What does "Thou Shalt not kill" mean anyway?

@Why phil,

And like I said, morality is subjectively perceived, but to assert that morality is entirely subjective is a slippery slope that no rational individual can willfully subscribe to.

And essentially we share beliefs, but I differ semantically in the way that I don't think killing is ever morally justified. That doesn't mean it's not almost necessary in certain situations though.

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

Wait a sec! Your claiming an immoral act is not always wrong. If an immoral act is necessary at a certain time than it can not be wrong at that time because if it is necessary then it is by definition good. You don't have to like it, but if you agree it is not wrong at that specific time, then is that not the same as saying it is not bad? Your pointing towards an objective good and bad and here's why. If immoral acts can be necessary while still retaining their immorality, then our morality is flawed. Flawed is not perfect, which would imply a perfect set of universal morals. I do not believe this to be the case, and I don't know if you are intending to argue for universal morals, so I will stop there.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

I said almost necessary. The thing is the act of killing is not ever "necessary" if your immediate life or the life of those you love is in danger, you can simply let that person end your or their life. What I am saying is that one can in certain cases of immorality, one can establish reasonable cause for ending that person's life before they commit their own respective immoral deed. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the only rational option. I'm claiming that the immoral act of killing is always wrong, however, in certain situations, rationally justifiable.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

and I always argue for the existence of moral objectivity.

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

I was implying it is the only rational answer. There are situations like that. And right then it is necessary. See Previous argument. And about objective morality. I can't imagine what that objective morality is after insert choice evil here.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

Why wrote:

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".

Why did you quote dictionary.com? philosophy is a lot about re-writing the dictionary isn't it? That's irrelevent, sorry.

Thou shalt not kill is a rule of common society. Who said that human life is worth more than any life on Earth? Ehem, must I explain to you the food-chain? Without plankton creatures of higher ranking in the food-chain would slowly perish... It depends on what you think is morally right with murder. There obviously are some people out there whom are fine with the concept of murder and will claim that you simply don't understand him/her. This leads to the personal belief in what is ethically right or wrong, that is up to you to determine. For example endocannibalism, I don't have a problem with this, if the person who died was of natural causes. I wouldn't eat a person because of the health issues with it. Then there is a religion that declares that bodies are temples and to do any harm is well you can figure that out. Have fun determining for yourself what is morally right and wrong! Keep in mind the majority rules though, it wouldn't be smart to go out and kill someone in plain sight because you decide it's okay, that's common sense.

0 Replies

@xris,

It would be foolish and irrational to prohibit killing, all inclusively.
Everyone kills.
Whether our immune system is killing a virus or a bacteria, we inhale little floating critters and our system kills them, step on an ants, swat a mosquito, yank a carrot from the ground (or a cow) to eat, etc...
To prohibit killing in general is absurd and impossible, a fool's task.
Context demands that the bible commandment refers to murdering (legal term) humans. It's 'god' actually commands to kill, multiplicitously, so inconsistencies in the book are plentiful, but the context of the commandment seems obvious, with a bit of thought.

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It would be foolish and irrational to prohibit killing, all inclusively.
Everyone kills.
Whether our immune system is killing a virus or a bacteria, we inhale little floating critters and our system kills them, step on an ants, swat a mosquito, yank a carrot from the ground (or a cow) to eat, etc...
To prohibit killing in general is absurd and impossible, a fool's task.
Context demands that the bible commandment refers to murdering (legal term) humans. It's 'god' actually commands to kill, multiplicitously, so inconsistencies in the book are plentiful, but the context of the commandment seems obvious, with a bit of thought.

Is it right to kill .....that spark we dont understand..it dwells in every living thing..I think we should treasure it and only take it when it is essential.Its value to us is in our perception, even if its the ant that scurries across your desk we should consider its value.I killed three rats the other day for necessity but i considered their value.

1 Reply

@xris,

Can "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shall not commit murder" be applied to killing self a.k.a. suicide?
Since the message is in the bible, I would assume that the question regarding suicide is whether or not it is considered sin based on this verse?
While we can easily see the reason behind or the benefit of prohibiting killing other people (or even animal/plant), I don't see any benefit coming from prohibiting suicide act(done peacefuly). It is simply the extent of exercising my own free will. This is how I see it.
Opinion?

1 Reply

@kratos phil,

kratos wrote:

I don't see any benefit coming from prohibiting suicide act(done peacefuly). It is simply the extent of exercising my own free will. This is how I see it.
Opinion?

That an act is an exercise of free will seems irrelevant. If I walk into the street and begin stabbing people at random, I am simply exercising my free will.

Benefit from prohibiting suicide? Well, imagine the fifteen year old kid who tries, and is prevented from, taking his own life. Sounds to me like we saved a life, which also seems beneficial.

Also, how can suicide be peaceful? Perhaps in the case of someone with a painful and terminal disease. Suicide might not include physical violence toward others, but it does include physical violence to one's self and psychological violence to those who care for you.

1 Reply

@Why phil,

Unfortunately I missed the beginning of this, nonetheless I discussed this with someone in an old thread.

It would seem as though KJ has already written some of what I was going to post. Nonetheless maybe someone can get something extra out of mine.

My old post:

Just so you know I am by no means a very studied Bible theologian.

We must remember that the OT was not written in English but in Hebrew (and some Aramaic though in this situation Hebrew). If we look at the word in Exodus 20:13 for 'murder' with the Hebrew text we will see the word "רצח: râtsach" We will also find this word used in Deuteronomy 5:17. Ok so it is seen that God commands Christians not to commit or do the act of "râtsach"

Now let us look at a few other uses of this Hebrew word in the Bible and check the context of it.
(Bible Version NKJ)

Numbers 35:6: "...to which a manslayer may flee..." Manslayer being the word representing the Hebrew word. As to background on this verse. Manslayer refers to someone (in this case) who had accidentally killed someone. An example is given in Deuteronomy 19 as to what an accident is. Someone is cutting a tree down with and axe and the axe head flies off and kills someone.
There are 3 uses of the Hebrew word in Deut 19 also talking about accidental death as well as in Deut 4. As well as many other uses of the word referring to the same slayer found in Joshua.
Deuteronomy 22:26: "...for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him ..." This context is comparing a man who kills his neighbor to the act of a man raping a woman. In the situation of the man killing his neighbor it is understood that this act of murder is wrong where as the murder shall be put to death and the person murdered was innocent as well as the person who was raped (it goes on to say because she screamed so obviously she resisted) Interesting enough is how if you look at the verse before the above verse (25) you will notice it says that the rapest should be put to death using the Hebrew word "מוּת mûth" which is translated "to die". So in these verses there is an obvious usage of 2 different words referring to the taking of a life. Both when read in context can be understood.
Judges 20:4: "So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered ..." This use of the word murder is referring back to chapter 19 where the mans concubine was raped and placed dead at his doorstep. He describes the act upon her as murder or as again the Hebrew word: " râtsach"

I am not going to break down and compare the rest of the uses of the word in the Bible but I will give you all of the verses if you wish to do so on your own:

Exo. 20:13; Num. 35:6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31; Deu. 4:42; 5:17; 19:3, 4, 6; 22:26; Jos. 20:3, 5, 6; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; Jdg. 20:4; 1Ki. 21:19; 2Ki. 6:32; Job 24:14; Psa. 62:3; 94:6; Pro. 22:13; Isa. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2; 6:9;

That is all of the uses of the word used to describe "kill" in the 10 commandments.

If we wished to then go on after viewing all verses in context and to ascribe a definition to this Hebrew word I myself would write something like: Murder which is accidental or committed in sinful hate towards another or in jealousy etc.. it is wrong.

Of course accidental murder is impossible to avoid as it is an accident though that doesn't mean that that makes it right.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That an act is an exercise of free will seems irrelevant. If I walk into the street and begin stabbing people at random, I am simply exercising my free will.

Benefit from prohibiting suicide? Well, imagine the fifteen year old kid who tries, and is prevented from, taking his own life. Sounds to me like we saved a life, which also seems beneficial.

Also, how can suicide be peaceful? Perhaps in the case of someone with a painful and terminal disease. Suicide might not include physical violence toward others, but it does include physical violence to one's self and psychological violence to those who care for you.

Actually u're right about the free will part, I stand corrected.

Maybe if the notion of suicide is not frown upon (i.e. not a sin) in the first place the action of taking one's own life will not cause psychological violence to the one left behind.

The act of killing other people or stealing is downright wrong since we deprive other people of their free will (i.e. the will to live) but the act of suicide not so much.

0 Replies

@Why phil,

By way of comparison, from a cultural perspective, the Jain religion prohibits any kind of killing, insects included, and Jain monks will often be observed sweeping the path in front of them, so as to avoid killing insects.

Buddhists are likewise mostly inclined to avoid killing even insects, although this is by no means consistent as Buddhism in Japan and parts of China became part of a martial creed.

However I think it is fair to observe that murder - wilful deprivation of life of another human being - is regarded in all civilized societies as a heinous crime, and if in fact were not so regarded, one would have to question whether the society is in fact 'civilized' (something I often wonder about American society, with its legal attitude towards gun ownership and capital punishment).

0 Replies

@Why phil,

In philosophy everything is a thread, you have to refer to something to argument something else.
"Survival of the Fittest" is a fact, everybody is aware of. We humans have survived many centuries since we were capable to adapt to life changes. We kill our own kind, and we kill other species.
It is not wrong or right!!
I believe that this is how the world goes. The strong shall inherit the earth. Moreover, we are the strongest beings on this planet. That's why we are surviving.

1 Reply

@ibrahiml,

kratos wrote:

Maybe if the notion of suicide is not frown upon (i.e. not a sin) in the first place the action of taking one's own life will not cause psychological violence to the one left behind.

Maybe, but I cannot imagine why. Even if suicide were not perceived as sinful, suicide still deprives loved ones left behind of the company of the departed. A mother will not cease to weep over the loss of her suicide son simply because suicide is not considered sinful.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

As soon as you say "thou shall not" you put your question into religious context, otherwise you would ask if there is ever justification for killing. So I immediately think of several events in the Bible:
Very soon after receiving the tablets, Moses commits genocide.
When Noah was given permission to eat meat after the arc landed God said that ALL blood shall be accounted for, which indicates to me that there is a required justification for the killing of animals.
When Jesus picked grain on the Sabbath and deprived that grain of its life, or when he killed the fig tree. He was without sin.

Kantian ethics would say that your intention plays an important part in justifying your actions, allowing room to justify all sorts of killing (but not sadism). Virtue ethics and egalitarianism would cast doubt on any possible justification you may have for killing. So it's all about what drives your justification, and what is deemed acceptable in society.

1 Reply

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

When Jesus picked grain on the Sabbath and deprived that grain of its life, or when he killed the fig tree. He was without sin.

I'm not sure why this particular example is significant. Grain is certainly not human life (which, presumably, is the life being referred to in the commandment given that the authors of those guidelines consumed, not only agricultural products, but even sentient animals). Grain is not sentient, either.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

OK, plants are not human or animal life. I find it interesting how easy it is to justify killing plants and how we regard life at various levels.

If you cut them do they not bleed?:bigsmile:

0 Replies

@Why phil,

If a lifeform doesn't know that it's alive, is it wrong to kill it?

1 Reply

@Lily,

The commandment was "thou shall not kill". What was the original intent of the command? What does it mean when we place modifiers onto it to allow killing of things we determine to be of lesser value? Isn't that how people justify killing; by dehumanizing the enemy?

I'm just trying to explore what the statement "thou shalt not kill" means. I'm not saying that there is no reasonable justification for killing, I kill and eat every day. I carry a weapon and would surely use it to preserve my life or the life of those I deam to be innocent vicims.

I do find it interesting how religion influences how we humans rationalize our actions and set up our moral code of ethics.

1 Reply

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

OK, plants are not human or animal life. I find it interesting how easy it is to justify killing plants and how we regard life at various levels.

Plants are incapable of experiencing pain, fear, or anything else.

Sentience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

What does "Thou Shalt not kill" mean anyway?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know