Why is it wrong to kill people?

I'm not advocating murder as a solution to people's problems, but since I'm still trying to comprehend Columbine, I have a question: Why is it wrong to kill people?

E/D enjoyed the thought of killing people. Why shouldn't a person do what they enjoy?

The threat of punishment doesn't apply to people, like E/D, who are willing to commit suicide -they can't be punished for their crimes. They suffer no consequences.

Why should E/D have have put other people's lives before their own enjoyment?

That's a question you're going to have to answer yourself. If a person isn't on board with the whole, "Killing people is wrong," thing, then there's nothing I can do convince them otherwise.

sergeant hartman wrote:

That's a question you're going to have to answer yourself.  If a person isn't on board with the whole, "Killing people is wrong," thing, then there's nothing I can do convince them otherwise.

It's not good enough to just say "Killing people is wrong".

Is it wrong because you experience an adverse feeling towards killing others?

Why wouldn't you kill a person? Because you have no desire to?

Come on sergeant hartman, have some guts and answer the hard questions for once, instead of just picking on the easy fangirl targets.

Eric and Dylan shouldn't have killed those people for fun because it is my belief that they shouldn't have killed those people for fun.  I'm not sure where my morals came from.  Brain chemistry?  Learning from other human beings?

sergeant hartman wrote:

I would never cause an intense amount of pain and misery just to have some fun before I die.  I have this thing called empathy.

I'm certain that Eric enjoyed the thought of killing others.

A quick Google search of "homicidal fantasies" shows that many, many people enjoy the thought of killing others. School shooting fantasies also seem to be extremely common.

If these people enjoy these thoughts, but don't act on them, then there must be a reason why they choose to deny themselves this enjoyment.

Most of these people claim they refrain from murder because they don't want to spend the rest of their lives in jail. This leads me to wonder what would happen if they became suicidal, as E/D did. Without the threat of jail, would they still refrain from murder?

Your personal reason for not hurting others is this: Empathy.

I can't define empathy, but I assume this means that you experience an unpleasant feeling when you cause suffering to others?

So, you refrain from murder because murdering would make you feel unpleasant?

Isn't it the case then, that what you are calling "empathy" is really just a desire to avoid something that would make you feel unpleasant?

Yes, the whole egotism vs. altruism debate.

I don't kill people because it would make me feel awful and it would cause other people to feel awful.  I'm acting in an altruistic manner because I have continuously not murdered people my entire life.

Now you're going to ask, "Why is acting in an altruistic manner the right thing to do?"

I don't believe in coincidences and I think everyone has a purpose in life. If you kill that person prematurely their achievements and contributions to society will be non-existent. If we all just started killing each other everything would collapse. You like driving cars, grocery stores, and money don't you?

I think everyone has their individual reasons as to why killing is 'wrong'. I have certainly entertained the thought in the past, but the one thing that always held me back was not fear of jail or anything of the sort. What held me back was knowing how many other people I would hurt if I killed the people I wanted to kill. It would make me feel awful to take the life of someone I didn't care much about but who I knew other people loved very much.  I think it is also a part of empathy to be able to put yourself in other people's shoes and allow yourself to feel the kind of loss they would suffer if you went through with a plan like that. (Plus, on a spiritual level, I feel like everyone's got their place and purpose on this earth and that it is not my place to decide when/if they're no longer deserving of that place and purpose. I think that this is also a component in why people might sometimes entertain the thought of taking another person's life, but don't end up following through with it.)

sergeant hartman wrote:

I don't kill people because it would make me feel awful and it would cause other people to feel awful.

The problem here is that you already know that causing suffering to others makes you feel awful, so it's impossible to tell whether you actually care about other people, or whether you just don't want to make yourself feel bad by hurting them.

The situation becomes different when murder is no longer an unpleasant act, but an enjoyable one.

If murder was enjoyable to you, you would no longer be held back by the threat of unpleasantness to yourself. You may be held back by the thought of jail. But if you were willing to commit suicide, then what would hold you back?

That's the situation E/D were in.

Quote :

Now you're going to ask, "Why is acting in an altruistic manner the right thing to do?"

Sort of.

But I've never seen a human being act in an altruistic manner. I don't think it's possible to do.

People, to the best of their ability, do the things that bring them pleasure, and avoid the things that cause them pain. If they put off pleasure now, it's only because they believe it will give them an opportunity for greater pleasure in the future.

The thought of mass murder brought E/D great pleasure. There was nothing else greater that they could see. So, they did what every other human being on the planet does -they did what was most pleasurable to them.

To me, E/D aren't monsters. They're behaving like every other human being on this planet: Pleasure seeking.

E/D aren't the exception. They are the rule.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

I'm not advocating murder as a solution to people's problems, but since I'm still trying to comprehend Columbine, I have a question: Why is it wrong to kill people?

E/D enjoyed the thought of killing people. Why shouldn't a person do what they enjoy?

The threat of punishment doesn't apply to people, like E/D, who are willing to commit suicide -they can't be punished for their crimes. They suffer no consequences.

Why should E/D have have put other people's lives before their own enjoyment?

You have two questions, one concerning killing and one concerning enjoying. They are kind of strange, there's no real answer to them. Is it ok to kill people? Most would say "no", if you ask them was it ok to kill Bin Laden most (Americans) would say "yes". So in my opnion there is a difference between humans and objects, depending on your perspective (and media indoctrination) a person can be either. Another thing is, randomly killing people wrecks society and reduces your own chances to survive (apart from the suicidal this doesn't sound attractive to most). The previous is also why people shouldn't do exactly as they like, humans are herd animals so the interest of the herd goes first.
Where E/D really enjoying themselves, or were they laughing because they build up tension for months and now they were finally releasing it, did they kill objects or humans? I read somewhere the people who looked in thier eyes weren't shot (maybe they were recognized as human?). And more even Eric mentions it in his own diary, he must not be sidetracked by feelings of sympathy and he will force himself to believe that everyone is just another monster like FH or FS or demons from Doom. He was enjoying Doom though, but it doesn't imply that he also enjoyed the actual killing (depending on his mindset at the time). I'm sorry for the lack of cohesion in my answer, but it was a difficult question and a lot of thoughts pop up in my mind.

trench coat wrote:

If we all just started killing each other everything would collapse. You like driving cars, grocery stores, and money don't you?

E/D didn't like those things. They hated everything. They wanted the world to collapse.

You're arguing that E/D should have refrained from killing because no one wants to live in a shitty world where people are killing each other... That doesn't apply to E/D's situation, because E/D wouldn't be around to experience that world.

thedragonrampant wrote:

It would make me feel awful to take the life of someone I didn't care much about but who I knew other people loved very much

This is exactly my point: Killing people would make you feel awful. You don't kill because it would make you feel awful. You refrain from killing to avoid making yourself feel unpleasant.


PLEASE READ THIS: This thread is NOT a personal attack against anyone. It's a discussion. You're opinions will differ from mine and that doesn't mean I hate you.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

The problem here is that you already know that causing suffering to others makes you feel awful, so it's impossible to tell whether you actually care about other people, or whether you just don't want to make yourself feel bad by hurting them.

I demonstrate my care for other people every single day by not killing them.  You may observe them through my actions.  

Quote :

The situation becomes different when murder is no longer an unpleasant act, but an enjoyable one.

If murder was enjoyable to you, you would no longer be held back by the threat of unpleasantness to yourself. You may be held back by the thought of jail. But if you were willing to commit suicide, then what would hold you back?

I can't answer what I would do if I were a person that I am not.

Quote :

Now you're going to ask, "Why is acting in an altruistic manner the right thing to do?"

Sort of.

But I've never seen a human being act in an altruistic manner. I don't think it's possible to do.

Gaining pleasure from helping others = / = not acting altruistic

sergeant hartman wrote:

I demonstrate my care for other people every single day by not killing them.

No. You demonstrate that you will not engage in activities that are unpleasant to you (killing).

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

sergeant hartman wrote:

I demonstrate my care for other people every single day by not killing them.

No. You demonstrate that you will not engage in activities that are unpleasant to you (killing).

There seems to be some confusion here.  I'm telling you what I'm demonstrating. I'm demonstrating my care for other people every single day by not killing them.

Jaan wrote:

Another thing is, randomly killing people wrecks society and reduces your own chances to survive (apart from the suicidal this doesn't sound attractive to most). The previous is also why people shouldn't do exactly as they like, humans are herd animals so the interest of the herd goes first.

When a person is suicidal, as E/D were, the state of the world left behind no longer matters, as you have said. The threat of living in a shitty, broken down society isn't a threat to someone willing to commit suicide.

E/D had no good reason to refrain from doing whatever they wanted to.

Anyone who enjoys the thought of murder and is willing to commit suicide, will act on their desires, in my opinion. That isn't monstrous or evil; it's actually a perfectly human way to behave. All human beings do what is most pleasurable. Sometimes that pleasure is an act of violence.

Quote :

Where E/D really enjoying themselves, or were they laughing because they build up tension for months and now they were finally releasing it, did they kill objects or humans? I read somewhere the people who looked in thier eyes weren't shot (maybe they were recognized as human?). And more even Eric mentions it in his own diary, he must not be sidetracked by feelings of sympathy and he will force himself to believe that everyone is just another monster like FH or FS or demons from Doom. He was enjoying Doom though, but it doesn't imply that he also enjoyed the actual killing (depending on his mindset at the time). 

If Eric didn't enjoy murder, then he was a fool to throw his life away doing something he didn't enjoy.

Personally, I feel that Eric did enjoy it, and that Dylan fed off Eric's vibe and came to enjoy it as well. I don't know if they enjoyed the actual murder, but I think they enjoyed what the murder meant to them.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

thedragonrampant wrote:

It would make me feel awful to take the life of someone I didn't care much about but who I knew other people loved very much

This is exactly my point: Killing people would make you feel awful. You don't kill because it would make you feel awful. You refrain from killing to avoid making yourself feel unpleasant.

I see where you're coming from with this and am inclined to agree. I'm also pretty certain that I personally would've derived a great deal of pleasure from what I had in mind for some people, but I chose not to act on any of that because I knew how awful it'd make other people I had no problem with feel. If I didn't stop to think about their friends, their families, etc.. who knows what I would've gotten myself into? I guess you could say that the thought of the individual kill didn't make me feel unpleasant, but that the thought of what it'd do to others did? (I'd still count that as some weird form of empathy, to be honest with you.)

In regards to the case, I'm not at all sure if what they did that day was as enjoyable as they'd hoped/expected it would be. Yes, you can clearly hear the exhiliration and the 'thrill' on the 911 tape. It's the release of months/years of pent-up frustration and the re-enactment of an oft-had fantasy. Doesn't mean that the acting of killing people was still enjoyable for them once the initial rush died down. Doesn't mean that their victims didn't turn into human beings again right in front of them, instead of simply staying nameless and faceless 'monsters' they just had to pick off one by one. There are quite a lot of questions left open in regards to why they made the decisions they did and how they experienced that day, but we'll never get an answer to any of them because the boys both chose to end their lives then and there. (I think the only plan they had left, in the end, was that they would not be taken from that school alive. Everything else was improv.)

Quote :

"Anyone who enjoys the thought of murder and is willing to commit suicide, will act on their desires, in my opinion. That isn't monstrous or evil; it's actually a perfectly human way to behave. All human beings do what is most pleasurable. Sometimes that pleasure is an act of violence."

If killing isn't an evil act, then what is an evil act?

sergeant hartman wrote:

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

sergeant hartman wrote:

I demonstrate my care for other people every single day by not killing them.

No. You demonstrate that you will not engage in activities that are unpleasant to you (killing).

There seems to be some confusion here.  I'm telling you what I'm demonstrating.  I'm demonstrating my care for other people every single day by not killing them.

No confusion here. Let me explain:

You have made it clear that killing people would make you feel bad. So, when you go around NOT killing people, you aren't demonstrating that you care for them, you are simply demonstrating that you will not do something that makes you feel bad.

If killing people would make you feel bad, then that doesn't make you a caring person for NOT doing it. It just makes you a person who cares about your own happiness.

sergeant hartman wrote:

Quote :

"Anyone who enjoys the thought of murder and is willing to commit suicide, will act on their desires, in my opinion. That isn't monstrous or evil; it's actually a perfectly human way to behave. All human beings do what is most pleasurable. Sometimes that pleasure is an act of violence."

If killing isn't an evil act, then what is an evil act?

What's an evil act depends on your world view. In medieval Europe burning a witch wasn't considered evil, today it would be a cruel thing to do.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

No confusion here. Let me explain:

You have made it clear that killing people would make you feel bad.

Have I?  How do you know that I'm not lying?  Can you read my thoughts?

Quote :

So, when you go around NOT killing people, you aren't demonstrating that you care for them, you are simply demonstrating that you will not do something that makes you feel bad.

How am I demonstrating this?  Again, can you read my thoughts?

Quote :

If killing people would make you feel bad, then that doesn't make you a caring person for NOT doing it. It just makes you a person who cares about your own happiness.

And again.

thedragonrampant wrote:

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

thedragonrampant wrote:

It would make me feel awful to take the life of someone I didn't care much about but who I knew other people loved very much

This is exactly my point: Killing people would make you feel awful. You don't kill because it would make you feel awful. You refrain from killing to avoid making yourself feel unpleasant.

I see where you're coming from with this and am inclined to agree. I'm also pretty certain that I personally would've derived a great deal of pleasure from what I had in mind for some people, but I chose not to act on any of that because I knew how awful it'd make other people I had no problem with feel. If I didn't stop to think about their friends, their families, etc.. who knows what I would've gotten myself into? I guess you could say that the thought of the individual kill didn't make me feel unpleasant, but that the thought of what it'd do to others did? (I'd still count that as some weird form of empathy, to be honest with you.)

I would still argue that you were acting in your own self-interest by refraining from murder. The pleasure of the individual kill wasn't great enough to outweigh the displeasure of hurting people who mattered more to you.

What kind of bizarre definition of self-interest are you using?

Isn't every act you commit in your own self-interest?

sergeant hartman wrote:

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

So, when you go around NOT killing people, you aren't demonstrating that you care for them, you are simply demonstrating that you will not do something that makes you feel bad.

How am I demonstrating this?  Again, can you read my thoughts?

You've argued that your personal choice to not kill people is evidence that you care about people.

But because you have no desire to kill people to begin with, it isn't reliable evidence of your caring.

Quote :

Quote :

If killing people would make you feel bad, then that doesn't make you a caring person for NOT doing it. It just makes you a person who cares about your own happiness.

And again.

You claimed to feel empathy towards others. That claim suggests that hurting others makes you feel unpleasant.

So, by refraining from murder, you are demonstrating that you are a person who cares about your own happiness.

You have demonstrated that you care about yourself, but there is no evidence that you care about others.

Jaan wrote:

Isn't every act you commit in your own self-interest?

"A self-interested act is doing something because you are putting your own interests over and above others. If, however, you are acting on behalf of others, with an interest in others (the desire to help someone constitutes just such an interest), then I don't think it makes much sense to call that a self-interested action."

Not my words but I like it.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

thedragonrampant wrote:

I see where you're coming from with this and am inclined to agree. I'm also pretty certain that I personally would've derived a great deal of pleasure from what I had in mind for some people, but I chose not to act on any of that because I knew how awful it'd make other people I had no problem with feel. If I didn't stop to think about their friends, their families, etc.. who knows what I would've gotten myself into? I guess you could say that the thought of the individual kill didn't make me feel unpleasant, but that the thought of what it'd do to others did? (I'd still count that as some weird form of empathy, to be honest with you.)

I would still argue that you were acting in your own self-interest by refraining from murder. The pleasure of the individual kill wasn't great enough to outweigh the displeasure of hurting people who mattered more to you.

But here's the thing: I have never met/spoken with any of the people who turned into the reasons why I didn't just go for it. Would they still count as 'people who mattered more' to me, even if I had no personal connection with any of them and didn't know what they were like or what their relationship with the person I did want to see dead was like? Whatever pleasure I would have felt at the individual kill wasn't great enough to outweigh the displeasure I felt at hurting all the people who'd mourn this individual, even though I had never personally met any of the would-be mourners. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing that there's a strong pleasure-component in the actual act of killing. I think your basic premise here has merit, especially in a case such as Columbine.)

Quote :

You claimed to feel empathy towards others. That claim suggests that hurting others makes you feel unpleasant.

So, by refraining from murder, you are demonstrating that you are a person who cares about your own happiness.

You have demonstrated that you care about yourself, but there is no evidence that you care about others.

I don't kill others because I care about my feelings.  My evidence?  My thoughts.
I don't kill others because I care about other people's feelings.  My evidence? My thoughts.

sergeant hartman wrote:

Jaan wrote:

Isn't every act you commit in your own self-interest?

"A self-interested act is doing something because you are putting your own interests over and above others. If, however, you are acting on behalf of others, with an interest in others (the desire to help someone constitutes just such an interest), then I don't think it makes much sense to call that a self-interested action."

Not my words but I like it.

If I see someone in need, even though this is an unknown person to me, I tend to help this person. Why, because it makes me feel good (and there's my self-interest!).

Jaan wrote:

Isn't every act you commit in your own self-interest?

That's exactly my point.

E/D were acting -to the best of their abilities- in their own self-interest. That means they are acting the same way that every other human being on the planet acts.

sergeant hartman wrote:

What kind of bizarre definition of self-interest are you using?

I define self-interest as what brings you the most pleasure.

sergeant hartman wrote:

"A self-interested act is doing something because you are putting your own interests over and above others. If, however, you are acting on behalf of others, with an interest in others (the desire to help someone constitutes just such an interest), then I don't think it makes much sense to call that a self-interested action."

But how do you know the desire to help someone else isn't just a desire to make yourself feel good by helping them?

Helping someone is pleasurable. So, once again, you are doing it only for to make yourself feel good.

So StinkyOldGrapes, what's wrong with not killing people based on self-interest? I'm getting the idea this discussion is on a side path.
By the way I'm reading Mark Ames at the moment, so I see where you're coming from.

Quote :

But how do you know the desire to help someone else isn't just a desire to make yourself feel good by helping them?

I know this because of my thoughts. Where else am I supposed to get my answer other than my own thoughts?

thedragonrampant wrote:

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

I would still argue that you were acting in your own self-interest by refraining from murder. The pleasure of the individual kill wasn't great enough to outweigh the displeasure of hurting people who mattered more to you.

But here's the thing: I have never met/spoken with any of the people who turned into the reasons why I didn't just go for it. Would they still count as 'people who mattered more' to me, even if I had no personal connection with any of them and didn't know what they were like or what their relationship with the person I did want to see dead was like? Whatever pleasure I would have felt at the individual kill wasn't great enough to outweigh the displeasure I felt at hurting all the people who'd mourn this individual, even though I had never personally met any of the would-be mourners. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing that there's a strong pleasure-component in the actual act of killing. I think your basic premise here has merit, especially in a case such as Columbine.)

What you are saying is that you feel displeasure at the thought of hurting people you have never met?

If that's the case, then you are still refraining from murder because of the threat of displeasure. You're still looking out for your own emotions.

But there's a deeper question here too: Why do you feel displeasure at the thought of hurting people you've never met? I think it's probably a common human feeling.

E/D may have also felt displeasure at the thought of hurting people they had never met, just like you do. But the pleasure they felt at the thought of attacking their school and going down in fame was greater than the displeasure.

To me, there's no evidence that E/D didn't care about people, but just that killing them felt even better.

What Eric and Dylan did was not a, "Normal human thing to do." It was abnormal. I know that it was abnormal because most humans don't do it.

Jaan wrote:

So StinkyOldGrapes, what's wrong with not killing people based on self-interest? I'm getting the idea this discussion is on a side path.
By the way I'm reading Mark Ames at the moment, so I see where you're coming from.

That Mark Ames book is my favorite. His sense of humor is awesome. The part where he says "I get the feeling that Columbine is the American Idol of school shootings". Ha! It's so true. No matter what these new shooters do, they just get brushed off as "another Columbine". No one can outdo E/D!

There's NOTHING wrong with refraining from murder based on self-interest. In fact, I advocating doing so. The only reason I haven't killed anyone myself is because of self-interest. It sure as hell isn't because I care.

E/D get called monsters because they were doing something that felt good to them, but EVERYONE in the world does what feels good to them. If murder-suicide had felt good to any of the other teenagers at Columbine High, you can bet they would have acted on those desires too.

The real question about Columbine, to me, is: Why did murder feel so good to them?

People say they want to prevent another Columbine from happening, but the best they can do towards achieving that goal is to say: "Don't kill people. It's wrong."

sergeant hartman wrote:

Quote :

But how do you know the desire to help someone else isn't just a desire to make yourself feel good by helping them?

I know this because of my thoughts.  Where else am I supposed to get my answer other than my own thoughts?

Sure. You have to trust in your own thoughts. There's no other way to live.

You can choose to believe that you personally refrain from murder because you care about others- and not simply because murdering would make you feel bad- but just because believing that thing makes you feel good, doesn't mean it's the truth.

What feels good for you to believe in doesn't automatically make it the truth.

It doesn't mean that your beliefs about yourself are wrong, but just because they make you feel good isn't an indication that they are true either.

Random killing is a lousy way for a society to operate, but that doesn't make it wrong. It just wouldn't suit the majority of people.

E/D may have committed an act that upset's people's self-interests, but that doesn't make the act wrong.

sergeant hartman wrote:

What Eric and Dylan did was not a, "Normal human thing to do."  It was abnormal.  I know that it was abnormal because most humans don't do it.

Most humans don't dress the way I do? Does that make it abnormal?

Many humans fantasize about doing what E/D did. They don't do it because they don't want to die.

The only thing unusual about E/D is how willing they were to die for their anger.

The shooting spree wasn't abnormal behavior, but the lack of regard for their own lives was downright rare.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

What you are saying is that you feel displeasure at the thought of hurting people you have never met?

Yes. In fact, the thought of hurting people who've never wronged me personally makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Quote :

If that's the case, then you are still refraining from murder because of the threat of displeasure. You're still looking out for your own emotions.

Looking out for my own emotions, sure, but also taking the emotions of others into account and letting that influence my eventual decision.

Quote :

But there's a deeper question here too: Why do you feel displeasure at the thought of hurting people you've never met? I think it's probably a common human feeling.

I presume that it is a form of empathy. It's not something I feel the word 'displeasure' can capture adequately. It's the fact that merely thinking about the loss they would suffer makes my heart ache for them. I can imagine what they would feel and am able to put myself in their shoes. I wouldn't wish that kind of loss and heartache on anyone.

Quote :

E/D may have also felt displeasure at the thought of hurting people they had never met, just like you do. But the pleasure they felt at the thought of attacking their school and going down in fame was greater than the displeasure.

To me, there's no evidence that E/D didn't care about people, but just that killing them felt even better.

No, I agree, there is no evidence that they didn't care about people. (I could possibly even find a way to stretch that statement to say that maybe there was a time they cared too much and put their own selves on the line too much.) Eric, in particular, mentions things like having to forcibly distance himself from his family and wanting to see 'old friends' again. That doesn't exactly sound like someone who doesn't give a damn about people full-stop. It's just that both their 'care'-factors downsized over time to include only a very few individuals they deemed 'worthy' or whatever. I think the rest of the human race turned into collateral damage/cannon fodder for them.

You don't go from liking people to wanting to kill almost everyone on the planet in the space of a few days or weeks or even months. I'd argue, and have argued before, that this was a really gradual process that spanned possibly most of their lives. It ended up getting to the point where they believed 'NBK' to be the only valid option for their community, themselves and society as a whole. The segment in Eric's journal where he speaks of maybe wanting to leave a few of the 'primitive tribes' behind on this planet but get rid of civilised society as a whole is something that vividly illustrates the magnitude of his feelings about most of the human race, his overall sense of powerlessness in dealing with humanity and his subsequent wild plan to take the entire school out and go down with it. He created that entire plan based on the premise that humanity in its current civilised state is not worth saving. I don't know how much of it truly was a source of pleasure for him. It felt like business to me on his part. He's very different from Dylan in that respect. I truly believe that Dylan had the time of his life that day. I'd even argue that Dylan was a pleasure-killer who was literally only involved in 'NBK' for two reasons: the thrill/fun of the killing game and the act of taking his own life at the end of that game.

Using "you" in the general sense here.

Killing yourself is your choice.

Killing someone else is making a choice for them that isn't your choice to make. Their lives don't belong to you.

I gave my opinion on why I think that killing humans is wrong.  If you're just going to shoot it down by saying, "No opinion is absolute truth," then why the heck did you ask my opinion in the first place?  That's why I said to seek out the answer yourself, because I knew right from the start that this is where the conversation was headed.

Achimenes wrote:

Using "you" in the general sense here.

Killing yourself is your choice.

Killing someone else is making a choice for them that isn't your choice to make. Their lives don't belong to you.

This!!!

Homicide is a tantalizing thought, I gotta confess. I think that everyone fantasizes over killing any person at one time or another, whether it be out of feelings of anger or pure hatred, etc. It is apparent to me, that E/D had a deep animosity towards snobs and jocks, and although I do know they didn't specifically target anyone on NBK, they wanted to go out and fulfill their fantasy w/out caring about consequences too much. The consequences of a crime, particularly murdering another person, are pretty big. Think of the recent case with George Zimmerman.

I think, the bottom line is that homicide is just cruel and thoughtless (apologies for the cliche's) . Why does taking another person's life arouse your sense of satisfaction? Or more aptly, how does it?

Homicide is selfish.  While it may satisfy a killers needs it arbitrarily forfeits the lifespan of the intended target/s, and by extension, leaves a major deficit in the family and friends of the victims. Killing is one of those passionate actions that has a deep devastating impact.   Like rape, which causes an emotional, psychological ruination of the intended victim, killing causes the end of someones physical body and without the victim's say so. And who is to say the family or friend's of your victim/s won't suddenly develop a sudden itch for revenge, to kill you in return for stealing the life of their loved one?  For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.   By altering the course of another person's life and snuffing it out, you may have erradicated someone that could have been an worthy contributor to society.  An inventor, a scientist - someone that found the cure for cancer?  Who knows.  No one can say for sure but after the person is gone, there will never be the opportunity to fully see the potential that life may have had.  To someone that wants to kill, none of that obviously matters because the pleasure is a purely self centered and a temporary rush for pleasure.  While revenge might be sweet, it's also short lived and doesn't last.  After the deed is done, there is no positive benefit derived of it for killer or victim or the rest of the world.  If you hope to kill and live to tell, you'll have to weigh the long and short term benefits.  The result is a really off balance scale not in favor of the killer.  

D & E would not have done NBK if they knew they would survive afterward and suffer the repercussions.  They understood well that in killling and taking revenge, their life was forfeit.  They had hit rock bottom enough to not care that their life was forfeit.  "We don't give a shit because we're going to die doing it."   But E & D would never reap any enjoyable benefits of NBK; they would never witness any of the infamy they hoped to leave in their wake.  Where's the reward in that?  They would also never have to deal with the haunted,  pained look as their parents eyes as they came to visit them in prison.   Someone like T. J. Lane who killed for satisfaction and opted to live, his killing pleasure was a minute blip in time compared to the controlled, rigid life he now lives in prison.  He had maybe five minutes of infamy in the court room flaunting his arrogance, flipping the bird at the victim's families.  But what did that gain him for the rest of his life?  A life in prison probably getting butt raped by others. Worth it?   You'd  have to ask yourself.  Weigh the options, what is the benefit?   Now if we didn't have an accountable, somewhat civilized society, you can take a time machine and regress to the Wild, Wild West where you can quick draw whenever you feel like it.  Just don't be surprised if a noose eventually finds a way to your neck.  ;)   If you have a killing urge, go play video games or go watch The Purge.  Exorcise and satisfy those impulses in fantasyland and you'll never had to bother with steep, permanent repercussions.

I totally agree, InFiNiNcEX5.

sergeant hartman wrote:

I gave my opinion on why I think that killing humans is wrong.  If you're just going to shoot it down by saying, "No opinion is absolute truth," then why the heck did you ask my opinion in the first place?  That's why I said to seek out the answer yourself, because I knew right from the start that this is where the conversation was headed.

I apologize if you felt that I was attacking your beliefs. I know you can't see my intentions behind a computer screen, but it wasn't my intention to "shoot you down". I have greatly valued your contributions to this topic, and I'm grateful for the time that you, and everyone else, has spent on this topic. I have deeply considered everything that has been said by everyone in this topic.

I question my own beliefs all the time, and part of the way I do that is by asking other people what they believe, and why they believe that.

If I seemed to be "shooting down your beliefs", it was only because I was hoping that you would do that same to me. :DI am looking for people to point out the flaws in my beliefs so that I can improve the way I see the world.

My perception is that you believe you care about other people beyond the amount it benefits yourself, and your reason for believing this is because it feels good to believe that. I am not attacking your belief. I am merely comparing it to my own beliefs to challenge myself.

Once again, I was looking for people to attack my beliefs, so that I could improve my worldview, and also the way that I understand Columbine and E/D.

Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was attacking you. (And the same applies to everyone else on the board). No offence was intended to anyone.

JDM87 wrote:

Homicide is a tantalizing thought, I gotta confess.

Because the topic of homicidal thoughts is a sensitive one, I feel the need to make this clear: I am not planning to kill anybody. I simply wouldn't do it, and I don't advocate other people doing it. This conversation is discussion only.

I will be honest and say that there are times when I'm a bit envious of E/D.

E/D were heavily armed and suicidal, and that put them in a position of great power. They were free to let loose. There's something extremely liberating about that.

thedragonrampant wrote:

Yes. In fact, the thought of hurting people who've never wronged me personally makes me feel sick to my stomach.

I'm getting the impression that most people on the board share this feeling of being sick to the stomach at the thought of hurting people in the way E/D did? Whether that feeling is out of self-interest or genuine empathy doesn't matter -the feeling is obviously very real.

Myself, I make a strong effort to avoid hurting others, but the thought of doing what E/D have done doesn't invoke any revulsion in me. It definitely doesn't make me sick to my stomach.

sergeant hartman said earlier on that he "would never cause an intense amount of pain and misery just to have some fun before I die." This is how I view Columbine too. To me, it's not a question of whether or not a rampage would be fun -I personally feel that it would be- but whether it's ever justified.

Because some of this discussion was about the pleasure of violence, I thought this article was interesting.

It's called "Humans Crave Violence Just Like Sex".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Obviously, in the past, humans had to hunt for food and protect themselves, so maybe violence is equated with success?

I'm going to pose a question that I'm sure nobody cares about, but oh well, I'm still going to pose it, just in case someone like-minded to me ever visits this forum...

The consensus on the board is that killing without good reason is wrong. Is human stupidity sufficient justification for murder?

An example: What if someone took the things I've discussed on this topic too seriously and decided that I was a threat to society and needed to be hospitalized. Discussing the morality of murder isn't justification for depriving someone of their freedom, but there are stupid people in the world who would do just that. Would I be justified in killing this person because their stupidity poses a harmful threat to me?

I think E/D felt that the stupidity of the world posed a threat to them.

StinkyOldGrapes wrote:

I'm going to pose a question that I'm sure nobody cares about, but oh well, I'm still going to pose it, just in case someone like-minded to me ever visits this forum...

The consensus on the board is that killing without good reason is wrong. Is human stupidity sufficient justification for murder?

An example: What if someone took the things I've discussed on this topic too seriously and decided that I was a threat to society and needed to be hospitalized. Discussing the morality of murder isn't justification for depriving someone of their freedom, but there are stupid people in the world who would do just that. Would I be justified in killing this person because their stupidity poses a harmful threat to me?

I think E/D felt that the stupidity of the world posed a threat to them.

No you won't be justified, because killing a person because he may get you hospitalized will actually get you hospitalized (Contradictio interminis). And beside that, killing this person isn't the only solution.

Jaan wrote:

No you won't be justified, because killing a person because he may get you hospitalized will actually get you hospitalized (Contradictio interminis).

I get how you are saying that pre-emptively killing someone who may pose a threat to you is actually fulfilling your own prophesy, but when a person is suicidal -as E/D were- the worst threat has already been fulfilled.

It's all well to say that people demonstrate their compassion for others by not killing them, but if the only thing people respected was E/D's lives and not their freedom and dignity to live those lives, then something had to be done about it.

If someone plans to lock me in their basement for the rest of my life, I'm justified in defending myself (which may include killing that person), even if that person never planned to kill me. How much human pain does another person have to cause you before murder is justified?

Quote :

And beside that, killing this person isn't the only solution.

I think E/D would agree with that. Killing people wasn't the solution. Suicide was the solution. And killing people was just some kind of retrospective self-defense.

Jaan wrote:

You have two questions, one concerning killing and one concerning enjoying. They are  kind of strange, there's no real answer to them. Is it ok to kill people? Most would say "no", if you ask them was it ok to kill Bin Laden most (Americans) would say "yes". So in my opnion there is a difference between humans and objects, depending on your perspective (and media indoctrination) a person can be either.

I was thinking more about this. Interesting how you said that people can be "humans" or "objects". Did E/D really lack empathy, or did they simply see killing people as a means to an end they desired, thus reducing them to objects?

And, when I think about it, don't we all treat humans like objects most of the time? We may not go around killing people, but we don't exactly care about their well being either.

Has anyone read David Bohm's book "On Dialogue"? He argues that we don't actually talk to each other with the intention of trying to sincerely consider someone else's viewpoint, but that we talk to them with the intention to convince them of our own viewpoint.

I would also argue that we don't talk to to others as "humans" but rather as "objects" -as a means to an end. We talk to others to alleviate our boredom, or to make ourselves feel good, or to alleviate loneliness, but we don't talk to them with to intention of actually getting to know them and care about them.