Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Different Views On The Wrongness of Killing

Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are what seem to be the most popular accounts of the wrongness of killing in the philosophical literature:

The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.

Out of the given accounts which do you think is the most plausible and is most closely in agreement with our moral intuitions on why killing is wrong? Feel free to give your input on each view.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 8:05:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Here are what seem to be the most popular accounts of the wrongness of killing in the philosophical literature:

The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

What makes you think, or they, that every killing has this as a factor. Sweeping generalization. Mercy killings aren't for people with a continued desire to exist.
The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

Assumes you know the future, I'm pretty sure we aren't certain of that yet. You might be killing someone who has a brain injury in their future and murders their children and wife.
The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.
Out of the given accounts which do you think is the most plausible and is most closely in agreement with our moral intuitions on why killing is wrong? Feel free to give your input on each view.

Killing has never been a question of good or bad, its merely been an impression of what a certain reality is at any given point to the killer. No civilization has a moral intuition, thus no people in that society actually has this intuition. We are merely a reflection of either deceptive information or assumed "social contracts" that don't exist in reality. Might makes right in all societies, not what actually is right.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 12:02:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 11:46:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
aren't all of these the same lol?

No. Each account provides a different reason for why killing is wrong.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 12:21:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 8:05:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Here are what seem to be the most popular accounts of the wrongness of killing in the philosophical literature:

The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

What makes you think, or they, that every killing has this as a factor. Sweeping generalization. Mercy killings aren't for people with a continued desire to exist.

I never said that every killing has this as a factor. Yes, there are individuals who are killed that lack a desire for their continued existence.

The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

Assumes you know the future, I'm pretty sure we aren't certain of that yet. You might be killing someone who has a brain injury in their future and murders their children and wife.

You're correct in claiming that we don't know the future. But if other things are equal, killing an adult human being usually does involve the deprivation of future goods his life otherwise would have had.

The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.
Out of the given accounts which do you think is the most plausible and is most closely in agreement with our moral intuitions on why killing is wrong? Feel free to give your input on each view.

Killing has never been a question of good or bad, its merely been an impression of what a certain reality is at any given point to the killer. No civilization has a moral intuition, thus no people in that society actually has this intuition. We are merely a reflection of either deceptive information or assumed "social contracts" that don't exist in reality. Might makes right in all societies, not what actually is right.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 4:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 12:02:48 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 9/24/2015 11:46:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
aren't all of these the same lol?

No. Each account provides a different reason for why killing is wrong.

They sound pretty much the same to me.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 9:01:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.

Frankly, the latter two come with a large amount of metaphysics behind them. The third even more so than the second.
Further, 3 or something close to it seems to be implied by 2.
Oversimplified, we might say the motivation for 3 is that since a person suffering from Alzheimer's is at some point not the same person as she was several years ago and soon won't be the same person as she now is, we are considering different cases of depravation of future goods.
I'm not sure I expressed this properly, but I can't seem to be able to formulate it more clearly.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 4:07:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/25/2015 12:02:48 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 9/24/2015 11:46:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
aren't all of these the same lol?

No. Each account provides a different reason for why killing is wrong.

They sound pretty much the same to me.

Perhaps I should explain how each account differs. Let's run through each one.

The desire satisfaction account differs from the harm based account because even if it's the case that an individual had a valuable future ahead of them, the desire view would hold that if a being lacked the desire to preserve that future, then depriving it of said future would not be wrong. This account is often used as a reply to the future-like-ours argument against abortion.

The harm based account differs from the desire satisfaction view because even if a being lacked the desire for its future existence, depriving it of that future would still be wrong. This view of the wrongness of killing was made famous by the philosopher Don Marquis in his paper "Why Abortion is Immoral."

The Time-Relative Interest account differs from both the desire view and harmed based account because it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to itself when it experienced the goods of its future. If a being had a valuable future ahead of it, but lacked any kind of psychological connections to the future in question, then the badness of death would be discounted due to the complete psychological separation from itself now and in the future.

I believe this account is the most promising because it takes both the views mentioned above and combines them into one. The desire view is correct in claiming that desiring to continue to exist is relevant to the badness of being killed, but incorrect in saying that death cannot be bad for something that lacks this desire. The harmed based account is correct that the good of one"s future is important, but incorrect in thinking that this alone is sufficient to make being killed bad.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 4:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 9:01:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.

Frankly, the latter two come with a large amount of metaphysics behind them. The third even more so than the second.
Further, 3 or something close to it seems to be implied by 2.
Oversimplified, we might say the motivation for 3 is that since a person suffering from Alzheimer's is at some point not the same person as she was several years ago and soon won't be the same person as she now is, we are considering different cases of depravation of future goods.
I'm not sure I expressed this properly, but I can't seem to be able to formulate it more clearly.

I don't see how the Time-Relative Interest Account has a large amount of metaphysics behind it. It doesn't necessarily have to assume any particular view of personal identity.

As for the person suffering from Alzheimer's, The Time-Relative Interest Account doesn't apply to them. The reason why is because this account only applies to beings who fall below the threshold of respect, and not persons suffering from Alzheimer's.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 5:44:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 4:41:44 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 9/25/2015 9:01:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:22:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
The Desire Satisfaction Account - According to this view, killing a being is wrong because it frustrates their desire for continued existence.

The Harm Based Account - According to this view, killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a range of future goods that its life would otherwise have contained.

The Time-Relative Interest Account - This view is almost exactly like the harm based account mentioned above, but it also takes into consideration how psychologically connected one would be to its future.

Frankly, the latter two come with a large amount of metaphysics behind them. The third even more so than the second.
Further, 3 or something close to it seems to be implied by 2.
Oversimplified, we might say the motivation for 3 is that since a person suffering from Alzheimer's is at some point not the same person as she was several years ago and soon won't be the same person as she now is, we are considering different cases of depravation of future goods.
I'm not sure I expressed this properly, but I can't seem to be able to formulate it more clearly.

I don't see how the Time-Relative Interest Account has a large amount of metaphysics behind it. It doesn't necessarily have to assume any particular view of personal identity.
But it has to assume some view.

As for the person suffering from Alzheimer's, The Time-Relative Interest Account doesn't apply to them. The reason why is because this account only applies to beings who fall below the threshold of respect, and not persons suffering from Alzheimer's.
Well, I did not intend to say Alzheimer patients fall under this threshold. I wanted to illustrate how, assuming the same view on personal identity on both accounts, they imply a similar badness of ones death.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic