Killing Humans

[Paveway]

Why is it "wrong" and against the Law to Kill Humans?
Humans are classified as animals, and according to the Darwinian theory we are Animals, but it isn't as bad to kill animals and it isn't "wrong" AT ALL to kill insects.
So why is it "immoral" to Kill Humans?
(Spiritualists please don't answer this question, this is entirely for the Agnostics and Atheists thankyou, the reason why is because this is too easy for a God believing Human, and you will ruin my plot)

[Paveway]

Your persistent and important questions seem to wonder why we aren't all just solipsistic nihilists. Well, some are. And some are altruists. And most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We are captives to our biological history -- our evolutionary development made us into a social species. We crave the attention and the company of others. Our brain gives us little chemical rewards when we interact with others. Even when those interactions are hostile.

Evolution is the the lie of Creationism that Scientists use to cover up our moral identity.
YES my questions are somewhat bizarre and anarchistic, but the fundamental outline is that i am trying to get to a point.

Why are we the ONLY species that is supposedly "social"
and what is social?
what does it mean?
how do we get to be social through evolution? why does it trigger us and nothing else?
What are the chemical rewards? why do we have them? how did we get them through evolution? why respect these chemical rewards? and HOW do they reward us?

As for civilization, humans decided a long time ago that it was better to put down roots (pardon the pun) somewhere than remain as nomads. It is better for resource gathering, for morale, for social interaction in general. *Communities that were more cohesive tended to survive better than those that weren't. Civil order is important because it has been shown that people are generally more contented in an ordered society than in an unordered one, and contentment is a biological condition. For me, that's the common denominator for human behavior -- the biology of the brain. We have empathy because we have been hard-wired that way by evolution.

Why did they decide to put their foundations somewhere?
whats wrong with being a nomad?
why is it better for morale? what is morale? why is it important?
* do you have proof of this?
contentment is a biological condition? what are the genetics for contentment?
How did evolution bring us the empathy? and why not other animals?

[Wyvern]

[

color=red]Evolution is the the lie of Creationism that Scientists use to cover up our moral identity.
YES my questions are somewhat bizarre and anarchistic, but the fundamental outline is that i am trying to get to a point.

Why are we the ONLY species that is supposedly "social"
and what is social?
what does it mean?
how do we get to be social through evolution? why does it trigger us and nothing else?
What are the chemical rewards? why do we have them? how did we get them through evolution? why respect these chemical rewards? and HOW do they reward us?[/color]

Thank you for getting to the point of your leading questions. By no means are we the only social species in fact we are minimally social. If you want to see the maxima of social behavior ants or bees are where you should look. As far as what is social it is when a number of individuals act for the greater good, for the meaning look to the people in the armed forces that go into harms way in order to make the world safer for others. It triggers in many other species much more than in humans, the ant that sacrifices itself in order to simply make a bridge or the bee that kills itself in the act of stinging in order to protect the hive. Individually there is no reward in fact there is a negative aspect to it, which leads to the fact that we are social. As far as how is this behavior rewarded that is handled by the understanding by the ones taking the risk that the society they are protecting will continue through their sacrifice.
[

color=red]Why did they decide to put their foundations somewhere?
whats wrong with being a nomad?
why is it better for morale? what is morale? why is it important?
* do you have proof of this?
contentment is a biological condition? what are the genetics for contentment?
How did evolution bring us the empathy? and why not other animals?[/color]

They didn't have much choice in putting foundations down somewhere once they took up agriculture, kinda hard to farm while moving. Theres nothing wrong with being a nomad however don't expect to leave much when it comes to artifacts for later archaeologists to uncover, which is why they get the short shrift usually. Morale is merely a term used to describe when people either feel good or bad about themselves, when morale is up people naturally work harder and the opposite is true when morale is down, look at any sports match to see its effects in action. An example the last super bowl the seattle seahawks had the talent to win easily but they didn't, why because the steelers had much greater morale on their side since they had defeated every opponent they met before them while the seahawks were well rested because of the bye but mostly untested in postseason play.
Contentment is merely another way of defining stability which all creatures seek simply because it is easier to procreate in such a condition.
Empathy is something that comes about naturally with social creatures so as far as we know there very well be many animals that have this particular attribute, the problem is in defining the attributes thereof and detecting the ability in creatures that cannot express it. So like I said it might be in other animals but because it is hard to see and define how can we say it is not exhibited in other creatures?

[Paveway]

Thank you for getting to the point of your leading questions. By no means are we the only social species in fact we are minimally social. If you want to see the maxima of social behavior ants or bees are where you should look. As far as what is social it is when a number of individuals act for the greater good, for the meaning look to the people in the armed forces that go into harms way in order to make the world safer for others. It triggers in many other species much more than in humans, the ant that sacrifices itself in order to simply make a bridge or the bee that kills itself in the act of stinging in order to protect the hive. Individually there is no reward in fact there is a negative aspect to it, which leads to the fact that we are social. As far as how is this behavior rewarded that is handled by the understanding by the ones taking the risk that the society they are protecting will continue through their sacrifice.

what is the greater good? why should it be acheived?
social=fighting?
So why are ants and bees MORE willing to risk their lives than we are?
or less? And does this matter so much to make a whole paragraph about it?
so what is social? being in the armed forces and in harms way to save the World? why should this be done? why do they do this? why is this enclined with society and being social? why is it wrong to abolish civility?
why bother continuing a society?

They didn't have much choice in putting foundations down somewhere once they took up agriculture, kinda hard to farm while moving. Theres nothing wrong with being a nomad however don't expect to leave much when it comes to artifacts for later archaeologists to uncover, which is why they get the short shrift usually. Morale is merely a term used to describe when people either feel good or bad about themselves, when morale is up people naturally work harder and the opposite is true when morale is down, look at any sports match to see its effects in action. An example the last super bowl the seattle seahawks had the talent to win easily but they didn't, why because the steelers had much greater morale on their side since they had defeated every opponent they met before them while the seahawks were well rested because of the bye but mostly untested in postseason play.
Contentment is merely another way of defining stability which all creatures seek simply because it is easier to procreate in such a condition.

Why do we have feelings? why do we hate being unhappy? why do we better ourselves? what is going to be such a good outcome for it?

Empathy is something that comes about naturally with social creatures so as far as we know there very well be many animals that have this particular attribute, the problem is in defining the attributes thereof and detecting the ability in creatures that cannot express it. So like I said it might be in other animals but because it is hard to see and define how can we say it is not exhibited in other creatures?

How does it come naturally? so there really is NO difference between Animals and Humans, so why do we have Laws against killing Humans but not Animals? (you know what i mean)

[Scrotum]

How does it come naturally? so there really is NO difference between Animals and Humans, so why do we have Laws against killing Humans but not Animals? (you know what i mean)

You clearly have no interest in debating, and just "make up" new questions when you get answers. Most ave already answered your questions, and then you, like a child (i have seen this in kindergarten) make up new ones.

"What is that"
"Its a Table"
"Why is it a Table"
"Coz somoene made it"
"Why did someone make it"
etcetera.


If you are serious, you should stop this nonsense.

We have laws against killing Animals. Perhaps you are not aware of it. Difference is,obviously, that we are different species of animals, in general, animals do not care about whom they kill, as long as its not their own, as it would harm their survival rate.

In Scandinavia for example, we have so called Hunting Season for Elk (Moose), and this is to avoid over population from the Elk. As it would harm our society, we have expanded to much.


Then we have, as example, Bear hunting in the U,S, or Russia, but you cant just take a weapon and shoot, you need a license, you are also not allowed to use certain weapons etcetera.

Do you understand?

[sin_is_fun]

There is nothing called as 'right','wrong',ethical' and 'moral'.All these are religious terms.
When we dont have anything called as right or wrong what is the point in asking
Why is it "wrong" and against the Law to Kill Humans? /So why is it "immoral" to Kill Humans?

If I were to ask the questions which you asked I would reword them as

Why is it against law to kill humans?

The answer is "Because law makers thought so"

[sin_is_fun]

Why is it against law to kill humans?

The answer is "Because law makers thought so"

paveway,

seeing your previous "why is it so?" questions I preempt it by asking it myself

Q:Why is it against law to kill humans?

A:Because law makers say so

q:Why should I listen to what they say?

A:Because if you dont you will be arrested.

q:Why do they say what they say?

A:They say what they say because they are the deciding authority and this is how they want their society to function.

We draw law,morality,right and wrong from fellow humans.Not from a superman in sky.

As Judith shalkar said " A liberal is one who believes that cruelty is the worst thing to do"

To quote Rorty "There is no answer to the question 'why should I not be cruel?'

I am not cruel to my fellow human because that is what my society taught me.My society & culture taught me that harming another human is wrong.All learning is social.This learning of mine is also social.

[Paveway]

We have laws against killing Animals. Perhaps you are not aware of it. Difference is,obviously, that we are different species of animals, in general, animals do not care about whom they kill, as long as its not their own, as it would harm their survival rate.

You have proof of this?
The World is overpopulated in MANY places, why not kill a few civilians?

In Scandinavia for example, we have so called Hunting Season for Elk (Moose), and this is to avoid over population from the Elk. As it would harm our society, we have expanded to much.

So why not kill a few of ourselves?
in China they have a one child policy, why not just kill a few people off?

Then we have, as example, Bear hunting in the U,S, or Russia, but you cant just take a weapon and shoot, you need a license, you are also not allowed to use certain weapons etcetera.

So why isn't there a license to hunt Humans in overpopulated countries?

--

There is nothing called as 'right','wrong',ethical' and 'moral'.All these are religious terms.
When we dont have anything called as right or wrong what is the point in asking
Why is it "wrong" and against the Law to Kill Humans? /So why is it "immoral" to Kill Humans?

If I were to ask the questions which you asked I would reword them as

Why is it against law to kill humans?

The answer is "Because law makers thought so"

But the fact is, it is alsi immoral to kill Humans.
And why do the law makers think so?
why don't we kill them? because there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" as you say.
Do you obey the law? and are you religious?
--

A:They say what they say because they are the deciding authority and this is how they want their society to function.

We draw law,morality,right and wrong from fellow humans.Not from a superman in sky.

How do we draw such things from Humans?
Who are the ones setting the "good" example?
and how do we know that they are correct?

To quote Rorty "There is no answer to the question 'why should I not be cruel?'

Anti-theist.

I am not cruel to my fellow human because that is what my society taught me.My society & culture taught me that harming another human is wrong.All learning is social.This learning of mine is also social.

How did we adapt this?
what was the trigger of providing culture and society and being social?
who taught the unsocial people? or were we already social to begin with?

[sin_is_fun]

But the fact is, it is alsi immoral to kill Humans.
And why do the law makers think so?
why don't we kill them? because there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" as you say.
Do you obey the law? and are you religious?

What is moral and what is immoral differ from society to society,culture to culture.In many cultures killing people isnt immoral Eg:United states & Europe.Many prisoners are executed here.Countries also kill innocents in war,which is allowed under law.

I obey law.I am not religious.

How do we draw such things from Humans?
Who are the ones setting the "good" example?
and how do we know that they are correct?

1.We draw things from people because thats what our society teaches us.For example you draw your religious belief from your family and church who are humans.

2.The ones who set the good examples are role models,law makers,powerful people,famous people,philosophers etc.

3.There is nothing called as correct and incorrect.

To quote Rorty "There is no answer to the question 'why should I not be cruel?'

Anti-theist.

Understatement.


BTW does he being an antitheist reduce the importance of that quote?

How did we adapt this?

Social learning.

what was the trigger of providing culture and society and being social?

Environment

who taught the unsocial people? or were we already social to begin with?

Everybody is unsocial in one or two aspects.Who is unsocial on what aspects depends upon their environment.

[Wyvern]

The World is overpopulated in MANY places, why not kill a few civilians?
So why not kill a few of ourselves?
in China they have a one child policy, why not just kill a few people off?
So why isn't there a license to hunt Humans in overpopulated countries?

Who are you to say what place is overpopulated and what isn't? For that matter who are you to say who should or should not be killed by your proposed ideas? An area is considered overpopulated when it has excess population(i.e. unemployed) so overpopulation is more a problem of education and economics. If this definition of overpopulation doesn't agree with yours please supply one of your own instead of simply saying it is so.

But the fact is, it is alsi immoral to kill Humans.
And why do the law makers think so?
why don't we kill them? because there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" as you say.
Do you obey the law? and are you religious?

One of the few times religion and politics agree and you complain about it? amazing. Do you have to be religious to obey the law?

How do we draw such things from Humans?
Who are the ones setting the "good" example?
and how do we know that they are correct?

I can't help but think you are trying to lead us to a conclusion that you think is self evident in which you want everyone to agree that all morality and ideas of right and wrong come from god and specifically the christian one. Unfortunately this can not be, the first recorded laws came from the babylonians and most famously Hammurabi. His law got boiled down to an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, which most early religions adopted, and this is how things came from humans. As for who sets good examples, there have been many examples through history you can pick which one is best for you, I personally consider Ghandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. to be among the best in recent history.

How did we adapt this?
what was the trigger of providing culture and society and being social?
who taught the unsocial people? or were we already social to begin with?

The trigger for humans becoming social is easy, we are too slow and weak in nature to survive as individuals and this happened much before we were "civilized" but as a group we could fend off predators and take down prey large enough to feed the group/tribe. Once a tribe became successful enough to have a caloric excess they could afford specialists that did not neccessarily contribute to the increase in food production(kings, priests, soldiers, metal workers, poets etc) and thus a culture is born. As far as who taught the unsocial people the answers the same as who taught the social ones(parents, teachers or priests et. al.). The reason why some people are un or anti social is a matter of debate in and of itself, however the consequences are mostly the same, antisocials ended up either becoming mostly criminals or conquerors depending on which economic end of society they were on.