Nostr Web Client

This is a really difficult question isn’t it? If depriving another human of their life is evil then where does killing someone such as a murderer or violent criminal fit in? Would you deem killing in self defense a necessary “evil?”

Throughout history our species has been violent to the point where I’d wonder if it isn’t a part of human nature.

Jac 2y ago

Regarding the violence question, I cannot think of any animal on earth that when needs are met, are violent. Humans can conceptualize and realize needs that exceed those rationalized by animals lacking our cognitive abilities, and therefore experience scarcity based on expectations rather than physiological need. I do think that scarcity of resources is always the motivation for violence, even if that scarcity is psychological scarring from childhood abuse eg. Persistent lack of nurturing emotional input due to childhood emotional abuse.

Yes, I deem killing in self defense as a necessary event, though even under distress I shoot to stop the behavior, if death results, that is an unintended consequence. Is there ever justification for premeditated murder IYO?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MichaelJ 2y ago

It's interesting that you point to the animal kingdom. Like you, I can't think of any animal that is violent when all of its needs are met. However, many animals can only continue to exist by eating other animals. So while it's true such animals are violent out of a scarcity of resources, there is no way that they can ever reach a state in which the scarcity will not return.

Humans can experience psychological scarcity, as you point out, but we can also choose to allow a need to go unfulfilled for the sake of some perceived good. The example that comes to mind is holding one's pee on a road trip until a convenient rest stop is available. Excretion is one of the most fundamental needs, but we can willingly forego even that need for a period of time, even to the point of, say, skipping multiple rest stops to get some extra miles on the road before stopping. With psychological needs, especially, I think humans are capable of relinquishing their claims on such needs should they choose to do so. This is where moral evil comes in. If we can choose contrary to some drive that would result in some natural evil, then failing to make that choice would typically be a moral evil, that is, it's not a necessary result of causality, like natural evil is.

Regarding your last question, I believe there is never a justification for premeditated murder. It is always wrong.