Question: Can you detail your beliefs regarding the morality of killing (man or animal) with respect to the above point, and where exactly the cutoff point is (if any?) –Skyclad
Answer: The morality of killing is by far one of the biggest issues facing the naturalist. If one looks at the natural world, we see that animals kill for survival. They must eat, they must avoid predation, and they must protect their offspring and territory from rivals and predators. Within human society, the idea of killing for food is still valid. We have to eat, and be it plant or animal; something must die for you to survive. It is the natural way of things. Humans in our normal surroundings do not face predation (really, when was the last time you had to rely on your natural camouflage to avoid a lion), but we do face interspecies competition and many times in our world, that competition turns violent. The problem of killing in regards to human competition is that within our society, many of the things we compete for are not necessities, and thus we would not live or die based on the presence or absence of them.
In my opinion the best way to look at killing amongst humans is this, is there NO OTHER resort but to kill the person? Yes, this means that I am against the death penalty, I feel that many of our violent criminals could be purposed to something better (though not being a criminologist, I have little clue as to what). However, if an attacker was bearing down on you, knife to your throat, I would expect that every human would choose themselves over their attacker, in this case, its back to survival. The golden rule is a very good gauge for this as well. Would you want someone to kill you? Didn’t think so. They probably would not want to die either. So don’t kill them. It is easy and requires no personal god hovering over your shoulder threatening fire for eternity. We simply do not kill each other out of respect for the life of your fellow humans in the hopes that other humans respect yours.
Brian Humanistic Jones