A Short Essay About Killing

In this essay, the human nature of physically killing its own specie and however it’s morally right to do so, and if so; when, will be analyzed in different contexts.
It’s however important to show consideration and understanding to the fact that it’s also in the humans nature to not kill its own specie.

Before discussing the subject itself, it’s important to define certain terms that will either appear or have an important purpose to the subject of the essay.
Morality, the most common definition of the word is the concept of doing the right thing. To define morality, It’s important to also define ’’ what is right and what is wrong? ’’. In my view, there is no definition of right and wrong, because of the fact that the most common definitions of the terms are simply just based on the emotions and decisions made by the human being. In this point of view, the definition of morality would be the concept of doing a thing that could be considered ’‘ right ’’. But in the perspective of a ’’ successful ’’ society, which fundamental brick stone is one of the human most vital desires; surviving, morality is necessary.

The amount of humans killing its own specie is quite fascinating and unique compared to other living species. The most likely factor of this would be considered the humans intelligence, but then it leaves us with the following question: why would a ’’ highly intelligent ” specie kill its own kind? But then, why would it be considered ’’ wrong ’’ and a low intelligent action for a human to kill another human? The answer could be that the human have an instinct of being developing into a ’’ stronger human ’’, as in the fact that the ’’ strongest ’’ human survives, and the ’’ weak ’’ ones are left to die or getting killed. ’’ The strongest ones ’’ are now left with more provisioning and can thereafter expand into a bigger amount of ’’ stronger ’’ humans. But on an exaggerated level of human killing, a society of ’‘ stronger ’’ humans soon wipes out themselves. This theory is very similar to the theory of the origin of arachnophobia, the fear of arachnids, which may be an exaggerated instinctive response that helped early humans survive.

Killing in racial matters is the philosophy that one part think that they are superior to the other part. But how dare a human say that there’s a superior few to which she belongs? You could say that the human has a tendency to think of herself above certain other humans, in some degree. I believe that the majority of human beings think of themself as more superior than people with racist opinions, as an example. Even if it’s more accepted in the modern society to look down on people with racist opinions, you could say that it’s just as ’’ right ’’ to despise certain types of religions. It’s impossible to argue against the fact that killing in racial matters isn’t any worse reason than any other reason, because of the fact that it theoretically doesn’t exist any “ right ’’ reasons. But you can argue about the fact that there’s a reason at all.

’’ What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. ’’ - from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§3–4)
The quote above is a fine description of the theory about the overhuman, developed by the philospher Friedrich Nietschze. The overhuman could be perceived as humans above other humans, while also it can be perceived as a race different from humans, or even an action of some sort. This means that the overhuman could be the action of a human killing another human. The human is fully capable of making itself ’’ the laughingstock of painful embarrassment ’’. This theory is just a definition, and could in certain perspectives have no real purpose at all towards humans and could be defined as unnecessary philosophizing. But what’s the definition of unnecessary philosophizing? Why does it require a purpose? Piling up theories and opinions only leads towards one direction; forward.

With the philosophy that right or wrong doesn’t exist, or even have a meaning, you would draw the conclusion that murder shouldn’t be a crime or in fact even considered immoral. But in the the end, when human killing develops into a certain level, a ’’ successful ’’ human society is no longer available to survive. Therefore a society without laws and morality is in the end just chaos. A society without morality is also a ’’ none-accepted ’’ society by the majority of humans, because it’s contrary to the humans desire of living.

You could divide the reasons of murdering into different sort of levels ( As in which one is more wrong than the other. ); because of the fact that murdering by greed differs from murdering because as a revolt against society. But because of the fact that theoretically there is no motive that has more value than any other, there is no real point in stacking them up. The motive of the murder does however have an important part in the perspective of the ’’ functioning ’’ society, because it’s an important part to achieve a ’’ morally ’’ correct sentence.
The theory of the perfect reason for a murder would be without a reason at all. Because then their wouldn’t be the dilemma of thinking whether it’s ’’ right ’’ or not. It would also break the pattern of the standard of human behavior, which could be considered a development of the human being.

In conclusion the human nature of killing its own specie could as well have been a former survivor instinct, as it also could be the overhuman theory of how the human should be overcome, and according to the former written theory; overcome itself. The fact that morality doesn’t exist and the terms ’’ right ’’ and ’’ wrong ’’ are just empty words, will leave us with the conclusion that it can’t be morally or immorally for a human to kill another human, but it’s also none acceptable in the perspective of the functioning human society.
You can however argue against the fact that murdering for a reason is worse than killing with no reason at all.