[P.P.A.]

This is actually just a slightly cleaned up copypaste job of what I said in the channel. But since the people who would care are asleep or away I am making this threat here.

On the short way from the school to the car I finally found a mostly acceptable justification for not killing! My previous one claimed that no humans must be harmed as everyone has an unlimited potential within them; perhaps they invent fantastic things or change the fate of the world to the better at one point. And as nobody can predict the future, it would thus be wrong to kill anyone and along with them all the chances for a better world they bring along.
However this view had a critical flaw: It could easily be turned around to proclaim that following this logic, animals and mentally disabled humans would thus be worthless as no matter what they could not change the world. Not being able to accept those two things I then dropped that theory.
Until today, where I realised the mistake I made. I limited the potential only to the individual itself, ignoring any effects it may have on its surroundings! Even if someone is born with, say, a down syndrome and stuck at the metal state of an infant all his life, perhaps an encounter with a normal person might change the latter.
It may try to invent a prevention against genetical illnesses. Or a person which takes care of a disabled and perhaps demented great-grandparent of his or hers and begins to realise the value of life or perhaps that he or she should do something to ensure that they're well off when they get old! This could also be maximised to include animals, either pets teaching children about responsibility, or animals eating other animals which may carry diseases, whatever. Plus all living things other than humans uphold the ecosystem.
Of course you could say that killing someone might erase any positive chances the victim had but also making sure it doesn't use any of the chances that would lead to negative results, but if you thought like that you'd have to kill every single human being in the world, so that's stupid anyway. (Even though humanity already is killing itself, heh. :|)

Thoughts?

[Stefan]

Is there a particular reason you couldn't have just gone with "don't kill because it is a violent act upon another human" or do you really need some sort of evolution of society argument.

Your argument is flawed in that, sure, people might change the world for the better, but each person has an equal chance of changing the world for the worse. I'd say people that do good and do bad, in the end, tend to balance one another out. You need another reason; fortunately, basic human morality says "hey let's not hurt someone else because suffering sucks".

[douglas]

Stefan is indeed correct.  The basic human morality of which he speaks is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

TL;DR: essentially, you have an unspoken covenant not to kill people and in exchange people don't kill you.

[Aitamen]

Yes, there stands a direct reason (Indeed, the ethic of reciprocity), however I like that PPA comes up with a better reason. 

Rather, I suppose it's superior in context because if the punishment is saught (death, in this case), then nothing prevents said person from committing murder (Consider this: Every Emo who actually wants to die commits suicide by society by going on a killing spree before being gunned down)

However, While PPA's idea circumvents that, it is based on the idea that the evolution of humanity is desireable... and while there are fewer people who would annihilate the entire race (at least compared to how many suicidal people there are), I would believe that the acceptance of the former would ideally lead to a better world, by law of averages...

TLDR:  If you don't have a reason to live, you should still have a reason to not hurt others, which is what PPA's idea generates.

[flyby]

I look at the world from a very personal level. For me the justification for not killing people generally comes from what killing people would do -to me-. One of my greatest values is that of agency, each person being able to choose their actions. You of course don't get to choose the consequences, and so that is where law and everything comes in, is to encourage other actions, by giving good consequences to things that build up society and negative consequences to things that are destructive to society. So personally, if I killed someone, I would be destroying their ability to choose. I suppose to be there is nothing more important than agency. Like the hierarchy of importance for me goes agency-> life.

Anyway, so really my justifications are just that I think there is inherent value in agency and that it should not be destroyed, and then next that there is inherent value in life, and that it should not be destroyed, and that on a personal level, I would be a worse person for attempting to destroy those things.

[P.P.A.]

Is there a particular reason you couldn't have just gone with "don't kill because it is a violent act upon another human" or do you really need some sort of evolution of society argument.

Your argument is flawed in that, sure, people might change the world for the better, but each person has an equal chance of changing the world for the worse. I'd say people that do good and do bad, in the end, tend to balance one another out. You need another reason; fortunately, basic human morality says "hey let's not hurt someone else because suffering sucks".

Stefan is indeed correct.  The basic human morality of which he speaks is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

TL;DR: essentially, you have an unspoken covenant not to kill people and in exchange people don't kill you.

You see, that is the easy way out. But I looked for a more logical reasoning. For example if you would gain something from killing someone else and could get away with it without punishment, what would be there to stop you? Of course, your religion which in most cases tells you not to kill. But even that is without logical backing up. But although I do believe in God and that alone would stop me, I was looking for a religiously neutral and universal reasoning.

[Waxwings]

Empathy, and in some respects the molding of society.

[Magnezone]

   
How do you justify not killing anyone?

tikal would not approve

[Bilan]

SL wins the topic

[Selphos]

Concur'd

Though I would think RPG himself would have something to say about how you do justify killing someone >______>

[Aitamen]

   
How do you justify not killing anyone?

tikal would not approve

This, sir, is made of win...

[oldskoolgamer101]

   
How do you justify not killing anyone?

tikal would not approve

The spiny bitch has something to say about everything doesn't she.