Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Philosophical Connections

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 forward

Shen asked:

Who are the philosophers who define killing? Or, are there any philosophies regarding killing?

============

As far as I know philosophers don't define killing. Perhaps they think we know what it means and
surely we do.

There are philosophies about the difference between killing animals and killing humans and there are
philosophical issues about euthanasia. As to killing animals, our preciousness has led us to disguise
this in the term 'culling'. Euthanasia is probably a euphemism for killing too. Maybe we have to kill to
survive and have to perform mercy killings out of compassion but don't like to admit to it as 'killing',
because that shows us how brutal we can be. Although I'm not sure euthanasia is brutal if it is
supposed to be merciful. The idea of humans killing is something we skim over. We don't like to look
at it much as it shows how appalling we are. In war 'deaths' are spoken of. No mention of 'killings' no
mention that someone actually DID it.

In analytical philosophy, killing normally figures in the problem of a sum: Should we kill the one to
save the many? This is getting even further from the brutal truth of killing. And who ever has this
problem? Surely we can consider morality without looking at abstract problems that don't actually
arise.

This being said, killing has been spoken of by Levinas (deceased continental philosopher) and
Raimond Gaita (current analytical philosopher) and in the same vein. Killing is described as
something we cannot do to another person. To kill another person requires that we don't perceive
them as such. If we could see the humanity we couldn't do it. I think this idea comes from Socrates. It
would follow that the further away an animal is to us the more killing is possible. We wouldn't be able
to kill our pets as we know them as our family. A mercy killing is all that we could perform.

So why are we so squeamish that we have to use the word 'culling' when it comes to animals who are
not pets? And why use 'deaths' rather than 'killings' in the case of war?

I'm sorry I don't have any philosophers to lead you to, but there are lots of questions that you can
consider yourself.

Rachel Browne