What is the stance on killing?

You would get your 20 dollars back, you can get money for pain and suffering to get you therapy for that fear,

I have no idea who that could possibly appeal to as a resolution. Different cultures I suppose.




Lucky for the lot of us that we all study Jediism - Ava wouldn't steal, and I wouldn't get so upset about such a passing possession as $20, much less go off half cocked punching people on rumour and hearsay


(If you do need $20 Ava, just let me know, I'd much rather give it as a gift that go through the whole ethics of killing over the cost of a movie ticket)

JamesSand wrote: or if I kill Ava

Are you... trying to tell me something? :laugh:

JamesSand wrote: There should be a bunch of reasons why Ava doesn't steal $20.

But... but... what if I want to steal your $20... did you ever think about that? Huh?!


[hr]

Seriously though, if we're debating killing people over the stealing the cost of a few movie tickets, we might want to reexamine the value we place on other peoples' lives. I for one wouldn't be stealing $20 unless I ABSOLUTELY needed it (and even then, I still wouldn't so. . . .)

Oh wait. You were being facetious. Carry on

I disagree that there isn't a Jedi stance on killing. Everything in the ToTJO Doctrine points at living a life where killing another human being is a last resort- and only in defense. It also seems quite apparent that Jedi don't believe in unnecessary waste, many may take this to the extreme of becoming vegans, while others only take what they need from the butcher (so-to-speak). Some things cannot be avoided, such as keeping a healthy house and you have to kill off any cockroaches that invade (x.x), or if you kill something small (ants) by stepping on it with no real knowledge you're doing so.

Jedi -tend- to take a very common sense stance on the whole killing matter. Some take it to the extreme of pure pacifism where they won't even fight in a life or death situation.

Everything in the ToTJO Doctrine points at living a life where killing another human being is a last resort- and only in defense.

A stance I find fairly weak.

Either you believe life is sacred, or you don't - Once you draw any kind of line - "last resort", "self defence" - you've established there is a point where you can make a call that any given life is more or less valuable than any other - From there it's just a matter of moving the line as required for that day's business.


Yes, I am aware it is in alignment with many laws (my country included) that essentially say the legal amount of force is only as much as required to remove yourself (or those you protect) from danger.


Being currently popular, or legal, doesn't have much to do with being right.


Edit:

Found it -

On killing roaches-




Edit 2: I don't know how to do images...

Believing life is sacred does not mean that you must be a victim. Nor does it mean that you feel your life is more valuable per say though even thinking you're life matters more than your attackers does not change your view of life being sacred. Further, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy and best not used in an argument.
The fact is that you could hold all life as a sacred gift and still realize that sometimes in defending that gift or gaining nourishment needed to sustain that gift you must end another life. With that outlook, you would never do so callously, wastefully, or without being sure there was no other option to ensure survival that you could take.

I have a Darker view on this as a Victim. Life is indeed sacred that is true enough. But we also have people who kill not for allegiance, or even their faith, but simply because they can. I fear that this is why i will never be a Jedi. those who wantonly take life should be put to death. i feel the same about Rapists and Pedophiles (especially Pedo's)
I also feel the whipping post should be reinstituted. the best quote I have comes from Robert Heinlein. "Pain is the mechanism built into us by of millions of years of Evolution to teach us that what we are doing something wrong."
it is true that I am may sound harsh but think of all the lost lives that could be saved with such.

Justin wrote: I have a Darker view on this as a Victim. Life is indeed sacred that is true enough. But we also have people who kill not for allegiance, or even their faith, but simply because they can. I fear that this is why i will never be a Jedi. those who wantonly take life should be put to death. i feel the same about Rapists and Pedophiles (especially Pedo's)
I also feel the whipping post should be reinstituted. the best quote I have comes from Robert Heinlein. "Pain is the mechanism built into us by of millions of years of Evolution to teach us that what we are doing something wrong."
it is true that I am may sound harsh but think of all the lost lives that could be saved with such.

Well first of all thinking some people deserve to die does not make you unable to be a Jedi. Jedi are allowed to have differing views on the matter and not agree with all the doctrine, codes, etc.
However, I will say that back when we had corporal punishment such as the whipping post the world was much more violent and laws enforced much more brutally and the authorities much less restricted on how they could investigate you and in what counted as evidence. So Its sort of unlikely that such a thing would really do anything to stop crime or even lower it. Even in nations where you can lose a hand or finger for theft people still steal so what are the odds of your concepts being useful?

With that outlook, you would never do so callously, wastefully, or without being sure there was no other option to ensure survival that you could take.

Survive?

I can survive without shoes, but an animal (possibly several) died for my preference in footwear.

Same goes for much of my diet, and clothing. I am quite sure many creatures died or were displaced for the conveniance of me having nice warm white lighting in my parlour.

My comfort soars high above my survival when it comes to things dying (directly or indirectly) by my decisions.

The step from those things being Cows or what-have-you to being Humans is not much to me (obviously it's a big deal to many)

Whether or not I take a moment to appreciate the life of whatever died for my benefit each morning as is of no use to either that creature, or it's loved ones if any.


I don't believe in killing "for giggles" - I'm not one to tear the wings off flies or set fire to cats, but nothing you've said persuades me that killing is inherently bad.

Yet our current system is no better. Look about us. Criminals go free on minor sentences and sometimes do even worse. to many times innocent people...children die or are harmed because people don't change in prision.

Dunno about inherently bad, what does that mean without some context? I do think its unfair (short of last ditch survival)... as it would seem to incorporate some capacity to kill which to me means disproportionality but of course also flies in the face of the value and importance of individual agency of person/existence - what right does one have to make that impact on another.

It might come down to how we define something being alive and work backwards from there to apply some value system into some hierarchy of what it means to be 'alive'. In the wild its obviously survival of the fittest to task, but this distinction probably should represent the fundamental difference between human and inhumane - which itself is probably simply that acknowledgement of individual worth. As the UDHR says 'are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience' in regards to defining humanity... individuals who are equal and can reason to consequences in both short and long term. I'm trying to make my cat more humane by changing her value system... not to be more human but rather to recognize the value of things beyond ones own desire or need.