Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

The moral condemnation of murder can be seen everywhere. The biblical 5th commandment - Thou Shalt Not Kill - expresses condemnation with the utmost authority. Murder is followed by the severest of all punishments. In many countries, a convicted murderer will be murdered by the State, i.e. executed. In moral philosophy, there is little regret about this. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that whoever kills must die (and it is a categorical duty, not a hypothetical one) and 'no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there can be no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death. Thomas Aquinas: Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. Murder is, of course, a malum in se. Therefore, the reason why homicide is exceptionally bad does not lie in the fact that it is a killin alone. - While the 5th Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill" - insinuating that the very act of killing is what makes it reprehensible - this cannot be the real reason. To kill means to end the existence of a living organism. We can kill people, but also animals like cats, dogs or sheep or pigs or cattle or cangoroos, or trees or plants or any other living organism. Thou shalt not kill does not contain a qualification or restriction. If the mere act of killing were what makes murder so extremely reprehensible a behaviour, than all of the mentioned examples of killing would have to entail a similar judgment by society. But that is evidently not the case. In spite of the 5th commandment, we do not rate all killing behaviour as morally bad.

For one thing, there is the religious taboo - "Thou shalt not kill" - very strong, very clear, and quite intimidating; and then there is the legal prohibition to kill, similarly strong, clear, and intimidating, considering that the sanction for violations of this norm are the most severe ones, and in some cases it is tit for tat - whoever kills must be killed. - On the other hand, to be a human means to kill and to depend on killings. If to kill means to put an end to the existence of an organism, then we are all killers. We kill plants, like, e.g., trees, by chopping them to sell the wood and to make place for farm land, but we also kill plants by harvesting potatoes, cereals or other food-stuff. We kill animals mostly for producing food for us humans, and we kill humans for many reasons. We kill humans in self-defense and in anger, jealousy. We kill because of greed and hate, and sometimes people kill themselves. We also kill because we are told to do so, because we are members of a hierarchy, a cartel, a gang, a militia, a group of mercenaries, or regular soldiers. Add to this the killing of animals in slaughterhouses and the killing of trees and plants, and find out that the human animal is not as peaceful as it seems, but that the position on top of the food chain means to be a killer.

*Alexander Georgiev (2013): Humans are a highly aggressive species in comparison to other animals, probably as a result of an unusually high benefit-to-cost ratio for intra-specific aggression (male-male coalitionary killings). Early modern humans killed each other at a rate of about 1300 in 100,000. But the worst is the meerkat: 20,000 out of 100,000 (mostly youngsters) lose their lives at the paws and jaws of their own kind (José María Gómez et al. 2016). The meerkats are followed by two types of monkeys and assorted lemurs, the New Zealand sea lion, long-tailed marmot, lion, branded mongoose, and grey wolf - then comes the human animal (fission-fusion). A consolation: Killings of humans by humans are not an immutable feature of all members and collectives of humans. Much depends on the environment (Maori vs. Moriori).

Early humans killed each other at a rate of about 2,000 in 100,000, but got more violent during the Middle Ages when the rate shot up to 12,000 in 100,000. After studying 600 human populations from the Stone Age to the present day, researchers concluded that "lethal violence is part of our evolutionary history but not carved in stone in our genes. Levels of violence are influenced by societal pressures and have decreased significantly in the contemporary age. Gomez: The level of lethal violence is reversible and can increase or decrease as a consequence of some ecological, social, or cultural factors.

*Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Robert Wright. The evidence for convergences in cultural form and dynamics across the globe provides a persuasive catalog to suggest that for all its richness and diversity humankind is on a trajectory toward a common goal. The next stage of human history is here, with the globalization of trade and communication. That is history's destination. The road ahead may be bumpy (to put it mildly), and the tensions of rabid nationalism and environmental perturbation are to some extent intangibles. They may divert, delay or postpone the onward march, but even in the medium term the outlook is: no more extremely bloody wars like WWI and WWII.  

*Model: countries with no wars and low homicide rates like the Scandinavian countries or Switzerland.

'''9. Can old (or new) ethics bring a peaceful future?'''

*[https://www.abolitionist.com/reprogramming/index.html Pearce, David (2009) Reprogramming Predators]

*[https://www.abolitionist.com/reprogramming/portugues/index.html Pearce, David (2009) Para um mundo sem crueldade. Reprogramar os Predadores]