To kill in cold blood takes a rather special person. The murderer has to plan, contemplate, visualize, commit, and, ultimately, kill. Personally, I don't think I could kill anyone; I don't even hunt or fish (not that I judge anyone that does), because I don't like hurting animals. However, I don't mind squashing a bug or eating meat; I have limits, and my sympathy for animals only goes so far. I don't like killing animals because it makes me feel bad, but I wouldn't kill a human because I think it is morally wrong. Where was this sense of morality constructed? Was it nature (my genetics), or was it nurture (my upbring and culture)?
In Macbeth (the character), I see a man whose initial reactions to the thought of murder seem to indicate that both his upbringing and genetics lead him to know that murdering in cold blood is morally wrong, regardless of the advantage he gains from the killing. I'm not comfortable accepting that Macbeth's natural instinct was to kill King Duncan because it was advantageous for Macbeth and the most efficient way for him to become king.
The ideas of nature v. nuture, absolute morality, and natural instinct are all very complex. But, I'd like to hear your two cents.
In my opinion, everyone's "sense of morality" is created by both nature and nurture. Parents/Guardians certainly do have an effect on how one views right from wrong, but everyone person is different (genetically/mentally) as well. As for myself, I don't hunt either, yet I play football. Do I hurt people when I have pads on and hit them in the mouth? Probably (it's kinda part of the game), I'm a pretty big dude, but I would never simply deck someone because they ticked me off, they'd have to be threatening my wellness or that of one of my close friends/family members. I guess that last part depends on when one's natural instinct kicks in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that right & wrong are absolute but are entirely separate from what is "natural", as there are obviously people (such as Hitler or Ted Bundy) for whom killing is much more natural; however, their distorted perceptions of morality don't change what morality actually IS. The nature vs. nurture dispute has not been definitively answered by either scientists or psychologists, but what is natural for any one person certainly seems to be a combination of these two factors. Of course there are always exceptions (sociopaths, for example, can come from any family situation, may not have any other sociopaths in their family tree & are considered incurable), but Macbeth & his wife appear to be normal people with a belief that killing is wrong, as evidenced by the internal conflict they both experience.
ReplyDeleteI am not at liberty to explain how morals smell ( :P ) but I am, essentially at least, a believer in "absolute morality" because I believe there is a definite and absolute right and wrong. This undoubtedly stems from my religion, Christianity, and I believe that the difference in personal perception of morals is actually an effect of many things unique to each person, for example upbringing and personal experiences. The primary difference, I believe, is how desensitized to the right thing people are. Kill once, feel terrible, kill twice, feel bad, kill three times, a little guilt, etc. However, I do not believe it is necessary to actually COMMIT the crime/sin to become desensitized to it. Perhaps a basic viewpoint, but if there is no absolute standard for anything, then everything is just subjective, and I can see no reason to follow any standard of morals.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that humans are not made to kill another human out of pure instinct. This probably has a lot to do with an individual's religious beliefs, but I still feel like murdering another is not one's first reaction or idea. The action of premeditating a murder is something only those with mental disturbances can do, because their sense of morality, justice and natural human actions are distorted and made false. Thus, murder is not normal to human society; our nature as beings superior to animals allow us to kill for food, yes, but it also allows us the mental capacity to distinguish between meat and flesh.
ReplyDeleteFor clarity's sake, I will explain why I wrote about smelling morals. Originally, the joke was supposed to go unexplained, entertaining those who caught it. However, Mr. King corrected his mistake, so I'll explain. (Thanks by the way! Bad spelling is my biggest pet peeve) He wanted us to give our "two scents" and, I didn't want to correct his spelling because he doesn't like that, so I commented accordingly on the "scent" aspect of the request.
ReplyDeleteIn my beliefs, this stand point is based on the individual and their well being. In this case, killing someone, the sense of morality could have been constructed anywhere. I believe a lot of it has to do with individual influences and pressure. For instance, I LOVE mentally killing individuals. Once I get into a debate round, I will prey into their brains and make them feel so microscopic that they eventually “mentally” kill themselves (and I win). In my scenario, it is my nature, I was not nurtured to kill people in debate rounds, but as an individual it is a way if I think I am about to caught in a loop hole…I strangle my opponent with counter arguments and harsh questions because it is my nature, my initial reaction to win the round…to be on top.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there are so many exceptions and what ifs dealing with this topic that there is no way of knowing how it really is. There are obviously different limits people have on this, for instance, there are vegans and vegetarians and then people who love meat. I think this can be the same way for how people view killing humans. There are those who could never hurt anyone under any conditions, those who can kill if they have to (self-defense, for family), and there are those who can kill without blinking. So I guess I would say that it is partly in people's natures. Personally, I think I could only kill someone if there was no other option, therefore it is more difficult for me to understand how anyone can murder so easily without a reason involving their safety. However, this happens every day when people are murdered for the most insignificant reasons.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kristin. This debate can go on almost forever because there are so many different situations to consider. I do believe that a person's upbringing influences their behavior, but only the simple things, like their manners or the type of language they use. Killer instict, however, comes from a completely different place, and the ability to control it varies from person to person. I am not saying that it is uncontrollable, but specific people may find it easier to kill than others. I believe that if I absolutely had to, (meaning if my or my family's safety was in jeopardy), then I could kill someone, but it would have to be under the most dire of circumstances. The thing that makes this argument so tangential is that not everybody has the same idea of what dire circumstances are.
ReplyDeleteEveryone’s two cense is going to differ from one another and there is no right or wrong answer. I believe that Macbeth wasn’t really driven to murder out of nature vs. nature but more out of trying to please his wife. She was constantly on his back to murder someone so that their social status would rise. That is exactly what happens in today’s society. It is a dog eat dog world; the thing that is going to drive someone over the edge is that accomplice that is nagging you to not only talk the talk but walk the walk.
ReplyDeleteI think that killing in cold blood is completely natural. I has a lot to do with how someone is conditioned from birth though. Serial killers condition themselves to be tough and resist all of their conscience. Normal people tend to listen to their conscience. But basically it depends on the person and the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think that killing for anything less than defense is not natural. Animals do not kill just to kill, they kill because of fear or it's means of survival. However, people are not animals. We kill for food (anmials) but we do not kill people. Why? because something inside us says it's wrong. If it were merely society it would be natural for children to kill someone (since parents dont usually tell their 2 year old child to not kill someone I think it's safe to say society hasn't had an effect on them yet).
ReplyDeleteIf I must echo previous statements, so be it.
ReplyDeleteIf a bloke, subconsciously, finds that killing somebody, even in cold blood, is advantageous to them, it is a natural thought that it might be a good idea to go through with it.
i think that killing in cold blood is not natural because its immoral. no matter how you are raised everyone knows whats right and wrong. if you re defended yourself then murder is sometimes neccessary but even then it could seem unnatural and just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that while it might be a natural impulse depending on the situation to kill, we have to have self control. I don't think that we are programmed to necessarily kill but maybe to fight.
ReplyDeleteI think that with every person to be right or wrong is a combination of their enviroment and the morality that they personally have. For instance in this day an age to kill someone is wrong and unethical yet when the time comes for war its kill whoever so that way we can stay safe. However at the same time those that were killed dont see why they had to die just that they did die.
ReplyDeleteMan has definitely progressed in terms of culture over the past few centuries. We’ve come from slaughtering each other to finding valid reasons through governmental procedure to slaughter each other. At its core man is an animal with instincts handed down through years of evolution. Somehow an improbability occurred and humans developed a conscience. As their conscience and brain size increased humans progressed and their population steadily grew over the course of thousands of years and then began to rapidly expand. The population explosion and cultural development of the past two millenniums when compared to the last few centuries reveals the rapid progression of mankind. We have established cultures that have embedded us with values that keep in check our true nature. It is often found that the cruelest beings on this Earth are children. They have not yet fully absorbed their cultural teachings and can make callous decisions without moment's hesitation. The human nature still shines through years of self-taught self-preservation. The same blood lust of ancient warriors can be found in today's government, military, businesses, and other established forms of power. Individuals from time to time give into carnal instinct and kill their spouse or neighbor. The truth of the matter probably doesn’t exist and will always be open for debate, but one thing is certain. Humans have changed. I simply think it is due to the conscious emanation of man. This conscience could be a natural development or an unknown in the complex algorithm of evolution. All I can say for sure is that the human being is a truly unique and remarkable creature.
ReplyDeleteI think that killing is only a natural impulse if it is because of self defense. However if someone is killing someone else for any other reason other then self defense I strongly believe it is wrong. I don't think that humans were meant to kill because of hunger for power. Also it depends on the way you kill the individual. For example Macbeth used a knife which was much more up close and personal then using a bow and arrow or even a gun. (if they even had guns back then) Macbeth was acting very unnatural when he stabbed Duncan repeatedly with a knife. Although killing someone with a gun isn't right, it is not as brutal as killing someone up close with a knife.
ReplyDeleteI think that every person has a sense of right and wrong, but depending on the situation some people see things in a different moral perspective. Different situations present people with choices they must make and sometimes things turn out in a bad way because of the decision that is made. All in all people just have to decide what seems morally reasonable.
ReplyDelete