Why do people kill people?

[Scamula]

Why do you think that people kill others? What is going through their minds when they plan and implement murders? Have you ever wanted to kill anyone? I won't be judgmental of you I am just looking for answers...

[S25]

I have considerd it at times, I dont wonder why but why is it so unacceptable? Some people do terrible things, And society has no method of properly dealing with people and scum do not understand anything else!

[C'tair]

Many people might think about killing another person, but they usually shrug it off, take it for a passing feeling, a "bad" thought. Now, I have thought of killing or even severly hurting someone, not just "ah, Id really want to kill that biatch", nah, I visualised it, it was me, a cloudy night, a sturdy iron pipe and my victim. I come up to her, just pass her by in a mask, she only takes a seconds notice of me, its winter people wear scarfs and sometimes masks. When Im a step behind her, I turn around, bring out the pipe from my left and get a decent swing on my right and then hit her as hard as I can somewhere in the neck, maybe head. She falls down, but I dont wait, I dont think about what I have done, I have only one intent this night. I start to club her, sometimes in her head, other times on the rest of her body. Then I proceed to kick her and check if shes alive. Then I fade away into the night and finish off with throwing out any evidence...
That was my angery killer thought.

On another note, a person that has once killed, wont (or atleast I think so) hesitate to do it again. I mean he/she has passed the moral boundry once and he/she is still ok, it didnt hurt much did it? So what, I can do it again right?

[Scamula]

I have considerd it at times, I dont wonder why but why is it so unacceptable? Some people do terrible things, And society has no method of properly dealing with people and scum do not understand anything else!

I've considered it at times too. Some people are just so ignorant and so stupid and set in their stupid ass beliefs that you just want to hurt them sometimes. I won't lie. They've stripped me of my self esteem and tried to belittle and dehumanize me so I've often fantasized about doing the same thing to them.

[INCH06]

When made to feel small and such I fantasise about killing. But the medication I take is meant to stop that.

Back when I was fifteen I had the plan of a school shootin alongside a friend who was also pissed off alot at school but I was rumbled. Now days I would rather give someone a serious beating instead ov just shootin them.

I've always wanted to kill another for that feeling of power it's supposed to give you.

[Scamula]

The only problem with killing someone is that they cannot suffer anymore. If the person is nasty enough to warrant murder then murder will technically be too good for them. If they're that bad, they need to suffer. The only time I'd seriously advocate straight up murder is if the person is dangerous and if they were allowed to live, they'd seriously threaten your life or quality of life.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Why do people murder other people? Hatred. Revenge. Power.
I have considerd it at times, I dont wonder why but why is it so unacceptable?
Killing other people is unacceptable by society's standards for the simple fact that no one wants to be killed. "I won't kill you, you won't kill me" sort of thing. So society creates a mutual, written or unwritten law, that no one should kill another. It becomes a part of morality. And morality is meant to limit other people.

Personally I think that killing a person can be a benificial thing. It breaks society's law. And by breaking these laws we may be able to rise above the puny fears and limitations held in common by the herd.

If murder be thine weapon in changing this world, so be it.

[odin_dax]

Why do people murder other people? Hatred. Revenge. Power.

Killing other people is unacceptable by society's standards for the simple fact that no one wants to be killed. "I won't kill you, you won't kill me" sort of thing. So society creates a mutual, written or unwritten law, that no one should kill another. It becomes a part of morality. And morality is meant to limit other people.

Personally I think that killing a person can be a benificial thing. It breaks society's law. And by breaking these laws we may be able to rise above the puny fears and limitations held in common by the herd.

If murder be thine weapon in changing this world, so be it.

If you're not being facetious, that's about the dumbest reasoning I have ever read in my life. There is no reason to murder another person unless your life is in danger. That's called self-defense.
Stupid people who get wrapped up in gangs, gambling, affairs, theft, marriage and etc. deserve what's coming only because when you stare evil in the face, you get burned.
People don't want people murdered because it's not beneficial to society as a whole. Yes, there a lot of people nowadays, so the impact isn't as heavy, but who is anybody to decide a murdered life can be beneficial, if out of the selfishness of the murderer? Society electing to condemn a person to death because of crimes is different, so don't play that card.
Morality doesn't hold anybody back. Give me a moral, and I'll tell you why it exists, and then you can argue that point. Example, gambling is immoral because financial responsibilites come first. The fact that someone wants to, or you believe people should gamble if they want, doesn't invalidate that it is immoral. Even when all bills are paid, you and your family are insured, and there's "extra" money lying around, it is still prudent to save for unforseen circumstances, retirement, health care (if you retire without any benefits), etc. or, as morality dictates, helping those in need.
If common sense doesn't work, then let's try this... Okay, I accept your premise that murder can be beneficial, so let's start by murdering you, heavy. The world would be better off without people spreading seflish, stupid reasoning.

[Stone]

I wouldn't advocate meaningless murder, but if somebody seriously hurt or killed my girlfriend or son, be it intentional or accidental, I don't think I would be able to hold myself back from killing that person.

[headcase]

Are there cases where people don't deserve to live? I mean, it's a fantastic gift to be born, and to an extent we are all equal.

A few weeks back I was walking to a pub with a friend towards the edge of the city. It was just turning night. As we crossed a small, pedestrian bridge we see a fight. We loop around so as to avoid it; no point in getting involved in someone elses arguement. When we were walking away though, I saw a blanket being tossed into the river. Upon closer inspection, the fight is between a bum and a scumbag trying to steal the change he's gathered during the day. The scumbag has just thrown the bums blanket into the river. It briefly crosses my mind to throw the scumbag in after it (I'm not huge, but the guy I was with was, and with the bum that made 3 of us versus one). If I was absolutely certain it would have no repricussions for any of the three of us, that scumbag was going into that river. It's the fear of arrest that stopped me. So the scumbag grabs the change and runs off, the bum left to collect what little belongings aren't in the river. We ended up giving the bum our drinking money and going sober for the night.

So the question is, did that guy deserve to contunie living? I saw him land at least three unanswered punches on the bum. I don't think so. I could have killed him with a clear conscious.

A question I always ask my friends when we're discussing this is this:

Your walking down the street alone at night. Someone jumps out and puts a knife to your throat, demanding money. There's a scuffle and you end up with the knife (it doesn't matter how). What do you do?

For me it's an easy answer. Kill them. They put a knife to your throat so you can only presume they were ready to kill you. I'd kill them on the spot quite happily.

[Scamula]

I mean, it's a fantastic gift to be born,
I wonder what the bum would say about that.
people who don't exist can't suffer either.

So the question is, did that guy deserve to contunie living? I saw him land at least three unanswered punches on the bum. I don't think so. I could have killed him with a clear conscious.

I really don't know. Wow, for once I am at a loss for words.



Your walking down the street alone at night. Someone jumps out and puts a knife to your throat, demanding money. There's a scuffle and you end up with the knife (it doesn't matter how). What do you do?

For me it's an easy answer. Kill them. They put a knife to your throat so you can only presume they were ready to kill you. I'd kill them on the spot quite happily.

I'd take 'em out like trash. No question there.

[Esophagus]

I don't think I could kill someone. I'd just try and seriously hurt them to get out of the situation. If I unintentionally did kill them, I can guaramtee I would develop post-traumatic stress disorder, or just become a total recluse.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

I don't think I could kill someone. I'd just try and seriously hurt them to get out of the situation. If I unintentionally did kill them, I can guaramtee I would develop post-traumatic stress disorder, or just become a total recluse.
haha. If given the chance I think I would. It would.. destroy the few values I have towards life and society. I like doing that, shocking myself and other people, and making people question and destroy the very values that society in general upholds. In short, I promote Anomie. Look it up, and try reading some Camus or Dostoevsky.

I happen to think that the only real life is the one without preconceptions or basically the bullshit that society tries to pin on everyone as the "standard" when originally, there were no standards, be it fashion, morals, or anything else.
..Quite the punk/nihilistic mindset. :sgrin:

[Esophagus]

Me not being able to kill someone has nothing to do with society. Its about my morales and principles, and beliefs in equality. No one deserves death in my opinion.

[Clit Crusader]

My thoughts on murder stem to my religious beliefs, but for some reason if I killed just one person I don't think I would have a problem killing anyone for any reason. It is just that first person would be hard for me because of religious values but after the first time I would feel I have already screwed up and killing anyone else would not be a problem.

[DoctaD]

If I were to murder someone, it would be for more than beating on some homeless guy.

I'm not condoning this asshole assaulting, humiliating and stealing from someone much less fortunate. Nothing of the sort. I don't exactly consider this as punishable by death. If it was, then surely blowing up a small animal with a firework would also deserve a sudden demise.

Now, while in full control of my body, I don't think I could bring myself to knowlingly take another's life without it being either protecting or avenging a member of my family or my significant other. I don't think I could kill over a close friend, even.

Obviously things are different while intoxicated.

[Esophagus]

I might be able to bring myself to kill for my family. Again though, post traumatic stress or something.

[headcase]

I suppose I have to admit I am talking out of my ass. I obviously can't guarentee that I would feel no moral reprucussions. I just have to wonder why this guy gets to keep living. In the grand scheme of things, would the world be a worse place without him? I don't think so.

Of course, vigilante homicides isn't a road we want to go down, but the question was; could I murder this guy with a clear conscience? I genuinely think I could (if what I saw on the bridge is an accurate representation of his general persona).

[Esophagus]

In the grand scheme of things, would the world be a worse place without him?The world may not be worse off with the man, a physical entity, but I think we would be much worse off in a world where people considered us "better off" after having killed all of the people deemed inadequate.

[headcase]

But maybe you had a rush of blood, maybe you were attacked and had no choice. If the deed was unaviodable, why feel guilt for making the world a better place?

[Esophagus]

Is that really making the world a better place?

[odin_dax]

I'm going to agree with what DD said...

Anyway, murder is easy to say you won't do. Killing, on the other hand, and there is a difference, is tough because you never know when you may be in a situation where you might have to defend your life or be dead.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

If you're not being facetious, that's about the dumbest reasoning I have ever read in my life. There is no reason to murder another person unless your life is in danger. That's called self-defense.
Stupid people who get wrapped up in gangs, gambling, affairs, theft, marriage and etc. deserve what's coming only because when you stare evil in the face, you get burned.
People don't want people murdered because it's not beneficial to society as a whole. Yes, there a lot of people nowadays, so the impact isn't as heavy, but who is anybody to decide a murdered life can be beneficial, if out of the selfishness of the murderer? Society electing to condemn a person to death because of crimes is different, so don't play that card.
Morality doesn't hold anybody back. Give me a moral, and I'll tell you why it exists, and then you can argue that point. Example, gambling is immoral because financial responsibilites come first. The fact that someone wants to, or you believe people should gamble if they want, doesn't invalidate that it is immoral. Even when all bills are paid, you and your family are insured, and there's "extra" money lying around, it is still prudent to save for unforseen circumstances, retirement, health care (if you retire without any benefits), etc. or, as morality dictates, helping those in need.
If common sense doesn't work, then let's try this... Okay, I accept your premise that murder can be beneficial, so let's start by murdering you, heavy. The world would be better off without people spreading seflish, stupid reasoning.

Please... People CAN and WILL murder other people if they WANT to enough. Their reason, whether validated by mainstream society's morals or not, is enough to carry the deed through. Can YOU stop people from wanting to kill other people? No. You say it's wrong to kill people. That's your opinion. But what are YOU doing about that, huh? People will kill people. And if you start crying like the little boy, "THAT'S NOT FAIR!", well, tough luck buddy, because life is not fucking fair and people's lives are going to get snuffed out by others whether you give a fuck or not.

Do you REALLY need to give a fuck about what other people say or think about you or your deeds? You only live once in life, so it's your fucking decision to do what you want in this life.

Yes, it's selfish. But if you try to kill me I'd crack your skull open. Given this premise, "Who's life is worth more, mine, or yours?" It is mine, because I say so. And i'm sure that you would say the same thing towards me if you had to kill me for self-defense. Isn't that the logic behind your "self-defense" argument? Sure you have laws. But don't you think it's strange that society murders people who murder other people?, if we're promoting "murder is always bad" premise?

Morality is merely a social courtesy. But it doesn't always dictate what happens out there.

People would rather murder other people before they murder them. It's cruel. But that's life.

so let's start by murdering you, heavy.
I'd like to see you try. If you don't succeed then too bad.

[headcase]

Wow, you missed the point entirely. He's not promoting morality as some sort of "social courtesy" but as a Darwinian, naturally selected trait. People don't kill other people because, if it was acceptable, it would be very bad for us as a species. Eventually, everyone would be dead (which wouldn't happen because along the way we'd learn that it is bad for us as a species, that's Darwinism). That is how morality has a logical base. It's not "his opinion", it's nature.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Wow, you missed the point entirely. He's not promoting morality as some sort of "social courtesy" but as a Darwinian, naturally selected trait. People don't kill other people because, if it was acceptable, it would be very bad for us as a species. Eventually, everyone would be dead (which wouldn't happen because along the way we'd learn that it is bad for us as a species, that's Darwinism). That is how morality has a logical base. It's not "his opinion", it's nature.

But you see I am not merely arguing about murder here. I am arguing about the very premises that there IS a right and a wrong. I'm talking about the very core of society. There's no arguing that murder IS bad for us as a species, yet is people killing others preventable? There are more forces running in this equation than simple natural selection.

Let's see if I REALLY miss the point.

What about WAR? Can we prevent factions, nations, and such, from coming into conflict from others? No. As long as people have ideas and ideals that conflict with the will of others, and followers to back them, people will kill each other. Are IDEAS a product of natural selection? No, but rather one of the perception and creativity of the human mind. Look at communism and democracy, the "christian" churches of different kinds, the concept of liberty, equality... It goes on and on. People will have their ideas and ideals, and countless people more will die fighting for what they think is "right".

We have had Bush exercising the "War on Terror" and backing it up with false ideals like "freedom". That's acting like a regular despot, no different than a hundred other people in centuries past. People are dumb enough to suck up to shit like that. And so off we go to war...and die. And to think that natural selection would have saved us!

I accept that people killing other people is a way of life. I don't see how you can change that.
I merely accept it. If people want to start wars, I don't care, as long as I'm not affected by it. It's their lives to do fit with, natural selection or not.

[theMaxx]

Don't bash it until you try it!

[headcase]

I think war is a special case, as generally they are fought for what someone deems is right.

In this case we can really only consider morality the the sense of our daily lives. We consider killng to be wrong, not to be nice people, but because society would crumble otherwise. We have laws to enfore that generally accepted morality for the same reason.

Religion seems to be the main force corrupting this view though, but it's difficult to accurately contrast morality on so large a scale. Still, I don't think people kill people for the sake of killing people, except your maniacs.

[theMaxx]

We consider killng to be wrong, not to be nice people, but because society would crumble otherwise. We have laws to enfore that generally accepted morality for the same reason.

I think it's more a matter of power and not so much about morality or civilization. Note how death is only a problem when it occurs among the rich in the First World or when it somehow affects the rich in the First World.

Heavy deja-vu. Did someone write anything like that recently?

[Esophagus]

they are fought for what someone deems is right i think all murders come out this way. even if they dont think what they did was right in the long run, theres some judgement saying its okay then. as in wars. people are usually all up for invasions, but staying is usually when they realize its a problem.

[headcase]

True, murders probably think what they are doing is right, but some whales probably think its a good idea hitting the beach. Some dogs probably think they really can take on those cars. The rest of society know better though.

As for invasions; it's easy saying you want to invade somewhere, it's easy saying to'll kill all those people (I've done it several times here), but face-to-face, it's more difficult.

[Esophagus]

againthey are fought for what someone deems is right the rest of society knows better with wars too. Its just someones decision. not everyone.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

the rest of society knows better with wars too. Its just someones decision. not everyone.
Well, not just someone you see. If It was just someone's decision (take note, singular pronoun) then I or anyone else would have the power to kill everyone. It's not just someone's decision. It's their decision.

It is impossible to start wars without people backing the leader. Bush can't do shit without his army. The followers must share the same point of view or goal. Thus it is not someone's decision, but the group as a collective whole.

Well, if morality is right, it is quite obvious to everyone that morality, in fact, is subjective and an ever-changing force. It can't be depended on for a definite answer to correctness on an issue. And the larger group can't be wrong, right?
Let us take the American Civil War for an example. Is it truly, moral for black people to be slaves? The South would say yes. The North would say no. Don't tell me about majority, because the Union and the Confederacy both occupied huge tracts of land and had large numbers of people. Who is morally correct? No one, actually, because it's one group's word against another.

The only solution was war.

Now we say that it's morally correct to say that black people are equal to whites. Why? because that war decided the outcome of that issue.

Is it not evident that society needs war to decide what is moral for certain issues?

[theMaxx]

It is impossible to start wars without people backing the leader. Bush can't do shit without his army. The followers must share the same point of view or goal. Thus it is not someone's decision, but the group as a collective whole.
You're making a false assumption that everyone involved has a choice - if a jarhead turned walked out on a tour of duty, they'd be in serious trouble. I'd like to point out that many soldiers in Iraq, I'm sure, are opposed, on moral grounds, to the war. If their moral opposition was an easy way out, I'm sure a lot more would suddenly find arguments against the war pretty convincing. Additionally, some members of society have little or no power in terms of military decisions. The power centers, IMO, battle over the decision and usually come to a conclusion agreeable to all the major power centers. Then they utilize their institutional power to force the rest of the society to allow, and even carry out, the decision.

[headcase]

I think it was the House voted in favour of setting a date for the withdraw of American troops from Iraq, but George is just going to veto it. While this is a bad example (because it's a rare instance where George is doing the right thing), it proves that one man does have power over the many. Plus, he lost the popular vote.

[Esophagus]

Well, not just someone you see. If It was just someone's decision (take note, singular pronoun) then I or anyone else would have the power to kill everyone. It's not just someone's decision. It's their decision.

It is impossible to start wars without people backing the leader. Bush can't do shit without his army. The followers must share the same point of view or goal. Thus it is not someone's decision, but the group as a collective whole.

Well, if morality is right, it is quite obvious to everyone that morality, in fact, is subjective and an ever-changing force. It can't be depended on for a definite answer to correctness on an issue. And the larger group can't be wrong, right?
Let us take the American Civil War for an example. Is it truly, moral for black people to be slaves? The South would say yes. The North would say no. Don't tell me about majority, because the Union and the Confederacy both occupied huge tracts of land and had large numbers of people. Who is morally correct? No one, actually, because it's one group's word against another.

The only solution was war.

Now we say that it's morally correct to say that black people are equal to whites. Why? because that war decided the outcome of that issue.

Is it not evident that society needs war to decide what is moral for certain issues?It was someones decision. That someone happens to be in power, but nonetheless its just them. The public doesn't have to back a war for it to happen.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

You're making a false assumption that everyone involved has a choice - if a jarhead turned walked out on a tour of duty, they'd be in serious trouble. I'd like to point out that many soldiers in Iraq, I'm sure, are opposed, on moral grounds, to the war. If their moral opposition was an easy way out, I'm sure a lot more would suddenly find arguments against the war pretty convincing. Additionally, some members of society have little or no power in terms of military decisions. The power centers, IMO, battle over the decision and usually come to a conclusion agreeable to all the major power centers. Then they utilize their institutional power to force the rest of the society to allow, and even carry out, the decision.

You misinterpret me.
I didn't say everyone had a choice. I said Bush can't do shit without his army, and that it's the group's decision as a collective whole.
I didn't say public. I said army. It's the government and its army. The government and army must have parallel goals in order so that the order and structure of society is maintained. The army does whatever the government tells it to do. It's just a sad fact that people get conscripted into the army whether they like it or not. The individuality of the members of the army is irrelevant.

I like to call it citizenship.

If you don't like the way the government is then what are you doing about it? Whether you realize it or not there are many, many, benefits to living in a country as well-off as America. Let's take away your job, your well-paved roads, your cars, your clothes, and the availability and quick distribution of commodities. Most people here don't have that. Let's take away the quality of your living and put you in a political and economic shithole like the Philippines. You'll live in a small leaf-bamboo hut and under the reign of a corrupt and complacent government. Let's see then if you'll mind fighting in a war.