008: Mortality

[tin_miss]

It seems that many believe death of one party to be an undesirable outcome in conflict. That, in effect, killing is wrong. Why is that? Is it fear of being on the wrong end of such a conflict?

Comments

[gm_kragok]

Death is a final action. Once someone is killed, there is little more you can do.

In a sense, killing should always be a final response, because it is a decision you can not turn back on once it is made.

[tin_miss]

Finality is the entire point of killing.

[gm_kragok]

I am the leader of a nation. I must consider all options besides killing before actively engaging in trying to bring death to another.

[tin_miss]

Why?

[cinqtioned]

Death is something that cannot be undone. Once a person's life has ended, they are forever gone.

[tin_miss]

Yes. That is its purpose.

[cinqtioned]

Ending someone's life is something that should not be done unless absolutely necessary. It is not up to the people to decide who lives or dies. That is something that is in the hands of a much greater, higher power.

[tin_miss]

It is an efficient means to an end.

What power do you speak of?

[commissioner_da]

Some are too soft-hearted to even consider the concept...those weak ones eventually get killed anyway.

[tin_miss]

Weakness cannot be the only explanation. There are those who are strong who believe the same thing.

The strong die as well.

[commissioner_da]

The truly strong, of body and mind, hardly care for such things. Real strength comes from overcoming weak emotions.

[tin_miss]

All emotions are sources of weakness that can be exploited by an adept opponent.

[flipping_bird]

My world, the Death Penalty is inflicted only in the most extreme cases, and there are a lot of people who don't believe it should be an option at all.

I guess what it comes down to is the belief that no one has the right to take another's life. Humans are fallible, after all.

[tin_miss]

I am familiar with the concept of the death penalty. It is typically applied to those who have taken multiple lives, often in a fashion that suggests inflicting a great deal of suffering was part of the purpose, yes?

I find this reasoning confusing. Is it not more efficient to preserve many lives than to preserve one? Sparing a life is as active a choice as taking one, and is also subject to human fallibility.

[flipping_bird]

The thing about people, is that they can always change, grow, repent if you'll pardon the religious connotations there. That's why imprisonment is favoured over death in my world. Prison isn't just punishment, it's re-education, help. After all, criminality is not always a choice. In some cases, it's an illness.

Death takes away that opportunity.

[tin_miss]

I am not offended by religious concepts.

They can also fail to change. Many people will maintain a pattern of behavior once formed, even if it is one that would be considered criminal. There is no possibility for certainty in either direction.

You prefer capture over termination? What of circumstances in which the former is not a viable option?

[invisible_trick]

There's a number of explanations when you think about it. What kind of explanation are you looking for?

Me, I'd never kill someone. I've done all kinds of nasty things to people but I've never killed and I probably never will. I fight to protect life - criminals and monsters and what-have-you are also worthy of that protection just because they're alive.

I don't believe in the death penalty, it's only hypocrisy. That, and it really really just makes the undead population more of a pain - when we had a near zombie apocalypse back when I was like... ten? The most dangerous were the ones who had been put to death. Yeah. Death penalty got outlawed 'cause of that.

[tin_miss]

All of them.

Why does living make a being worthy of life? All living beings die. It is the one certainty of biology.

Zombie apocalypse?

[invisible_trick]

Yes. We got attacked by an army of the undead. You know, reanimated corpses? There's still a few hanging about now...

I suppose it's possible that a source of it is society's desire to continue. People, in general, live as a society rather than a group of individuals - to remove a person from the society would potentially be detrimental to the survival of the species.

However, people in general also feel a great number of emotions that are beyond just instinct. We also have the ability to empathise. We don't want to lose life, as without life there is nothing, and the idea of nothing, not even existing and not even thinking, brings about fear. Because we empathise with others, we know they feel the same about their lives. In addition, we know that that person knows and is attached to others, and those others will feel the loss, that there is a gap in what they knew. We empathise with them too.

Death is an eventuality, but until then we have life, and the only purpose of life is to live it.

[tin_miss]

I do not know reanimated corpses. They do not exist in my world. But I have heard of zombies.

Many species cull the unfit from the herd. Either actively or by leaving them to die. It ensures they do not become a detriment to the survival of the collective.

I see. You do not kill because of emotion?