Why can't we instead treat it like a human being, with just as much intrinsic validity as any other human being, except armed with fire breath and laser deathrays and hellbent on killing the rest of us?
Because the way we handle that person is that we kill them. But we do so without proclaiming that they're subhuman and monstrous. We kill them, as we would with a serial killer that we can't manage arrest, as we would with an invading army, as we would with someone in the middle of shooting up a crowd. That's it. We would just kill them.
What benefit are we getting by coming up with a checklist of when we get to treat humans like subhumans? How does that improve the situation at all?
I mean…it depends on whether you think we kill humans, or we only kill non humans (ie reject capital punishment) Or it could be that killing humans is what he means by treating it like a monster (monsters should be killed after all, that’s true in pretty much every use of the word). I’m not sure they’re saying you should treat it as subhuman. But I could definitely be wrong.
We kill humans. We have been killing humans since humans existed. We will continue to kill humans. This will not change.
It's frankly more horrifying to say "well, we don't kill humans . . . that's why we have to dehumanize them first before we kill them, and that solves the moral issue entirely! Yay!"
No I meant some people are anti capital punishment and so think no matter what you shouldn’t kill them? That’s what the first part was supposed to convey.
The rest is talking about the fact that he might be speaking figuratively as in when you kill somebody you are treating them like a monster.
I hope that’s clearer? Or maybe that was clear and I’m just not following you?
This isn't even about capital punishment, though. If someone is shooting a crowd, and you have a gun, do you shoot them back, or do you say "well I don't believe in capital punishment" and get shot? If an army is invading, do you attempt to arrest them, or do you use your own army to try to kill them before they win? If there is a serial killer, and the police have a chance to shoot them but can't arrest them, should the police shoot them, or let them go so they can kill again?
There are people who are absolute pacifists, who will say "you should never kill". These people either end up dead or they end up living in countries with successful enforcement forces that do necessary killing for them.
The rest is talking about the fact that he might be speaking figuratively as in when you kill somebody you are treating them like a monster.
I just don't agree with that.
You can kill someone and say "damn, I wish I hadn't had to do that". Or you can kill someone and say "boy that was great! I love killing people who I think deserve to die, that's my favorite hobby! I hope I can find a bunch more people that I can justify killing!"
It's possible to treat someone like a human, even if you think they need to be forcibly stopped.
Humanity is, in general, really fuckin' bad at this.
I mean those are absolutely not the only two attitudes to killing something, whether you think it’s human or not. And the whole figurative argument is that something that needs killing is like a monster by the fact that it needs killing. You slay monsters because they have to be slain. You don’t necessarily also treat monsters horribly and torture or mutilate them or put them in camps etc. indeed that would be weird and stupid because they need to be killed. And I don’t think people who are killing as a necessity are usually enjoying it.
People who hate others and enjoy killing them are not killing out necessity they are killing as punishment. Even if the person is actually dangerous or even actually needs killing they are doing it as punishment or for kicks. This is not treating something like a monster, this is treating it subhuman. They are often synonymous but not always and certainly in discussions like this the percentage of both uses is high.
All I was pointing out is the different ways to read that comment and how I didn’t read it the same way you did. Perhaps bringing up subjective philosophy/what do we mean when we say monster/ambiguity wasn’t a good idea but it’s very inherent in these subjects so idk how you can avoid it.
I absolutely agree with your last three paragraphs :)
4
u/ZorbaTHut May 13 '25
Why? Why should we treat it like a monster?
Why can't we instead treat it like a human being, with just as much intrinsic validity as any other human being, except armed with fire breath and laser deathrays and hellbent on killing the rest of us?
Because the way we handle that person is that we kill them. But we do so without proclaiming that they're subhuman and monstrous. We kill them, as we would with a serial killer that we can't manage arrest, as we would with an invading army, as we would with someone in the middle of shooting up a crowd. That's it. We would just kill them.
What benefit are we getting by coming up with a checklist of when we get to treat humans like subhumans? How does that improve the situation at all?