What are the moral arguments against mass killings? If the victims are randomly selected (albeit with the modifier that they are "normal" or "neurotypical") then what's really wrong with it? Tens of thousands die in car crashes every year for no reason at all, after all.
Pic mildly related.
Depends on your moral framework. But most frameworks, in one form or another, hold that humans generally have a right to life. Murder, mass or otherwise, violates that right. Simple as that.
You don't have a moral justification for murder in that instance. If the group is genetically predisposed to endangerment of others such as they consume human flesh or something to that effect you have an argument but regular people do overall harmless (albeit retarded) things.
Alright, but what if the justification is to send a message?
Terrorism is not going to win over the hearts of the masses to your cause. If you want to incite a revolution you will lose on account of not having the backing of the rest of the disenfranchised. It's not a logical or well thought out attempt at change.
>muh le deep big boi words
>I think I have high IQ because I can Google "smart" words
>Reddit spacing
Fuck off to Reddit you nigger
Why would your right to speak outweigh their right to live?
How uneducated are you? What "smart" words are you referring to? "Albeit"? "Neurotypical"? "Modifier"? Fuck off, dropout.
>hurr people die all the time whats teh differense
Are you seriously asking what's wrong with being responsible for the deaths of billions?
even if they're randomly selected these people are dying at an earlier time and it is your responsibility. you're fucking retarded if you can't see that. even if its for the most noble cause you still killed people.
>inb4 whats le rong with murder
don't be facetious
>Thinks school makes you smart
How much more fucking idiotic doctrine are you gonna spill you faggot?
I don't think school makes you smart, but if you're getting on OP because his vocabulary is too advanced for you, you're the moron. Spout all the anti-establishment bullshit you want, doesn't change that this is basic shit you learn in school.
>Terrorism is not going to win over the hearts of the masses to your cause.
9/11 certainly won hearts over to the cause of invading Afghanistan, even if that wasn't the purpose of the attack
Why do people have a right to live?
>9/11 certainly won hearts over to the cause of invading Afghanistan, even if that wasn't the purpose of the attack
>even if that wasn't the purpose of the attack
You see why this disproves your point correct? If anything this will just accomplish the opposite of whatever it is you want to accomplish. It's not a smart move.
>Why do people have a right to live?
Because we live in a society, unironically, that gives them the right based on the golden rule as most successful governments do.
>Why do people have a right to live?
Why does anyone have a right to anything? The reasoning depends on your moral framework. If you follow (most) religions, murder is forbidden. If you believe in natural rights, life is one of those. In a lot of other philosophies, it's generally a fundamental tenet that harming others is wrong, and murder is generally considered harmful.
I'm no expert on ethics, and it's easier to ask questions than answer them. But there are boundless answers for why people have a right to live.
>Why do people have a right to live?
kys
sage
you're being fucking stupid user, stop it
>i don't believe in morality
>make a moral argument
why would you even mass kill? your own pleasure?
>t-to save the planet
left wing cultists are deluded the planet can handle many more people
I get it you're a typical male and killing is all you want to do
takes too long. spending effort on pointless things is immoral. easier to just wait for them to die naturally.
>he needs to justify killing
You'll never make it.
user, we "save" the planet to save humans. Earth won't give a fuck if we don't have oxygen to breath, it's out of our own sake that we try to save the earth. Randomly killing humans to "save" the planet is counter productive because we are saving the earth to save humans.
Honestly if you got rid of 50% of men and replaced hard work by robots it would be easier to make money and get laid too. But then we'd be having a neo-matriarchy.
There's really no reason to do it.
There's nothing wrong with it unless it causes bad consequences, or you're using a deontological system that says murder is wrong.
>left wing cultists are deluded the planet can handle many more people
Huh? Aren't the right wingers the ones known for screaming about muslim overpopulation and black people breeding too much?
>we'd be having a neo-matriarchy.
No because women don't like responsibility. They think patriarchy means men do whatever they want without consequences. When we finally have a woman as president, feminists are going to spend half the time excusing her mistakes.
Several. First off, if your random selection process is weighted (that is the modifier you so declare) then prima facie it isn't a truly random selection. That is because you introduce further constraints on the random selection process that bias the output. E.g. a loaded dice or trick coin that fails 75% on heads rather than tails.
Second issue. Let us assume for the sake of argument that killing someone is morally wrong unless there was a sufficient reason(s) that can be deduced from what is known (i.e. if we kill someone, we kill them knowing something about them; e.g. I randomly selected someone according to your methodology). This is summed up as "I kill X because of Y." Then let us assume I kill another person and it is morally justifiable given the above definition. It follows I can repeat the same procedure on not one but two people and so on. Thus I can apply this procedure to N people. In the N=1 case we have it that "I kill X because of Y." For N=2, "I kill X1,X2 because of Y." And so on until "I kill X1,X2,...,XN because of Y." (Let us assume Y is the set of all possible reasons we could give. That is Y = {Y1,Y2,...,YN}) Given the above generality it follows I can substitute whatever Y I'd like given the definition. Thus "I kill X because of Y" could become "I kill X because 'it is hot'" or "I kill X because 'Gumbo the warbler (my father) asked me to.'" Yet at first glance this doesn't bode well because it doesn't seem to tell us what could be considered a normative value. In other words, there is no method of determining what is morally righteous and not from such a definition and if you're worried about moral values then this spells death for your claim of a moral argument of mass killings (the contrapositive of your claim).
Third issue is one of category regarding to normality and neurotypicality. Supposing there existed such a method that allows us to determine who belongs where is not sufficient for us to make normative values and bias a random selection as you so describe. In other words, knowing what geometrical objects belong to the class of triangles and squares is not sufficient enough for us to determine normative values.
None. And all of them.
Thanos did what was right. But it was also wrong thing to do. There's allways logic thinking and there's humane thinking. He took the burden of villainy on himself, but we all know deep down that he did the right thing.
>kill half the universe to preserve resources
>universe eventually reproduces back to normal
Does he plan to enforce some cosmic regime where he continues to kill half the universe every time it gets too big? Does he plan to enforce population control on every planet imaginable?
Stop being a fucking edgelord. He was a crazed terrorist more focused on single-minded pursuit of his goal than doing the right thing.
There's no reason for a mass killing, it's unnecessary violence
Unnecessary violence is morally unjustifiable
agreed.
Let's not forget that killing exactly half the universe is a dumb meme
>*snap*
>pilots die, planes fall out of the sky (sometimes over populated areas)
>possibility that nuclear reactors will suddenly become very understaffed.
>huge resource wars break out due to panic spreading throughout humanity.
If half of North Korea's population suddenly vanished do you seriously think that kimmy won't hit the fucking red button?
inb4 muh 6 gorillion
normies deserve a life of pleasure reeeeee
>moralism = goodness
>what is master and slave morality, hedonism, deontological, consequentialism, utilitarian and so on
this how i know you are literally a brainlet