Is “killing” bad? When presented with this question, most of my readers will say “yes”, not because it is “the answer” but because of the sociocultural circumstance surrounding me. Most of my readers are western middle-and-upper-class internet users raised in a chiefly catholic/protestant setting (yes, very specific but true).
Let’s look away from our own context for a moment and observe the world around us. In the US and in other countries, the death penalty is a common and defended occurrence. It is also debated, but the common opinion in these areas it’s that it’s either appropriate or a necessary evil. Starting from Mexico, going south through Latin America, the death penalty is not legal in any of these countries. But south of Europe, all throughout Africa, it is a very common occurrence. In Asia, it is also very common. What does this tell us? Killing is conditionally bad in most places. This means that it is good to kill certain people in most countries but it is bad to kill others.
Does this mean that the absolute truth is that it is good to kill certain people? No, it means that in some cultures, the people’s opinion is that it is good to kill certain people. Other cultural differences are very similar:
- Eating pork is an ‘absolute bad’ for Jewish people, but it is a relative neutral in most western countries.
- Eating dogs is an ‘absolute bad’ in all western countries, but it is a relative neutral in China and Korea (and is even celebrated as a traditional value by some).
- Tipping waiters is a relative good in most western countries, but it is an absolute bad in Japan.
- Polygamy is an absolute bad in most western countries, but it is a relative neutral in many cultures in Africa and a relative good in some others.
- Killing children is an absolute bad in most countries, yet it is considered that the nukes that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an ugly but necessary measure, perceived as relative neutral by some.
- Stealing is an absolute bad in most western countries, but for the Vikings it was a relative good (absolute good regarding foreign nations). Pillaging, raping, stealing and killing was a celebrated and even sacred activity for some.
Conclusion
Let’s start with the Vikings. Were they evil? They perceived themselves as good. Many would consider that killing is “absolutely bad”, but as we can see, not even on this gravest of sins can everyone agree. No matter how grave or good an act seems to be for the thinker, all of morality is relative and dependent on the culture, and on each individual and their circumstance (remember the death penalty where killing is conditionally good).
(This is all of course dependent on the assumption that you don’t believe in any variation of religion, in which case there would be a dogma clause by which everyone else is wrong and you’re right because your book/teachings hold the ultimate truth.)