winstonjen

There is a big difference between the two. If there wasn't, we could not kill animals or plants for food.


But why should we keep on living if we are not happy and can't see any hope for improvement? Not everyone can be a Nobel Prize Winner. Heck, not everyone even WANTS to be in the history books.

Yes, I am. Thank you.

LOL! The ol' double standards approach!

Seraphim

There is a big difference between the two. If there wasn't, we could not kill animals or plants for food.

My reply : I'm speaking in human terms, is there any difference between "Murder" and "Kill" (without putting animals and plants into play)?

But why should we keep on living if we are not happy and can't see any hope for improvement? Not everyone can be a Nobel Prize Winner. Heck, not everyone even WANTS to be in the history books.

My reply : By right, I should just tell you to kill yourself and stop wasting other people's time, but I won't do that because in my point of view, it will be a bad karma for me.

Why should you be living when you are unhappy? Why are you unhappy? Mind telling me that?

Why should you try and be a Nobel Prize Winner? You can do simple things with yourself - sports, writing something, composing songs (or like a friend of mine does - try and make games). There are hundreds of things you could do and you could do it for sake of pleasure and satisfaction, NOT expecting some reward.

Do people in the History book started their journey with intention of entering the History book? I don't think so ...

winstonjen

Of course there is. Otherwise, we couldn't kill in self-defense.

No, because suicide must remain the individual's choice in the end. No one has the right to force them to live.

I never said I was unhappy. But the reason for me to live is that the unhappiness would probably be temporary.

And what if there is no longer a chance for happiness or satisfaction? These are hypothetical scenarios, BTW.

Some are, some aren't. Presidents of the US probably do.

Seraphim

Of course there is. Otherwise, we couldn't kill in self-defense.

My reply : Accepted. Killing in self-defence (when there is no choice but to survive) is an acceptable condition for Killing. Anything else? Food doesn't count since I have already mentioned that animals and plants should not be added in. Also killing for defending one's country shouldn't be added since that could be considered as killing in self-defence as well.

No, because suicide must remain the individual's choice in the end. No one has the right to force them to live.

My reply : I was taking about playing my part in another person's death. Even so I never actually kill you by action, telling you to die can be consider as killing you by emotion/thought. Thus, I'm subjected to Bad karma.

I never said I was unhappy. But the reason for me to live is that the unhappiness would probably be temporary.

My reply : Happiness doesn't come looking for you, you have to go and find it yourself.

And what if there is no longer a chance for happiness or satisfaction? These are hypothetical scenarios, BTW.

My reply : only reason why there is no more chance for you to have happiness or satisfaction is IF you already died. You make yourself happy by giving yourself something you will be satisfied with. Sometimes, others could make you happy as well. Wanna know an example? - I did made you happy earlier by admiting my mistake, have I not?

Some are, some aren't. Presidents of the US probably do.

My reply : Really? Not sure about that since most people in the history books made it in after they are dead and 6 feet under ...

PS : I don't consider US Presidents to be the smartest bunch ... their history is full of too many mistakes and needless fights and talk. How exactly do you pick those guys anyway? Throwing dice?
Never mind ... politics never mind favorite or strong topics.

winstonjen

I agree. There is no reason to encourage people to bump themselves off. Killing by failing to prevent a murderer killing his victim is equally bad. It is passive killing by omission.

And after death, there is no chance for any more pain or unhappiness either. I should have made this more clear - it's not about whether ANY happiness is possible, it's whether NET happiness is possible - ie more happiness than unhappiness.

Seraphim

I agree. There is no reason to encourage people to bump themselves off. Killing by failing to prevent a murderer killing his victim is equally bad. It is passive killing by omission.

My reply : Don't understand fully, but as long as we both understand each other.

And after death, there is no chance for any more pain or unhappiness either. I should have made this more clear - it's not about whether ANY happiness is possible, it's whether NET happiness is possible - ie more happiness than unhappiness.

My reply : Let's assume that death is an end (which I don't believe), will there be any happiness there?
No, because you will be dead, feelings which bound you with pain and suffering now will not exist then, NOR the feeling of love and comfort you seek will not appear either.
Feeling that you are useless now will not exist then because being dead indeed makes you useless to the living (unless you consider being a fertilizer is a merit ).

To make long story short -
"Even IF you destroy this world, the world you SEEK will not appear" - Goyjo (from an anime called Gensomaden Saiyuki).

beyelzu

my grandfather killed himself the day before my birthday 13 years ago. he had terminal cancer diagnosed with about 3 monthes to live. If someone wants to die that is their right.

Jackalope

Yes, but the right to die with dignity, or the simply the right to die if the individual has no wish to live, is not guaranteed in most parts of the world. It's not even recognized in many places.

But the thread isn't just about semantics. There is a qualitative difference between "killing" and "murder." A "mercy killing" isn't usually considered murder unless you live someplace where suicide and euthanasia aren't recognized as personal rights. And even then, that's a legal distinction. Many people wouldn't consider administering the coup de gras as murder. It's a mercy, a personal favor. But not murder.

Many people claim they could not kill in self defense, but they've also never been in the position where they must kill or be killed. The survival instinct is suprisingly strong in most people. One never knows until the situation arises.

Is it murder to kill your abusive spouse who's threatened to kill you and repeatedly injured you? That's one that's also still up for debate.

--Lee

winstonjen

I know. And that's why I have less respect for the law every day.

Quote:

But the thread isn't just about semantics. There is a qualitative difference between "killing" and "murder." A "mercy killing" isn't usually considered murder unless you live someplace where suicide and euthanasia aren't recognized as personal rights. And even then, that's a legal distinction. Many people wouldn't consider administering the coup de gras as murder. It's a mercy, a personal favor. But not murder.

I agree. And I think that people in society should be the ones to decide whether a killing is murder or not.

Quote:

Many people claim they could not kill in self defense, but they've also never been in the position where they must kill or be killed. The survival instinct is suprisingly strong in most people. One never knows until the situation arises. Is it murder to kill your abusive spouse who's threatened to kill you and repeatedly injured you? That's one that's also still up for debate.

That could be called 'pre-emptive self-defense' or something like that. They could use Bush's War on Iraq as an example to justify it.

Feather

Well, let's see. Have you ever been so depressed you literally could not think straight? Depression is a hard master.

Perhaps you ought to consider your position a little more thoroughly. There are a lot of depressed people in the world--odds are you know and/or are friendly with at least one person who is depressed or a manic depressive.

You don't know what it is like. Much the same way virgins don't know what sex is truly like. Or single people don't know what being in a committed relationship is like. Or men don't know what being a female is like (and vice versa). Or an average American who has never travelled does not know what living in third world conditions is like. You don't know how deep it is possible to go until, for example, you've tasted the steel of a gun barrel in your mouth and thought "All I have to do is squeeze with my finger, and it will all end."

Some people can make it past the depression, and others hurt too much. It isn't weak mindedness necessarily. It isn't cowardice necessarily either. And the support of friends and family is a necessary component in bringing a person back from the brink of that ultimate decision. I default to assuming that people who use the terms "coward" and "weak-minded" when discussing suicide are just ignorant. "Selfish" might apply in the technical sense, but I don't know that it's accurate in the general context . I used to use those words to describe persons who attempted suicide or contemplated suicide, too. But I'm not ignorant anymore. Oh, no I am not.

People deal with things differently. Perhaps you ought to practice a modicum of tolerance and come to understand this and "walk a mile in their shoes" before you pass judgement.