language behind that, the culture behind that, the environment behind that and the idea behind that are as ingrained in the logical process as the 0s and 1s sequenced to transmit this concept from me to space and back to you.

Fuck, I didn't see this one. Explain why collective survival is good first. A collective is not me, so I doubt there's any reason to claim that it's an absolute good.

I interpreted the shitpost as OP asking as to the reason "murder is bad" with reason.

I am uncertain as to what you are trying to claim here. Are you claiming logic is inherently good (to which I can reply), or not (to which I can agree), or simply required to make the statement (which should be a given)?

Because your survival and very existence depends on the collective's survival, and your very being is already highly specialized towards both.

I mean, yeah, you can go full antinatalist, and claim survival in general is bad, but I wave that as an insane proposition, that is either insincere, or proposed by a dysfunctional mind. So sue me.

>Because your survival and very existence depends on the collective's survival, and your very being is already highly specialized towards both.

Even if we assume your survival is good, the collective's good is not always yours. If you had the chance to gain something by murdering someone and you knew the collective would not be disturbed, woukd you do it? If you answer no, you admit that you hold the society as something you exist for and not as something that helps you. If you answer yes, you admit that murder isn't actually bad, but sometimes/usually a bad idea similar to driving past red lights.

Well I already claimed there are various circumstances in which killing can be argued to be as advantageous, both for the individual and the collective at large.

Though, given that every individual has some connection with another, I can't imagine a situation in which you could murder a functioning member of society, and have it not at least be potentially bad for said society, and in turn, for you.

If you create extreme hypotheticals that don't exist in reality, I suppose one could logically justify it. But in reality, such murder-for-profit ventures are risky, at best, immediately damage the collective, and put the individual in long term jeopardy, both indirectly, by the damage caused to that network, and directly, by the potential retribution, and, barring mental disfunction in the murderer, personal trauma.

>Collectivism is god you guys, let's kill the enemy in its name.

Killing is only ok when you are in a violent situation and harm is imminently about to be caused to your or your mom in some way.

What's with the edgelords. I can kill any single human being and justify it in some 'logical' way and explain how it's 'for the greater good'.

I'm detecting dishonesty.

Sometimes hurting people is permissible. Usually when one's violence committed becomes the greater of evils.

I guess we agree on the ethics of murder then, although I think you overestimate the benefit of a functioning society to you.

>I can kill any single human being and justify it in some 'logical' way and explain how it's 'for the greater good'.
Yes, but the collective logic may disagree with you, which probably won't end well, even if you are given the opportunity for debate.

>Collectivism is god you guys, let's kill the enemy in its name.
This is always a potential problem. Even if you believe in an absolute morality through God, or what not, man is collectively able to both misinterpret and defy his will (or, from their perspective, maybe it is their god's will).

Sans the religious factor, man is also entirely capable of instituting policies that are detrimental to his collective survival. The only measurement left then, is whether or not they turn out to be so.

It's actually thou shall not murder, not kill. Justifiable kills (death penalty) are allowed.

Only heretics go by anything but King James!

Only Anglotards read the Bible in English.

We don't have the right to take another persons life

>being a lolberg

>We don't have the right to take another persons life
you forfeit the right to live if you threaten my life

>me is a spook
No, it isn't. Me is whatever you consider it to be. Me is sapience not a physical entity. Spooks are any further abstractions that detract from the rationallity of a choice in relation to you and your desires.
It's not that fucking hard

This philosophy is for assholes that don't care about literally anything or anyone but themselves. You realize that right? You don't care about your mom, your dad, your siblings, your friends, your co-workers, the people you share your community with? No one, just you. That's fucking pathetic.

>there is no position
Yes there is you Platonic tard.

Literally read nee chee
Why?
t. seculartard

Don't even know what a seculartard is supposed to be. If everyone adopted your selfish and petty philosophy, the world would be a shittier place for everyone. Life is made better by people caring about each other.

Being a selfish piece of shit doesn't make you enlightened, it makes you a cunt.

>Why?
because my life is more valuable to me than the life of someone who is trying to end me.
*tips CC license*

are you a bong? Vocalize 'seculartard'
I'm not even him. Why are you speaking on a subject you don't understand? Take your humanist nonsense elsewhere.
That doesn't answer my question.

But it isn't. The philosophy is for securing the primacy of the self. IF you WANT to be kind to people that is the PRIORITY. If however your fondness of your parents is in conflict with your own good then it says that you come first.
People aren't naturally mean. Even the most naturally selfish person wants friends and to be liked. In this sense, because they truly want it- then being nice and having friends is the right thing to do- UNTIL it imposes upon you.
For example, if you and a friend like a girl but he saw her first, you would still take a crack and try to win her over.
If everyone willing accepted who they are and worked towards what they wanted things would be more harmonious than when a set of ethics are perscribed and the population stuggles to adhear to them.
The only person is responsible for yourself and your unique requirements and desires is yourself. Past attending to them, be as kind or compassionate as you like. It is in your interest anyway mosttimes

See there's some Stirner like principles right there. The primacy of self was threatened and action was taken.

All secular means is that you're not religious. Now I see you were calling me a secular humanist, I am not. I care about my loved ones and my community. You are a selfish piece of shit and parroting some nihilist philosophy as holy text to rationalize it.

Loved ones implies that they deserve their status in some manner, hence why I didn't stick with parents and named almost all categories of people that a normal person would care about.

You are still centering on yourself above all others, and that's inexcusable. It's selfishness with a type of nihilism rationalizing it.

t. redditor that can't read
One cannot be selfish and be a nihilist you idiot.

>that's inexcusable
Except that it isn't. Most people secretly function with this mindset at their core. Look at people in group situations or crisis points. They will ignore the horrible act happening to their fellow because they don't want to be late for work or get injured themsevles. They will save themself over everyone else.

There is nothing wrong with that. If everyone accepted that they are the most important thing to them it would no longer be a betrayal of trust. Partisonship would be over, loyalty to a political ideal that doesn't exist physically is a spook. People would vote on the issues that helped themselves and those they care about (assuming they don't conflict). People would find genuine connections with other openly likeminded individuals rather than create perscriptive cults like leftwingers, where your actions determine your membership to their in group and being out of it makes you evil. Such a group is a spook.

That's patently false. There is nothing about Stiner's philosophy that is exclusive from selfishness, the entire thing is centered around selfishness. I'm having trouble even imagining a philosophy that more encapsulates and represents the concept of selfishness.

Further there is nothing forbidding two people with their own best interests in mind to work together. In fact isn't that how it should be? Should to partners only form if they're both getting the best out of it. Why should someone be collectively obligated to work/join/act/finance something that isn't benefitting them.
Isn't the idea of perscribing a way of life onto someone with broad strokes across a collective henious and evil?
Your basically endorsing something not unlike slavery. The devaluing of someone elses intersets for the sake of your own (as a memeber of the collective which they serve).
You're the monster here.

Egoism supports the most good as arrangements that aren't good for the people involve would dissolve.

>Look at people in group situations or crisis points

I've been in them, when the shit hits the fan amongst loved ones immense personal sacrifices are on the table with no gain. I'm not talking about with strangers, I'm talking about with loved ones.

Adopting Stiner's philosophy is far from the only fucking way to see faults in leftwing cultural insanity.

>I'm the monster because I advocate for the idea of selflessness amongst your loved ones.
>the guy advocating for selfishness in all situations is pretending he's the good guy

Take a step back and listen to your own ideas.

>I've been in them
And I've studied them. Looks like empiricism beats anecdotes again.

Stirner doesn't suggest that you should help your loved ones. It would really depend on what that sacrifice entailed. Should you stay on the sinking ship because there's no room on the life boat? Fuck no, you need to continue living. That's something important to you.

Could you run into a burning house because you think you could save your family inside and all be okay? Sure. You love your family and as such YOU should do that.

What you misunderstand about stirner is the concept of self. It doesn't mean that superificial gain is the priority. It means to live in a way that pursues your genuine desires, not those perscribed to you. As long as it doesn't threaten your continuation, as long as YOU felt like that and it wasn't an ideology, religion, culture or society imposing upon you without your knowledge you could devote your life to fucking charity work.

>ideas
Take a step back and look beyond the abstraction. Look at what is happening in societies and situations that value abstraction over physical reality.

you are baselessly deconstructing the obvious meaning between inanimate object and sentient observer.

selfhood is not a permanent, bordered existence like the idea you are rejecting. regardless, just because it's impermanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

They dominate the planet.

So are you saying that sacrificing much with zero reward, only because you care about the person is in line with this philosophy? Would staying off the lifeboat to ensure the survival of your family be in line with this philosophy?

>They dominate the planet.
>b-but your ideas are MEAN
>m-mine are dominate, don't question their content
And we're done here. If you're not even capable of entertaining self inspection there's nothing to be gained.
You're spookier than an abandoned house.

Again, define sacrifice. Sacrifice is more or less an abstraction until you operationalise it. Abstractions are pointless.

Staying off the lifeboat is the end of your own life and hence not in your interests. As long as you survive the encounter or believed that you could do so at the time of making the decision it would be considered in line with Stirner (assuming you genuinely want to do it, rather than feeling an imperitive from God, morals, ethics or societal reputation)

You wouldn't want to be killed, therefore if you universalize this principle then you shouldn't kill people who don't want to be killed.

>Staying off the lifeboat is the end of your own life and hence not in your interests.

Yes user, that's why it's selfish. That's all I'm arguing. When you do something nice for someone, is it only in the confines of "how does this benefit me?"

When someone you love needs help, do you only do it if it's going to be a net benefit to you? If you answered yes to these questions, then you are fucking selfish. Anything you do to rationalize it is just a defense mechanism.

You don't have to break it down into pieces, just accept that you're a selfish cunt who ultimately only cares about himself.

Rat.

Conflating an act of kindness with suicide is idiocy.

You are, and have been shown to be at least twice now, a complete and utter idiot.

Enjoy your service and sacrifice.

Sacrificing your life to save your family or loved ones is not suicide. You have proven that you're just another slightly above average selfish cunt who will tell himself anything, do any amount of mental gymnastics to justify the fact that he is a shitty person through and through.

>not suicide
Suicide is the act of intentionally killing yourself, you fucking loser. You are intentionally choosing to die. Whether it's for your abstract morals or good it is still suicide.

>any good short of suicide is irrelevant if you won't kill yourself
Just thought I'd point out the crux of your argument for anyone following along. This is what it came down to: Unless you're willing to kill yourself for something you're selfish. No amount of constructive interaction leading up to this point matters if you cannot bite the bullet for your 'cause'.

This is what abstracted people really believe. This is their life.

Choosing not to go in a lifeboat to save your family is a pretty grey area. You're not deliberately changing your environment or taking active measures to kill yourself, you're simply choosing not to save your life when the environment unexpectedly dangers it beyond your control.

Sure, we can call it suicide then. You falsely conflated that scenario and the "doing something nice for someone" question. They were separate. The third time that you've misinterpreted my statements and used your failure to understand as a false shot against me.

You are a selfish cunt, a snake that only cares about himself. Prove me wrong, answer these following questions. It would be so easy.

When you do something nice for someone, is it only in the confines of "how does this benefit me?"

When someone you love needs help, do you only do it if it's going to be a net benefit to you?

Don't mistake slightly above average intelligence and rationalization for moral superiority.

It was an extreme example to illustrate a point. The crux of my argument is that if your philosophy leads you to answer no to the following questions,

When you do something nice for someone, is it only in the confines of "how does this benefit me?"

When someone you love needs help, do you only do it if it's going to be a net benefit to you?

Then you are a selfish person and the philosophy you use to justify it is inherently selfish.

Sorry, yes to the following questions.

>is a pretty grey area
Which is why I specified earlier:
>as long as you survive the encounter or believed that you could do so at the time of making the decision it would be considered in line with Stirner

You have intentionally made it a sacrifice so it is not a grey area in the thought experiement nor his perception.

No. I do the things I want. Helping others can be enjoyable. Lots of people, myself included, enjoying pitching in now and again.

No. I usually help, however the people I love can require 'help' because they continuously fuck themselves over, in which case I start not wanting to enable their flaws.

>slightly
I am above, there is no slight. I am not smart by my standards though. I'm still in the range where effort matters more, it's around 125-130+ that intelligence starts giving decent returns on productivity regardless of effort

Lol I knew you would begin online test IQ number dickwaving when called slightly above average. So predictable.

So you do things for your loved ones even if it's a net loss for you? Doesn't seem to align with Stiner's philosophy, chief.

>online test
Isn't it funny that the person dickwaving about out maeovering the other functions mostly on preumtion? Is it dickwaving, if in a discussion about muscles that what I bench comes up? Why is intellectual competance such a taboo?

That's because you see things as net loss. Because you've been twisting the specifics of my terminology. See how I said desire and want, not profit or gain?
You seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of Stirner. Perhaps you should actually look into it instead of getting into fights about shit you have no knowledge of or interest in.

Selfishness is inherently an act of giving meaning. Stirner wasn't a nihilist.

Regarding your idiotic interpretation of egoism: literally read nee chee.

>Yes there is you Platonic tard.
Should rephrase... If the opponent denies the value of reason, I cannot meaningfully argue with them, about their position.

Though, yeah, one would certainly be able to argue for or against their position with someone else who was still sane.

Why? Because it hurts your feelings?

It isn't in itself. Killing is unavoidable, organisms must kill to live.