Political Theory

Re: morality of killing

gotlucky — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:15:05 GMT

Wheylous:

Imo never. But that's because I believe in restitution, not retribution. I have a vague suspicion retribution has some inherent contradictions, but I haven't written it out.

I've yet to see any contradictions with retribution, but restitution has no principle that guides it. There is a human inclination towards restitution, as when given the option, would you rather burn down your neighbor's house in retribution, or would you rather he pay to restore your house and your possessions?

Most people would choose the latter, but most disputes are not clear cut as to what the proper amount of restitution ought to be. Any amount ends up being entirely arbitrary, which is fine if that is what you are okay with. So, while "an eye for an eye" may be some arbitrary rule, it can be applied consistently to disputes to get some idea of equitable retaliation. And as Rothbard pointed out, the threat of retribution is the source of restitution.

Re: morality of killing

vive la insurrection — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:03:10 GMT

You kill crap all the time. You're a hetrotroph, a natural born killa.

My two cents:

Morality is a bunch of hocus pocus. The only people who take it seriously are intellectuals who out thought themselves. It's an antique word from insignifacant people in the horse and buggy days, probably best to leave it with other things like kings, religion, astrology, alchemy, and Ptolemic solar systems.

But I grew tired of getting in debates these meta topics a long time ago, and I probably won't defend this statement. I just wanted to make the assertion, because it's been awhile since I've done so outright.

To take it a step further:

I'll bet if you really look into the libertarians be it

Rothbard, Block, or Hoppe's hyper-rationalism

Misean consequentialism

or Hayek's Scottish "natural law" morality

They are probably at their core just ill fated and muddle headed amoral systems trying to illustrate a certain "logic of success" - so no reason to freak out when someone says "morality is nonsense". I think all forms of pragmatism, naturalism, and consequentialism tried to say the same thing, all be it in a craptacular and wrong way. Of the three, and as usual, Mises probably gets it most correct.

Re: morality of killing

Wheylous — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:48:40 GMT

I do not believe you can morally kill agents of the state unless they threaten your own life.

Moreover, while I may consider it morally acceptable to resists arrest by the IRS and have a huge car chace, I in no way advocate it. So there's also the difference between what is moral and what is advisable.

Re: morality of killing

Malachi — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:00:20 GMT

cab21:
so does it justify people that go

"the existance of a state is a permanant agression against me as long a state exists, therefore i am justified to go and kill anyone who supports a state and anyone in the act of supporting or working for a state"?

i'm sort of gray on this anarchy take that seems to be that the state is a hostage-taker and state support as hostage taking support.

No, thats ridiculous. Its only moral to kill an agent of the state when it would be moral to kill anyone else. That is, unintentionally, as a necessary byproduct of defensive actions taken in response to aggression or the actual imminent threat of aggression.

Re: morality of killing

Malachi — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:58:11 GMT

Technically, only when God commands you. Its moral to use lethal force to stop an attack, but youre not trying to kill the guy, youre trying to stop him. If he dies, thats just a bad outcome that is excusable, if you did everything else right.

Re: morality of killing

cab21 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:52:31 GMT

so does it justify people that go

"the existance of a state is a permanant agression against me as long a state exists, therefore i am justified to go and kill anyone who supports a state and anyone in the act of supporting or working for a state"?

i'm sort of gray on this anarchy take that seems to be that the state is a hostage-taker and state support as hostage taking support.

Re: morality of killing

Wheylous — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:49:25 GMT

Forgot about that bit, MaikU. Added it up there ^

Re: morality of killing

MaikU — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:42:49 GMT

when the person is agressing against you and you believe that your life is at risk, then murder is justifiable. But killing is never moral according to my philosophy.

Re: morality of killing

Wheylous — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:55:48 GMT

Imo never. But that's because I believe in restitution, not retribution. I have a vague suspicion retribution has some inherent contradictions, but I haven't written it out.

Edit: Woopsies. I forgot what MaikU mentions below. If it is necessaty to kill to stop an aggression against you, it's justified.

morality of killing

cab21 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:16:38 GMT

when is it moral to kill?