Am I my brother’s keeper?
I am not a complete pacifist. I believe that violence begets violence, but am not so able to see it that I can follow the teachings of Christ and simply turn the other cheek. From my perspective, if someone directly threatens me or those I care about (or perhaps even simply those who I view as innocent), I am not so peaceful that I would not use force to keep myself and others alive. Perhaps this is wrong. Perhaps all violence is a cycle that is perpetuated, and in so doing what I think is self defense is simply perpetuating the cycle of violence. Perhaps. But perhaps if one doesn’t defend oneself and allows others to do violence unto them it actually creates more violence as the aggressor gets accustomed to being rewarded (ie getting what they want) by use of violence, and so does it more.
Why is homicide a problem? It is spiritually, morally, and practically a problem. I think most recognize it as wrong, but perhaps it could be viewed by some as justified as a form of social regeneration and that the suffering it causes is beneficial, but this seems most likely an argument used to justify bad behavior. I should come back and explore further why even from early societies we seem to have understood the difficulty of homicide, but for now (for the sake of time) believe if suffices to say that much of this should be self evident.
I think most arguements for killing have to do with threat and revenge (which are in some ways connected). If someone fires a gun at you and are trying to do it again and will not be dissuaded, I think most people would feel justified in killing that person to protect xemself. In this case, when the threat is direct and clear, it is easier to justify killing in self defense. However, suppose someone has told you they want to kill you, you have seen them watching you, and you learned they have recently have bought a gun. It is likely that they may harm you, but is that enough to do something against them? [Perhaps a better example is where the person does not seek to kill you directly, but takes actions that will likely lead to your death, such as take away food or housing.] Most other justifications for killing have to do with avenging a past wrong (justice, or, in its most basic form, revenge). If someone has killed a loved one of mine, might I not be justified in myself killing the killer? Perhaps not, in that it will not bring my loved one back to life and seems to only perpetuate violence. But if one takes the point of view that making violence easy for the aggressor can actually encourage violence by the aggressor, revenge could be seen as a deterring force that prevent violence (that is, if one reasonably believes they will be killed for killing someone, they seem generally less likely to do so).
Perhaps there is also a case for social bloodletting, for letting the angry and despairing turn against each other and so remove them from our society or to allow for catharsis and dramatic change and epiphany or that the suffering it causes will allow for greater good, or perhaps even just to create drama or to allow the truth of our animalistic nature to reemerge. I suppose there could be logic in some of these things, and they should be explored further. Perhaps, however, these are all just anachronisms, like human sacrifice, that should be vestiges of our past.
What are the historical reasons that have allowed man to kill fellow man? Perhaps the most direct is plunder; if I kill someone I can take what they have without any further resistance (such as we would understand the Sea People and the Vikings to have done). Perhaps another reason is “death to the infidels”, that is terrorizing those who will not be loyal to you and support you, which is essentially using terror as a form of coercion (execute one and so keep a whole village in line). Perhaps another is an a-moral (that is, there is no good or bad) view of the world in which life is seen as a contest of the strongest, and that just like animals it is natural for the strong to kill the weak. Perhaps another is self defense, and viewing the killing that is being done as being necessary to preserve oneself (a perception which can be abused to other ends). Perhaps another is the divine right of kings and the desire to stay in power that will cause some to risk their own destruction to continue to feel the addictive rush of power (and convicning others, by hook or by crook, that they should fight along with you to help you stay in power). Perhaps another is sloth, in that it is just easier (more expedient) to get what one wants by killing another rather than to take other measures to obtain what one wants. Perhaps another, and the last I will mention, though there could always be more found, is out of simple necessity, not overthought with notions of morality and long term views, but simple and basic reactions of someone has something I want or someone is threatening me, and it is done if it can be done. I do not think we are in an epoch of a new human where all these past desires and justifications of killing are gone away, and that we still carry these human elements forward with us.
I think one of biggest challenges with our current system is its apparently casual and pointless killings. I am not so naive as to think we are beyond a point where killing does not need to take place, nor do I believe myself so squeamish as to be able to accept the reality of it. Some things I can accept within reason and even beyond reason within the general nature of man (we are after all, born “armed” and therefore with the capacity to kill). One challenge I have with our current killing is that it seems sadistic (that is emulating the ideas of Marquis de Sade) in that the goal of the killing is for someone to maintain their power, and that they are happy to kill as many as needed to do so. Perhaps another is the apparent pointlessness of the killing and the destruction of the value of human life that comes with it (a view from the rulers that life, perhaps including their own, is of no regard). I find it difficult to meaningfully empathize with such a magnitude of suffering (I suspect there are few who could do so), and so to me the largest challenge is that of justification, and that we no longer make any substantial attempt at justifying our killing, and so disregard justice (which seems to be a necessity for a functioning society).
Why is it murder if I kill someone I am angry at but war if I kill someone the ruler is mad at? Is it homicide if I take the last of the food supplies and so deprive others or to prevent them from using land that I think I need for myself? If I forget or neglect to replace a loose board on my stairs and someone dies as a result, is that homicide? Is it murder to kill someone who would otherwise kill me? If one believes the body is but a vessel for the soul, if I attack (and destroy?) someone’s soul, beliefs, reputation, or relationships am I not committing homicide? I struggle with the first question the most these days; how is that some killing can be approved and therfore okay (ie klling as part of war) whereas those that are not approved are can never be okay. Perhaps the only approval/sanction can come from God(s), good, right, justice, and conscience. Perhaps however, as unpleasant as it may be, there is no good or bad, and killing therefore needs no sanction or conscience, it is just done without thought to meet the immediate need or desire, an expression of our animal desires and past (I do not think this last concept is correct as I think it does not account for the future and therefore quickly devolves, but it is worth considering and worth approaching our world from such a strictly rational and logical point of view, as the sole use of ration and logic is likely or perhaps a limited way of understanding our world and existence).
Question of death are tied with questions of life. Another topic I want to explore is other ways to select what parts of our society are replicated, for that motivation shares many of the motivations discussed above in what we desire and what life means. For now however, I cannot reconcile our apparent views on homicide, and therefore cannot support them.
Notes:
Several categories: murder, warfare, self defense, accidental, negligent, normal competition (strife)
Spectrum of directness: directly killing another to taking something they need to live to even just unintentionally scaring them
Certainty and degree of threat or past wrong; how these perceptions affect people decision to commit homicide
Justifications for killing, or the lack of justification as justification