If You Kill Someone And No One Knows About It Or..

even knows the person is dead, is it still bad?

this is a SEROUS philosophical debate NO TROLLLING

fk used wrong picture, still SERIOUS as a mfer

depends on why you killed them. you're the one who has to live with the aftermath.

hey hey i never said i killed anyone

just a philosophical question

If a person kills another person, yes that is a bad thing. We should always strive to do good and right in this world. Being polite, helpful to others, sharing love and goodness, creating --- not destroying. We should always try to do what is positive all the while trying to be selfless and considerate of other people. It is a difficult task: balancing love / care for oneself at the same time as being flexible / taking care of others.
Whether the killer thinks no one knows about the other person's death or not, someone knows. Someone is always watching. The killer knows what he / she has done. There are often unseen eyes which witness events such as a killing. The killer's consciousness will, hopefully catch up with him or her. There are other consciousness(es) which know what was done. We are all connected. We are all one. The person who was killed is connected to other people, whether knowing or unknowingly - - - family, friends, neighbors, a stranger passing by... even to the the person who kill them.

WHOA WHOA WHOA

...do go on about this "other consciousnesses" business.

There is no "right" and "wrong"; only the subjective opinions and flawed perspectives of the human collective.

It's considered "wrong" because a group of sand people wrote a scroll saying their tribal leader tripped balls on a mountain top and received commands from their subjective concept of what "God" is. These same writings were then popularized by the type of people that burned entire religions, races, and countries off the face of the earth and used those writings to defend that they were, in fact, doing the will of that very same "God".

We don't consider dropping billions of dollars worth of Hellfire missiles every day on those same sand people (women, children, and elderly included) to be wrong, we defend it as an issue of national security. We write the history books and justify our actions, however "right" or "wrong" they may be.

They'll tell you what is "right" and "wrong" every minute of every day and night on (inter)national news.
Unfortunately, most people are stupid enough to listen to and agree with "figures of a supposed authority" without question.


>inb4 "I'm a bear shaman AMA"

OH MAN IS THAT TESTIFY

THIS IS NOW A TESTIFY THREAD

killing and murder arent the same thing.
murder is always bad.
killing just happens sometimes, especially in war or as an act of defense.
so im assuming that we arent talking about murder here.
so if that is the case, the killing is bad for the killed, and that killing will often result in negative outcomes for the one that did the kill.
so with that said, it would seem the answer is yes, it would be bad.

but Endog, can't bad things sometimes be good?

for sure, especially if it's a just killing.
but if its good it cant be bad

There's so many issues with that dude lol...
I don't know where to begin and I don't really feel like giving a complete discourse on religion either.

Don't take advice from pathological liars with a bad habit for dropping acid, folks.

what about that time Jesus cursed that fig tree

Murder can be justified. We could use more righteous vigilantes. Imagine murderous criminals that the law either ignores or is too inept to stop, or a serial child rapist who gets acquitted on a technicality and is definitely going to continue raping if not killed. These people should be killed for the greater good.

You mean like Jeffrey Epstein? lol

no he said a child rapist, idk who this Epstein character is.

Just FYI this sort of question attracts all the trolls on this site...
but I'll try to answer that the best i can to my understanding, but i don't see how it is related to the thread.
The tree had failed to fulfill its intended purpose.
It did not produce any fruit and was no good for much of anything.
So the tree was killed as an example to us so that we might know the fate of what a fruitless life brings.
In other words:
Doing no good, brings no good.
Doing well to others in Gods will, brings Gods blessings and life.

That's all i got on that from what understanding is given me.

Right. Seems like Jesus killing the fig tree is good doing bad. Did Jesus ever murder Satan in the bable or is that coming up

At the moment Satan runs freely and basically owns this world for the time being.
The time will come when his reign ends and he and his angels and false prophets will be cast out from this world forever. Not killed per sey, but removed, cast out into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, the memory of them and their ways forgotten forever.
God takes no joy in the destruction of the wicked.
But their removal is required.
Then the Kingdom of God will be established on earth for the rest of eternity.
But until that day, we build the kingdom of God by doing his will on earth, as it is in heaven.

Satan does not rule here until the rapture. As of now he just manipulates from hell.

Friendly Reminder: This world is the realm of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, where 'the worm never dies'.
I'm not sure if you're aware that we're all trapped in an endless black abyss of suffering; stuck on a rock and left to die.


Try reading the entire bible again in Young's Literal Translation, and comparing it against at least three other versions, with at least one being literal Hebrew.
Then realize there are only bits and pieces of truth left within the confines of organized religions. Much is lost in translation, more still censored by the church itself.

The concept of "Hell" is a construct of Catholicism, which has been a front for literal Satanism/Luciferianism at its very core for at least a thousand years. There is literally no mention of a place of eternal suffering in the canonized bible. The idea is derived from 'Gehenna', which was simply a burning trash heap outside of Jerusalem. I don't even feel like getting into the Catholic/Christian interference with Norse religion to expand upon this. Y'all can Google this on your own time.

‘Send us to the swine, that into them we may enter;’

Interesting outlooks. It's only murder if you get caught laws and such. Sadly there are some human beings that don't belong here because they don't contribute to society in a positive way or try to see things in an open mind. Child molesters, rapists are usually the kind of fiends I speak of. Who's going to miss any of them? The Russian mob knows how to get rid of a body just a uncomfortable feeling after you're done and looking at your tub.

We are not troubled so much by the act of murder as we are the repercussions of law enforcement.

Obviously. Unless you are sociopathic. In which case seek professional help.

What is 'right' or 'wrong' is not the same among cultures. What is socially taboo in one place may be common practice in another. Take child labor laws in the states versus, say, India for instance.

No one is owed or deserves anything, nor does that give you the right to impose your will onto someone else. Or maybe the latter half of my previous statement is learned, who knows.

You should read Crime and Punishment.

Sorry, but I will have to disagree with this statement.

While on the legal sense they aren't technically the same thing (involuntary manslaughter is considered not felonious murder), they both accomplish the same goal, which is the removal of life by the hands of another.

And before Josi gets here and *** this idea all up, we are talking in a pure human sense, not including other creatures of the world.

Now, if we are talking about the philosophical sense of death, remember that this thread's title is "if you kill someone..." meaning you intentionally devoid somebody of their life. AKA the textbook definition of murder.

Yes, murder is wrong. It is always wrong. There is no such thing as a justifiable murder. There is a thing as a justifiable manslaughter (which, again, legal sense, different) but murder shows intent, whereas manslaughter does not. Since the thread is titled with intent, and then asks the question about the morality of it, the answer is obvious to anyone: it's bad.

TL:DR version-

That's not the textbook definition of murder... and I'm not speaking in a legal sense either.

Murder requires premeditation, as in you thought of it beforehand, did it intentionally and not as an act of self defense or to protect something. The concept of justifiable homicide goes back thousands of years, it's not something new.

Oldest texts differentiate between two different kinds of killing, first being to kill a man for cause, the other being to kill a man without cause. The for cause is often interpreted to mean in self defense, to protect your tribe or some property either personal or community. Without cause means the exact opposite, to kill someone not in defense of life or property. A grey area exists when both sides are fighting over ownership of property or over resources, both sides can claim for cause because each has a different perspective on the matter. That is where cultural differences come in, different cultures have different perspectives and can define "defense of property" differently.

Take "honor killings" for example, something the west absolutely abhors. To those cultures who participate in that, the concept of "family name, honor or reputation" is one of property. A family owns it's own name and reputation and can argue for the just killing of one of it's members to protect it's name. Really *** up but just goes to show how perspective shapes people.

Anyhow killing and murder are not the same word. If your referencing the KJB text referencing "thou shall not kill", that was a deliberate mistranslation (one of many) made to teach the public to obey the English King. The proper translation is more like "don't commit murder" and refers to the Hebrew word for unjustified killings.