Killing worst enemy or a serial killer

You assume wrongly that we are all capable of imagining ourselves in any unfamiliar position that helps you pursue your point. This is not true.

As most of the women here will quickly tell you, most of us men are incapable of putting ourselves in the position of a woman. Not only do we lack several specific sensory nerves, hormones, etc., that greatly influence human thought and decision-making, but we also don't have half a lifetime of being raised female with all the experiences which inform our morality and behavior. This is why Mrs. Fraggle routinely says, "I'll give a flying fuck what men think about abortion the first time one of you assholes gets pregnant."

True. What invalidates it is that I cannot imagine myself in that position, so I cannot perform the experiment.

This is not to say that I could not, in real life, find myself in that position. If someone killed my dog, I might become irrational and beat his brains out with a hammer, strangle him with a bungie cord, eviscerate him with a spade, or murder him with whatever other common tool happens to be nearby, before the police arrive. But it's difficult to hang onto that imaginary scenario long enough to apply a logical argument to it. As the last wisps of imaginary anger dissipate, I'm left with the sober realization that it is I who will end up in prison, leaving my other dogs to be carted off to the pound where they too will undoubtedly be killed.

The only way anyone in modern civilization can be driven to commit murder (with a few rare asterisks such as my terrorist-cell scenario) is to be so angry as to become illogical. And who gives a shit about what illogical people think?

Yes, civilization is robust enough to survive occasional irrational behavior by its members. But will your family survive? Your wife is already dead, and now you're in prison for at least ten years.

What will happen to your children? The shit-for-brains government will decide where to put them, and you can bet that it won't be with the relative you would have chosen. Perhaps with your ex-wife who abandoned them and ran off with a guitarist. Perhaps with your mother, who beat you back in the days when parents could get away with that. Perhaps with a court-appointed guardian, someone you haven't seen in years.

Everything we do has consequences. So it's always better to not be ruled by pure emotion, especially a negative one like hatred, anger, revenge or religious faith.
I don't have children, and I don't plan to have any. Maybe that makes me more free. My parents would probably see more of me in prison. Maybe children are your prison. I disagree that anger always has negative consequences. What's the purpose of anger then? It would not have survived if it didn't play a significant role in our survival.
 
Shared Intimacy

In any situation where I might be compelled to take another human life, I would at least hope circumstance allows me to look that other person in the eye.

To the other, if I have time to undertake such a consideration, killing that person is most likely the inappropriate choice.
 
"Kill a person whom you are convinced deserves to die"!? Just who is it am I supposed to think I am when I do all this? Who do you think you are? The original posters arrogance is almost as great as his ignorance in asking such a question to civilized people. I don't believe he is posing a question about justice at all - as he so clumsily pretends. The OP is just trying to make his own sick fantasies palatable enough to post publicly. This thread should go straight to the cesspool, and the OP threatened with banishment.
 
I don't have children, and I don't plan to have any. Maybe that makes me more free. My parents would probably see more of me in prison. Maybe children are your prison.
I don't have any either.

I disagree that anger always has negative consequences. What's the purpose of anger then? It would not have survived if it didn't play a significant role in our survival.
We're only 12,000 years out of the Paleolithic Era, when there was no food surplus because the technology of agriculture hadn't been invented yet. During a lean year every tribe had to regard every other tribe as hated and feared competitors for scarce resources. Anger was a matter of survival.

Life is different now; the vastly underpopulated Western Hemisphere can raise enough food to feed the whole world twenty meals a day. (The USA is a net exporter of food! Half of which is grown in "suburban" California!) It's only their despotic leaders who keep them from getting the food our churches, governments and charities send to them.

There's no reason to fight anymore. The reason that we still do is that those 12,000 years only represent a few hundred generations, and evolution simply doesn't work that fast. There's a caveman inside each of us. We do our best to placate him with beer, pizza, air conditioning, furniture, sports on TV, motorcycles, and a domesticated wolf at his feet who thinks he's God. But he's still a Paleolithic caveman who has a very hard time regarding anyone outside of a circle of a few dozen people he's known forever, as someone he should love and respect.

So occasionally he goes all Stone Age on us. Or "anger," as we call it.

Anger was a matter of survival for our not-so-distant ancestors. But for us it's nothing but a gigantic fucking problem which, every few decades, threatens to destroy civilization and launch us back to the Stone Age where that caveman will feel more at home.
 
Back
Top