Morals on Killing

There are few consequences, if any, for people who commit acts of violence in the Congo. In the United States citizens know (for the most part) if you commit a crime there will be consequences. In the Congo, people are rarely charged with crimes and even less likely to be prosecuted. If someone knew why they rape and kill people as well as slaughter endangered wildlife, they may be able to stop it. This is probably why I'm so interested in the Congo. I don't understand it and I don't think many do. The idea of something being "immoral" doesn't exist in a place without rules. Without rules it would be difficult to determine the difference between what is "right" and what is "wrong". A Utilitarian would ask if murdering and raping would produce the best overall consequences. Any sane person would agree that it doesn't.



If you were to analyze the killing of the endangered hippo you could think of alternatives to killing the animal. The poacher could find another way of making the same amount of money doing something that does not harm endangered wild life. The action of killing the endangered animal hurts more than it helps. It is considered immoral. When endangered animal populations are reduced to zero, they cannot be recovered. Any future potential benefit to society dies with that particular animal.