Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:46:58 -0700 From: mitchell wilson <lobster-AT-mail.utexas.edu> Subject: Re: why do we not kill? firstly, considering that this is not a foucault discussion, this discussion is going on way too long for a foucault list. so, send any responses to my email: lobster-AT-mail.utexas.edu unless of course one wants to relate this to foucault and the dangers of subscribing to a universal morality, which seems to me to be of a different nature than what is now being discussed. c.holmes-AT-nepean.uws.edu.au wrote: > > According to Mitchell Wilson: > > >only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. > > This is patently not true. Most people who kill are not psychopaths but are driven to kill by a variety of factors. Many admit that they WANTED to kill their victim, and went ahead and did so - but they WANTED to kill for a whole host of reasons which overrode their sense of moral obligation not to kill. > Colin colin, you missed my point, which is that when non-psycopaths kill they do so, as you say, "for a whole host of reasons which overrode their sense of moral obligation not to kill." in other words they went against their natural inclinations. you see, i was objecting to the assertion that to kill another human is somehow natural. a sense of morality is not communal, rather ethics are. and, for me, a sense of moral obligation is an instinct, a sense, which is natural. and while i cannot PROVE this anathema to kill as natural, common sense tells us that it is natural. therefore, the one making the extraordinary assertion--that humans have a propensity to kill one another--has the burden of proof. secondly, regarding your belief that killing increases the importance of communication, this is of course true. but who is communicating to whom? the victim to the killer? hardly. the proliferation of nuclear arms, poverty, discoveries such as a possible lake on europa, and teenager suicide, all increase the need for communication. but does this mean that they are all natural, instinctive? thirdly, you say that we "know" better than to kill. well, what is the basis of this "knowing." were killing other people natural, then we surely wouldn't know better than to not kill, would we? and damn yes i'm positive about human nature, though i'm certainly not naive. but considering our history and your very own experiences, humans are much more cooperative than destructive. how many have you killed or seen killed? probably none or very, very few. in any case, any kills have been an unusual occurence, and NOT the normal course of events. so yes, since there are billions of people who get along without killing each other and genrally agreeing on other things every single day, i am proud of the human race! mitch.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005