Can people instictively kill without remorse?


Do you think people, any people, can instictively kill without remorse?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think people, any people, can instictively kill without remorse?

    • Hell yeah!!!
      10
    • Positively sure
      1
    • Pretty sure
      3
    • Dunno, never killed before, but I plan to
      4
    • Dunno, never killed before, and I don't plan to
      6
    • Probably not
      3
    • Positively not
      1
    • Hell no!!!
      1


Recommended Posts

I've been in an intriguing argument with a colleague of mine. My colleague says it's impossible to kill without remorse and that everyone who'd kill would feel guilt or remorse afterwards,

"but if u did kill someone, you would feel guilt for ending another humans existance...you would feel remorse as a natural human reaction, especially as you saw the face and the eyes of the person, whos life you would be ending before they died"

Though it's true that people can feel guilt, it's not human reaction/instinct that makes us feel guilt. I say it is instinctual that we CAN kill without remorse, isn't it in the evolution of all animals?? (even though most if not all animals probably can't be remorseful) I say its society that makes us feel guilty, not natural human reaction, because it is society in which we have been brought up in that teaches us right from wrong. You?re taught that killing is wrong as a child so you grow up knowing it's wrong, thus if you do kill you'd feel guilt believing it is wrong because of what you were taught. (Think I just repeated myself there) If you kill an ant do you feel guilt? No you don't. Why? Cos society does not consider the killing of an ant wrong. Think I?ll repeat what I just said just to stress the point. So if you do kill you might feel guilty because you?re aware of the fact that killing is wrong, from where? From what you've been taught, the rules of the game as it were.

Also, what about in war? Does every person in the coalition, and every armed Iraqi feel guilt when they killed during the war? I don't think so, maybe a few. The American soldiers pictured torturing prisoners don't seem to be feeling guilty or remorseful, yet the results of what they did seemed worse than death. I think I recall seeing on TV that someone claming to be one of the masked people in the pictures said himself he'd rather had died than gone through what happened. Think I went off topic a bit there and think I?m starting to waffle, but the point is humans are more than capable to instinctively killing and even abusing fellow humans without remorse or guilt.

Any how...any thoughts people?

Yes, it's a fact.

When I was 3 y.o., my parents visited Angola during the civil war.

One evening, through my bedroom window, I saw a couple of guys killing a man, stabbing him, then shot him in the head with an AK-47, and they left the site after.

The reason? Because they could.

When I was 3 y.o., my parents visited Angola during the civil war.

One evening, through my bedroom window, I saw a couple of guys killing a man, stabbing him, then shot him in the head with an AK-47, and they left the site after.

That's very interesting. Must have been very intriguing.

That's very interesting. Must have been very intriguing.

I was a kid back then, I didn't realise what they were doing. :(

So complex, yet, so primitive.

We tamed beasts, built elaborated homes, exploited the elements, created non-natural components, but still we're animals.

There's no way to escape from that.

I do believe that instinctively humans are capable of killing but they would feel some sort of remorse, guilt, maybe some less than other but as humans I believe that we are'nt natural killers, we are cpapable of it but remorse is a natural reaction.

But I suppose it also depends on the circumstances

  • Draggendrop locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!