← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24873184

11 posts 6 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24873184 [Report] >>24873195 >>24873275 >>24873369 >>24873456 >>24873670 >>24874727 >>24874749 >>24874761
How did people in the old days deal with the ethics of killing? Because it seems like in the old days people would kill somebody for justice. And when they had conflict, they would do duels, or when they felt like they were being wronged, they would kill someone. How did they deal with the ethics of the act of killing? Because nowadays it would seem impossible for the average person to kill somebody, even if it's for the right and just reasons.
Anonymous No.24873195 [Report] >>24874303
>>24873184 (OP)
Duels typically weren't to the death...especially when it was swords. It was basically just fencing without protective gear, and for pistol duels you typically only got one shot and if you both missed then it was over. People were also more religious and confident they would be received in heaven upon death. There was also the medieval idea that God was on the side of victor in a duel, and that's how it would be determined who was right, because God would protect the just.
Anonymous No.24873275 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
It is less of a situation of a distinct pre-modern ethics, and more that moderns are so alienated from violence. It is like how a lot of people pretend to be feminists but would rape a woman given the chance.
Anonymous No.24873344 [Report]
There were more expectations placed on men. If a man was known to be a cuck, the whole community would come together to humiliate him. Dueling was a way of saving face.
Anonymous No.24873369 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
duels in the old days were less about killing than about proving you would die/kill for honor; the unspoken agreement was that neither party would genuinely shoot to kill. most times, both would intentionally miss, and that way both parties walked away with their honor preserved -- the aggrieved party who demanded the duel would get to say that they were willing to kill for honor, the aggressor party would get to say that they were willing to die for their honor, vice versa, etc. the famous duels we remember, we remember because one party violated this unspoken contract -- this usually made them pariahs in their social circle/community. in your OP image, Burr was charged with murder, fled to Georgia, but the charges were dropped by Burr's buddies after intense pressure from Burr, which ended their friendship. newspapers across the country vilified him and his political career essentially ended immediately. he was allowed to finish his VP term with the understanding that he would never enter politics again. federalists treated him as a murderer, and his former allies basically abandoned him. for the rest of his life, Burr was seen at best as an ungentlemanly scoundrel and at worst a complete monster
Anonymous No.24873456 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
>Because nowadays it would seem impossible for the average person to kill somebody
It depends where you go. "Honour killings" of women are common enough in Islamic shitholes. And in western counrties, niggers kill each other without a second thought.
Anonymous No.24873670 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
A regulated duel is already supposed to be a societal control mechanism to stop a conflict from spiraling into an even more destructive multi-generational family feud or war.

Once the state got strong enough that the existence of the duel was no longer a societal benefit but an unpredictable burden that lead to occasional unnecessary deaths, the practice was outlawed.
Anonymous No.24874303 [Report]
>>24873195
>There was also the medieval idea that God was on the side of victor in a duel, and that's how it would be determined who was right, because God would protect the just.
what in the bible changed for it to not be like that anymore?
Anonymous No.24874727 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
billions must die
Anonymous No.24874749 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
Freud tells us in an average human there's three persona consortium and ego univocally wouldn't be able to kill anyone.
de Sade teaches that all people are scum and many would use the pleasure of killing and any other sadistic pleasure. If they aren't already which they are. The aim of civilized society is(was, actually) to suppress those animal instincts, instead of letting things fall to crumble and humans to returning to their natural behavior.
Anonymous No.24874761 [Report]
>>24873184 (OP)
They, appropriately, didn't consider killings to be necessarily immoral or the exclusive right of the state.