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

Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 3. April 2018, 16:26 Uhr

867 Bytes hinzugefügt , 16:26, 3. Apr. 2018

keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 16: / Zeile 16: @@
 A cool observer might be surprised to see that things are not quite what they seem, though. The observer may start with the assumption that human societies are rather peaceful and non-violent, because they have this double safeguard against killings: 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. Kant argues 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.
-But how will a cool observer proceed? He will look at the exact meaning of the word "to kill", and she will then search for phenomena that fit this meaning. To kill, of course, means to put an end to the existence of an organism. We can kill humans, animals, and plants, not stones. 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. . We kill as soldiers, because we have to, or because we are told that we should want to to it in defence of our countries. We kill as mercenaries, as vigilantes, as members of gangs or cartels, and we kill
+But how will a cool observer proceed? He will look at the exact meaning of the word "to kill", and she will then search for phenomena that fit this meaning. To kill, of course, means to put an end to the existence of an organism. We can kill humans, animals, and plants, not stones. 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. The most important reason, why people kill other people, is not deviance and non-conformity, it is not an anti-social personality disorder, but rather the contrary. The most important reason to kill is obedience. There are, of course, the so-called crimes of obedience (Kelman), but those only account for a minority of killings. Most killings are legal killings of obedience. From a legal point of view, they are not worth mentioning, because they are juridically unproblematic. From a cool observer's perspective, though, the legal killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians and of combatants in wars and civil strife is remarkable.
+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, a great killer. Not all animals kill also members of their own kind, but the human animal does, and in that sense it is "worse" than many other animals, but not "the worst" (José María Gómez et al. 2016).