The Intent of Reason

 Here is a loaded metaphorical paradox.

What is my question relates to solving the problem of human psychosis.  I am a philosopher - which also means I am not a psychologist. However, in discussing the relation to both on a level for which the question is mirrored.  Therefore, we can attribute bilateral thinking to it. 

My question is:

Do we have the right to kill.

That's it.  That's the question. It does not require a morbidity in criticism nor examination.

The question's answer is neither rhetorical.

The simple answer is no. 

My question centers on curiosity.  Curiosity, toward what is it the question may be asking for those who consider =

1- killing is acceptable under a specific - or - 

2- non specified circumstances

3- therefore circumstances that may or may not exist.

For example: killing for survival.  Killing animals for food.  Prohibition (death sentence upholding what is the law.) Are only some examples. 

Are there any other's (examples examining mental faculties).  That to act morally or immorally. Are we NOT equipped within the parameters of any or all persons. That crosses a line from which killing is NOT a survival mechanism. (i.e. fight vs flight = law vs reasonability)

That if reason speaks to what is normalizing the cause and effect relationship between the risk and extremity of such an act.  However, NOT without detailing (what is it we cannot detail) within reason?

"Do we have the right to kill", my point being = how does this look to someone else. 

Disclaimer: 

(Posing this question may be unappealing only to some not all.)  All things being equal.  This may be a form unequivocally purging us of our sensibilities.  Of course - we would feel guilty about committing such an act. Therefore, this is a syllogism that may fall on deaf ears.

Therefore, the reasons are obviously limited.

But are they? 

(end disclaimer) ::

What is rational or better thought of as common sense should be a currency (2025ad) and because we witness modern day neoconservatives elected into office. Then, how disputable is it to trace our history repeating itself if not Nazism if fascist dichotomy in principle holds as true. 

Do we as a species indoctrinate ourselves to the common practice - only as complicit spectators - comfortably witness to genocidal warfare happening in Ukraine and in Gaza also normalized in Germany during the Holocaust. 

My argument here is as follows:

"do we have the right to kill": such as was executing Jews in their persecution. Therefore,  the Holocaust  was designed (yes: designed) against mobilization of the Jews. This is to speak of Jews Mobilizing against their inquisition and persecution. Nazis Germany promoted against that ALL jews, because, as an ideology this was documented to purge the population into a dogmatic purpose.  That the holy land (for purpose of any future) was to be purged upon.

This is my reason for asking, "do you have the right to kill..." being true or false, then my argument becomes an accusation over denial.  Denial that we are accessories if we don’t have courage enough to act.

In turn, my query is illicit to the fact, we live in a day and age where "do you have the right to kill..." is on brand to the collective unconscious civilization.  We are living (in) it.  Right or wrong.

If nothing else is a search for answers.

Marco

°●°●°○°▪︎°▪︎

April 15th 2025

I would want to know why admins fail. If I spent the day on creating some content for the purpose of this group. Only to have no feedback given as to why they reject it. An entire day working on it. And I'm not good enough to get published. Total bull. I know it.

Have the decency to give reasons for your decisions especially to the credibility of - philosophers that do try to establish themselves over any public medium.

Rewind to what was some questionable conduct by admins in this group. That publicly renounced my views, not on critique, not by reason, but just plain dismissal. I have been around the block. I don't need to pump the breaks on how I conduct myself... meaning... I am free to leave the group. (That is not the case I was making for myself.)

The truth here is this:

I am an above average philosopher that is in no need for validation. The same admin that pigeon holed me without due recourse on their part. I recall it was an admin but forget the handle they use on. I just know the admin made some off handed comments and kept testing my intelligence. It was as if insinuating I was only trying to make myself appear bigger than I actually was over the group. THEY called my work fairy tale philosophy (I am only paraphrasing it here for purpose of this query.) But is it worth crying over?? Hardly the point I am making.

1- Provide feedback for people that care like I do.

That should have covered everything^.