Lubna Nadvi wrote:
>
> dear mitchell wilson
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the comments. Firstly, my question of why do we not kill,
> was not articulated as a justification for killing, no I do not condone
> killing at all. It might be understandable, not necessarily acceptable in
> cases of self-defence, but for me killing is not acceptable (but that is
> according to notions of morality that have been both developed from
> religious scriptures and constructed by society). Killing for us
> humans
>would only be natural in so far as we are still animals (admittedly on
> the highest level of the animal kingdom). However we are the so called
> most civilised of the animal species. My question of why do we not kill
> was an attempt to understand the moral systems that we as humans are
> subject to that tell us that killing is bad. Are animals (who only kill
> when they are hungry or to defend their territory), also subject to the
> same moral conditions ? No obviously not, so for them killing is probably
> more natural than it would be for humans. But how far off are we really from
> the lower order animals, are we really
> as civilized and morally superior as we claim to be ? I would like to
> believe that we are, so if killing is not supposed to be natural for us,
> maybe the question should be, why is it that we kill.
> (I'm not claimimg that killing as the act itself is natural, but rather
> that the drive ie, thanatos, is. How we choose to express the
> destructive drive can range from mild destruction to murder)
>
> No, I have never had the desire to kill another human being. Nor would I
> resolve a situation by murdering someone. I believe
> in the right to live and let live. My question once again, was academic,
> but obviously with serious social and practical implications. Yes, I
> agree with you when you say that there is an essential human nature, that
> of us communicating with each other in this manner. Yes as humans we are
> social beings, but society has gone wrong somewhere, when killing somehow
> becomes the way to resolve something. If more people could talk to each
> other and understand, and even challenge and question (non-violently), as
> you have challenged me (which I appreciate by the way), there would be progress.
>
> I detest and abhor rape, and consider it and murder two of the most
> horrific acts against humanity. The fact that I ask these questions
> does not make me a monster, but a seeker of knowledge.
>
> Another question, how does one define a psycopath, is it because one
> has killed that one becomes a psycopath (does society create psycopaths
> as Foucault would probably argue), or is it an intrinsic, natural
> personality.
>
> Your thoughts
>
> Lubna
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, mitchell wilson wrote:
>
>
> > no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary: that our species
> > killing one another is natural. so the burden of proof is on you.
> > therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
> > kill.
> >
> > feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
> > had taught them not to kill.
> >
> > and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
> > actualities and drives. let me ask you: have you ever REALLY wanted to
> > kill someone? i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
> > REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull? i don't believe that you
> > have. you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
> > as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
> > they say. and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
> > everyone WANTS to kill. only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. so
> > saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
> > assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
> > kill.
> >
> > and yes, there is an essential human nature: that which we are engaging
> > in right now. let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
> > were we to kill one another? or do you simply not believe that humans
> > are social creatures? and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
> > when something has gone awry? and if killing is part of being social,
> > then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape? or
> > maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
> >
> > well, i've picked on you for long enough. and i'm looking forward to a
> > response.
> >
hello, lubna. of course you don't condone killing, and i never intended
to imply that you do. the reason i asked about it is because to me
natural means something that all psychologically and physically normal
people do or want to do, like have sex. in this sense, incest is
biologically natural, but culturally unnatural. were to nat know who
your parents are, then you may find yourself attracted to one of them,
which would be natural. but without laws against killing, people do not
just naturally want to kill. i know that i have never been turned on t
okill, like i have been turned on to have sex. but your assertion that
killing is natural is ambiguous. for you to say that it is natural
because we are animals and then talk about morality is confusing. when
i speak of what is natural, it entails what people do in normal
circumstances, not extraordinary ones. otherwise, as per your
definition, everything that we do is termed natural. and maybe
everything that we do is "natural" in the broadest sense. but if so,
then why discuss what is natural as oppossed to unnatural?
Consider human culture. i think that the phenomenon of culture is
natural. for to say that natural is only a biological rhubric is to
deny culture as legitimately human. in all cultures, killing people is
an extraordinary thing. as social creatures killing people is
anti-social. of course people do kill other people, but this is not
natural in terms of intra-social order. just as bestiality is not
natural, though some people do it, killing is not natural, though some
people do it, too.
>
> dear mitchell wilson
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the comments. Firstly, my question of why do we not kill,
> was not articulated as a justification for killing, no I do not condone
> killing at all. It might be understandable, not necessarily acceptable in
> cases of self-defence, but for me killing is not acceptable (but that is
> according to notions of morality that have been both developed from
> religious scriptures and constructed by society). Killing for us
> humans
>would only be natural in so far as we are still animals (admittedly on
> the highest level of the animal kingdom). However we are the so called
> most civilised of the animal species. My question of why do we not kill
> was an attempt to understand the moral systems that we as humans are
> subject to that tell us that killing is bad. Are animals (who only kill
> when they are hungry or to defend their territory), also subject to the
> same moral conditions ? No obviously not, so for them killing is probably
> more natural than it would be for humans. But how far off are we really from
> the lower order animals, are we really
> as civilized and morally superior as we claim to be ? I would like to
> believe that we are, so if killing is not supposed to be natural for us,
> maybe the question should be, why is it that we kill.
> (I'm not claimimg that killing as the act itself is natural, but rather
> that the drive ie, thanatos, is. How we choose to express the
> destructive drive can range from mild destruction to murder)
>
> No, I have never had the desire to kill another human being. Nor would I
> resolve a situation by murdering someone. I believe
> in the right to live and let live. My question once again, was academic,
> but obviously with serious social and practical implications. Yes, I
> agree with you when you say that there is an essential human nature, that
> of us communicating with each other in this manner. Yes as humans we are
> social beings, but society has gone wrong somewhere, when killing somehow
> becomes the way to resolve something. If more people could talk to each
> other and understand, and even challenge and question (non-violently), as
> you have challenged me (which I appreciate by the way), there would be progress.
>
> I detest and abhor rape, and consider it and murder two of the most
> horrific acts against humanity. The fact that I ask these questions
> does not make me a monster, but a seeker of knowledge.
>
> Another question, how does one define a psycopath, is it because one
> has killed that one becomes a psycopath (does society create psycopaths
> as Foucault would probably argue), or is it an intrinsic, natural
> personality.
>
> Your thoughts
>
> Lubna
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, mitchell wilson wrote:
>
>
> > no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary: that our species
> > killing one another is natural. so the burden of proof is on you.
> > therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
> > kill.
> >
> > feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
> > had taught them not to kill.
> >
> > and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
> > actualities and drives. let me ask you: have you ever REALLY wanted to
> > kill someone? i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
> > REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull? i don't believe that you
> > have. you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
> > as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
> > they say. and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
> > everyone WANTS to kill. only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. so
> > saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
> > assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
> > kill.
> >
> > and yes, there is an essential human nature: that which we are engaging
> > in right now. let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
> > were we to kill one another? or do you simply not believe that humans
> > are social creatures? and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
> > when something has gone awry? and if killing is part of being social,
> > then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape? or
> > maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
> >
> > well, i've picked on you for long enough. and i'm looking forward to a
> > response.
> >
hello, lubna. of course you don't condone killing, and i never intended
to imply that you do. the reason i asked about it is because to me
natural means something that all psychologically and physically normal
people do or want to do, like have sex. in this sense, incest is
biologically natural, but culturally unnatural. were to nat know who
your parents are, then you may find yourself attracted to one of them,
which would be natural. but without laws against killing, people do not
just naturally want to kill. i know that i have never been turned on t
okill, like i have been turned on to have sex. but your assertion that
killing is natural is ambiguous. for you to say that it is natural
because we are animals and then talk about morality is confusing. when
i speak of what is natural, it entails what people do in normal
circumstances, not extraordinary ones. otherwise, as per your
definition, everything that we do is termed natural. and maybe
everything that we do is "natural" in the broadest sense. but if so,
then why discuss what is natural as oppossed to unnatural?
Consider human culture. i think that the phenomenon of culture is
natural. for to say that natural is only a biological rhubric is to
deny culture as legitimately human. in all cultures, killing people is
an extraordinary thing. as social creatures killing people is
anti-social. of course people do kill other people, but this is not
natural in terms of intra-social order. just as bestiality is not
natural, though some people do it, killing is not natural, though some
people do it, too.