“Is it ever right to kill?” is a question that I was apt to ponder over after watching the latest episode of the anime The Promised Neverland.
My answer (coming from intuition): It depends upon how much one wants to be a human.
To be a human, or humane, means to look towards the future–beyond the present, past reality and/or realities; and to have hope. There are a myriad of other things that being a human involves, including reflecting on the past and embodying a fickle-hearted nature, but I have reason to believe all other articulatable reasons can be boiled down to this.
Looking towards the future can come in a variety of forms. One may look towards the future with themselves as the subject, and one may look towards the future with something or many things aside from themselves as the subject or subjects, of their attention. Additionally, when one looks towards the future with themselves as the subject, they may operate under the belief that times closer to the present are more valuable than times far away from the present; or they may operate under the belief that times later than 150 years since the day of their birth deserve more attention than future times close the present; and such beliefs, alongside others, facilitate the embodiment of different forms of looking towards the future.
If being a human means looking towards the future, and if looking towards the future can come in a variety of forms, it can be said that there are a variety of ways to be a human. With this notion in mind, it can be difficult to dissociate acts enacted by people from humanness, as any act that is enacted by a person is “humane” in the sense of having been enacted by a human. It can also be difficult to call any act enacted by a person “monstrous,” “animalistic,” and/or “inhumane,” if any act enacted by a person is “humane.”
As being a monster, or engaging in an inhumane behavior, can be called “very humane,” I’ve been apt to think about how some ‘monsters of society’—e.g., people who have been incarcerated for killing another person—have had their human rights disrespected.
I’ve been apt to think about people who are going about their everyday lives have had their human rights respected. Such people include those eating breakfast with their family in this present moment; those worrying about their cholesterol levels, clocking in and out at work, traveling in pursuit of beautiful sights, hunching over their desk in pursuit of a solution to a mathematical problem that no one has yet to solve, and/or doing other things. It is important to recognize that such persons enact certain behaviors on a regular basis that lessen the likelihood of great-great-great-great-great grandchildren ever being born. While such behaviors are not enacted out of insidious intentions or bitterness, they are enacted—either fully, or partly—in thoughtlessness, which is historically considerable as criminal (Arendt, 1971; The Life of the Mind, introduction).
*1*
In paying respects to the above, I’ve been led to conclude that all treatments of people by people, in variety of forms and extents, are both monstrous and humane.
Based on what I’ve read and watched, monsters act monstrous when they don’t know any better, humans act humane when they are knowledgeable, monsters act humane when they are knowledgeable, and humans act monstrous when they don’t know any better. If this is all true, then humans and monsters are no different from one another: Knowledgeable enables one to act humane, and one is apt to act monstrous when they are ignorant, regardless if one is a monster or human. If this is all true, then anyone—regardless if they are a human, a monster, some entity that is somehow less than human, or some entity that is somehow non-human—should receive compassion and understanding, in the scenario where they are being critically evaluated for enacting a monstrous behavior.
The statements in the next two paragraphs are hypotheses that I’ve provided here for the sake of entertaining the following idea: Differences in the treatment of people by people, and inklings that some people have for seeing another person as a monster, stem from differences in valuations of times.
In the scenario where a beloved is murdered, a person who values times close to the present more than times far from the present will want to subjugate or eliminate the murderer. If such a person aims to look far into the future, their disposition will color their foresight, and they will be apt to pay respects to potentials for worst-case future scenarios to arise (e.g., the murderer may kill more people; more beloveds may die, and/or other people will be feeling as unpleasant as they are feeling). In thinking about potentials for worst-case scenarios to arise, such a person is likely to think about their ability to take action in the present to prevent worst-case scenarios from arising, and take action to prevent worst-case scenarios from arising.
In contrast, if one values times that are far in the future–including times that lie beyond what they can imagine–more than times that are close to the present, they are less likely to act on impulse in an emergency scenario. In an emergency scenario, they are likely to seek out a peaceful resolution to the situation, no matter how strong angry feelings welling up inside of them are. In such a scenario, they are likely to reflect on the past, and embody a standstill disposition until they’ve developed a clearcut understanding of why recent events played out the way they did. They are also likely to work to implement a plan that involves them embodying a behavioral disposition that will minimize the likelihoods of certain undesirable outcomes arising in 150 years, 300 years, and/or 500 years from now in a butterfly effect- or chain reaction-resembling fashion.
If it is true that differences in the treatment of people by people are inextricably tied to differences in valuations [and/or infatuations] of times, then my thought is that academic curriculums should be geared towards having incoming generations of adults constantly thinking about future times that are far from present. We should be doing all that we can to make sure that people value future times that are far from the present more than future times that are close to the present.
The concept of managing , or controlling, how people value times is probably alien to people currently in positions of power. It may even be repulsive; and it may not be entertainable in the political sphere right now. I’m thinking that it is an idea that could be entertained 20 years from now with seriousness by people in positions of power.
*2*
In entertaining the idea that it is possible for a person to manage their valuations of times, and the idea that putting future times that are far from the present on a pedestal is the most humane thing a person can do, I am apt to conjecture that people should be held accountable for how much they want to be a human. As enacting behaviors that support the reproduction of an undesirable outcome (e.g., social inequality, murder, suicide) is typically done out of thoughtless—and, arguably, lack of concern for future times that are far from the present, as well as lack of desire to be human—it would be an act of community service for one to think hard on a regular basis how much they want to be a human.
The above idea feels like a dangerous conceptual territory; and I will venture out into this territory during some future moment.
My answer to the question “Is it ever right to kill?” is left explained in an incomplete way. I look forward to further writing about what’s coming from my intuition here.
*1* I’d like to pay respects to populations that have been and/or are currently being detained by governmental forces. I can fathom, abhor, respect, and find puzzling—all at the same time—the reasons for why certain populations of people have been and/or are currently being detained. The matter of how respected and/or disrespected the human rights of individuals within such populations is complex; and I hope to tackle the matter in a moment separate from this one.
*2* I am not operating under the belief that any one person, or even one body of people has more power than any other. Since the phrase “people in positions of power” holds linguistic capital in the present moment, I am using the phrase. When I use the phrase, I am paying respects to a reality that I think should be looked at during some moments and not be looked at during other moments.
Pasfut Trailblazing 