What does "Thou Shalt not kill" mean anyway?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

According to dictionary.com kill is defined as:

"to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay."

Most would interpret this to human life? Why?

Tell me why human life is worth more than any other life on Earth?

Or perhaps if you said apply this to all life with the exclusion of killing for food, would you say the killing of non human life to be a sin of the same magnitude of killing a human?

For example, If i were to kill an ant because I thought it would be funny, would that be as evil as killing a human? Why or why not?

I would rather a person of faith told me his/her views, they seem to claim to hold knowledge of "truth".

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,747 • Replies: 52

No top replies

@Why phil,

It doesnt matter whether killing an ant is less evil or the same as killing a human, fact is they're both wrong.

1 Reply

@Why phil,

I'm not quite sure if the seemingly so target question is one for this particular sub-forum--in that it doesn't seem to be focusing on a religious matter, per se, but rather on a moral matter.

However, if you are intent on questioning the text there, I think we will eventual be lead to the understanding that the intented communication of the original hand was to denounce in-group killing without certain reasons (basically provided for in other parts of the Torah). However, that particular point is most clearly referring to humans, not other species. (So a Neanderthal might have been ok to kill across the board . . . hee, hee, hee . . . [and I'd now be in BIG 'PC' trouble if any of those guys were still around])

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

Maybe it would be more accurate to reword it:
Thou Shalt not Kill except in communal law or divinely mandadted situations.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

Alright maybe this is a question of morality. Thanks for the insight though

0 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

It doesnt matter whether killing an ant is less evil or the same as killing a human, fact is they're both wrong.

Is it wrong for me to kill an ant that has crawled on my food? Is it wrong for me to kill a roach colony in my kitchen? Is it wrong for me to kill a bee that's bugging me (pun intended)? Should I be charged with man slaughter for accidentally stepping on a roach because I wasn't watching my step?

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Is it wrong for me to kill an ant that has crawled on my food? Is it wrong for me to kill a roach colony in my kitchen? Is it wrong for me to kill a bee that's bugging me (pun intended)? Should I be charged with man slaughter for accidentally stepping on a roach because I wasn't watching my step?

I said it was wrong to kill an ant for fun which it is. I didnt say you should be charged with manslaughter, that's just ridiculous.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

Jumping Jezus, hasn't anyone read the book? The commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder!", not 'kill', which would, upon any thoughtful examination at all, be absurd!

2 Replies

@nameless,

Whats murder?is it war?is it neglect? is it denying assistance? Do i ever kill without it being considered murder?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;58878 wrote:

Whats murder?is it war?is it neglect? is it denying assistance? Do i ever kill without it being considered murder?

'Murder' is a legal term regarding the deliberate, willfull, killing of a human being. There are, of course, obvious exceptions, such as war and the legal death penalty, etc...
In that light, you can now answer your own questions.
Peace

1 Reply

@Why phil,

"Thou shalt not..." only applies in states with law and the obligation to maintain such laws.

In the state of nature, "thou shalt not..." means jacksh*t.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless;58874 wrote:

Jumping Jezus, hasn't anyone read the book? The commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder!", not 'kill', which would, upon any thoughtful examination at all, be absurd!

The most likely word used was a form of ra-tsach. It is used only towards humans (although the causative-like forms of mooth is used towards humans too).

At both Ex 20:13 and De 5:17, ra-tsach is used. While the contexts in which the word is used more often evidences a nuance of a 'premeditated act,' at times it does not--for example De 4:42; Num 35:6, 11, 12, etc.

The word mooth, in the causative-like form, is probably the most commonly used, and is often found in combination. Num 14:15 is an example of its usage, as also Josh 8:24-27 area (if my memory serves me well--I'll double check).

However, the act of ending a life is exactly the same--no ifs ands or buts about that--thus it simply boils down to the reason (or lack of reason). In the story related in the work entitled Joshua, YHWH helps out with the killing just as much as the Israelite soldiers. When Uzzah attemped to balance the ark, as the wagon had been upset by the oxen, by reaching out and steadying it with his hand, YHWH blew his top and killed him on the spot.

When a person of a tribe accidently killed someone unintentionally, he could escape revenge by running off to one of the 'refuge cities,' and as long as he stayed there until the high priest of that time died, he would be free of the death penalty. If he were found by the 'blood revenger' outside that city, that revenger could legally kill him on the spot--without being in the wrong. If that's not murder, then really, what is?

Therefore, YHWH's giving the tribes a law clause which stipulates that it is wrong to, let's say here, kill another tribe member by ill-intent, and kills poor ole Uzzah on the spot for simply trying to do what was a surely natural, human 'knee-jerk' reaction, I say we find a personality conflict.

At any rate, whether we translate the word at Ex 20:13 (MS; the LXX gives a different order) as 'kill' or 'murder,' it makes no real big difference because the verb can be and is used in both instances (with or without intent [premeditation]) and because killing a person simply due to anger, is murder--regardless.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

'Murder' is a legal term regarding the deliberate, willfull, killing of a human being. There are, of course, obvious exceptions, such as war and the legal death penalty, etc...
In that light, you can now answer your own questions.
Peace

So i need to answer my own question? wot a bore..Murder can be war,war crime..deliberately not treating a patient,malpractice..watching someone drown when you could help..complicity........letting a nation die of hunger..immoral and genocide..murder..Degrees of murder? yes all of them but murder all the same.What if an honest man is hung ? can it be murder? can the state be held responsible..The question should not be what is murder? its should be how do we treat the offender or offenders..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;58926 wrote:

So i need to answer my own question? wot a bore..

Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you.

Quote:

Murder can be war,war crime..deliberately not treating a patient,malpractice..watching someone drown when you could help..complicity........letting a nation die of hunger..immoral and genocide..murder..Degrees of murder? yes all of them but murder all the same.

Sorry, all this sentimentalism and emotional appeal does not interest me. This, if an area of personal interest, is for your own opinions formed however they might be. Perspective. I do not necessarily share your 'sensitivities'. Death is as necessary in the whole picture as the notion of life. Pain and sadness as integral to existence as happiness and joy.

Quote:

What if an honest man is hung ? can it be murder? can the state be held responsible..

Happens all the time.
No. (Of course, your opinion might differ, depending on your definition of 'murder'))
No.

Quote:

The question should not be what is murder? its should be how do we treat the offender or offenders..

There is no problem with defining the act of murder. On the other hand, I do not think that state sanctioned revenge and punishment is anything but devolutionary and barbaric/ignorant.
Compassionate 'treatment' seems to be the 'evolutional' response, as if it were a beloved mother or brother... who cannot behave properly due to brain damage.
Treatment of the inappropriate behavior, perhaps isolation from possible victims, but compassionate and loving. Defining a symptom (murdering folks, for instance) can aid in it's treatment.
The state of a state's response to it's 'criminals' (it's prisons) speaks volumes about the state of the state!

2 Replies

@nameless,

Victor Eremita wrote:

"Thou shalt not..." only applies in states with law and the obligation to maintain such laws.

In the state of nature, "thou shalt not..." means jacksh*t.

Direct commandments from God only apply in states with law?

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you.

Sorry, all this sentimentalism and emotional appeal does not interest me. This, if an area of personal interest, is for your own opinions formed however they might be. Perspective. I do not necessarily share your 'sensitivities'. Death is as necessary in the whole picture as the notion of life. Pain and sadness as integral to existence as happiness and joy.

Happens all the time.
No. (Of course, your opinion might differ, depending on your definition of 'murder'))
No.

There is no problem with defining the act of murder. On the other hand, I do not think that state sanctioned revenge and punishment is anything but devolutionary and barbaric/ignorant.
Compassionate 'treatment' seems to be the 'evolutional' response, as if it were a beloved mother or brother... who cannot behave properly due to brain damage.
Treatment of the inappropriate behavior, perhaps isolation from possible victims, but compassionate and loving. Defining a symptom (murdering folks, for instance) can aid in it's treatment.
The state of a state's response to it's 'criminals' (it's prisons) speaks volumes about the state of the state!

Well you entertained me all the same.You appear to be saying that killing is one thing, murder another.I cant distinguish the difference, when their is intent, whoever the culprit is.

1 Reply

@Why phil,

All sins are equal in the eyes of God

All people are equal in the eyes of God.

Man was given domain over flora and fauna - meaning it's not immoral to kill an animal, or a plant for food, or improving habitability. It is immoral however to kill animals or plants for fun, in anger, in senseless irrationality, etc. Having domain over these, however, means we're also responsible for them. When we hunt animals for sport, or cut down forests unethically for profit, we are abusing our domain. In my opinion, that qualifies as sin.

In other words. Yes, I believe if you killed an ant for fun, it would be the same as killing a human for fun to God.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

Well I can't tell if a bunch of christians are arguing this or not. I tend to think not. Killing is not wrong in all circumstances. I can think of no act that is always wrong. That's not quite true. Cant's idea of a universal moral seems to apply, though I don't know that it would apply to everyone, but at least it applies to me. I try to treat another ever differently than I would like to be treated. I tend to think this is right all the time.

The obvious response is that would I like someone to murder me. And in almost no circumstances would I want someone to murder me at that time (I will assume all circumstances for the sake of argument). But now if I was going to kill alot of people and someone killed me to stop me, then in my current mindset, that would be right.

So my major point is that there within a certain set any act could be right except (for me) treating another like you wouldn't want to be treated.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

Well, I wouldn't say that is morally right. Just because you have an immoral mindset doesn't mean you deserve to be treated immorally. You really don't want to assume that morality is subjective, because that means you gotta admit that it's not necessarily wrong to torture animals or rape children just because you are personally against it. You can't subject morality to personal opinion. Now, you must acknowledge that you perceive morality objectively through your human existence, but this doesn't mean that morality is subjective in reality.

Now I want to go back to your situation where you want to be killed, so you kill. I'm not saying that you should not be stopped, and should be granted the same freedoms as anyone else just trying to get by. I'm saying that ideally, it is never morally justified to kill someone. Now that being said, we don't live in an ideal world, and while killing may not be morally justifiable, it becomes almost a necessity in an immoral world. So yes, you should probably still be killed, though that wouldn't be the first option. And if your life, or the life of a loved one is immediately threatened by someone intending to do evil, by all means **** that ************ up. But do not relish it, do not glorify it. Mourn it, bear remorse for the misguided individual. Such is the reality of a world of free will and human consciousness.

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

I was just saying before that not all killing is necessarily immoral. I think we both can argee on this. I do not agree with virtually any killings (except assissted suicide I guess) that happen in today's world, but still we can both concieve of situations in which it's right

There is no objective morality. Morality differs to greatly from time to time and culture to culture in order to have an objective morality. Like I said I like Cant's idea but I don't believe it's true rather I believe it should be true.

0 Replies

What does "Thou Shalt not kill" mean anyway?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know