Sorts of Killing

Propositions:
A person's life consists of, in part, consciousness over time.

The object of consciousness (what one is conscious of) determines the quality of the consciousness.

To kill a person consists of bringing the duration of his consciousness to a hastened end.

It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because consciousness is a basic good.

It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because life is a basic good.

Basic goods are good-in-themselves in the abstract (all things being equal).

Complex goods are good-in-themselves in the particular (in the life of an existing individual).

The complex goodness of consciousness derives from the goodness of that which is its object.

One person ought not directly remove a basic good from another.

Background:
Life in the abstract is good. A given person's life is not always perceived as good to him (or to an outside observer). Such is a colliding point between the basic and complex aspects of goodness. Consciousness in the abstract is good. What a given person is conscious of is not always judged as good. At such points, there is another collision. Moral quandaries arise in such atmospheres.

Question:
If it is wrong to kill a person, is it wrong to kill one's time?

Response: Yes. To consciously, consistently squander one's time is to--in effect--kill oneself. To squander one's time is to diminish the quality of what one is conscious of. Knowledge is of purer quality than ignorance. To kill one's time is to beckon unconsciousness; one forfeits the fullness of the present moment to arrive at some point in the future. Knowing that our life is limited and that the ultimate duration of our consciousness is thereby limited as well, all acts of disregard for one's attention (i.e., consciousness in the present) are, after a fashion, suicidal.

Objection 1: It is a privilege of a right-holder to waive her right. Every person has a right to live. Others must submit to that right, unless it is forfeited. To commit suicide is to tacitly forfeit one's right to live. Suicide, including the forfeiture of one's time, is permissible because on can waive one's right to live.

Objection 2: Although we have a duty to others regarding the removal of basic goods, we do not have a corresponding duty to ourselves. A good that is not wanted is not a good. We are to abstain from removing the basic goods of others because their basic goods may be presumed to be good. Knowing our own case first hand, we can conclude the apparent goodness of the basic good is so paltry that it becomes an evil. A duty would become counterproductive in our own case insofar as it would force us to endure an evil. Such a duty does not exist.

Objection 3: Killing a person is not similar to killing one's time. To kill a person is to completely, permanently relieve him of his consciousness. For an individual to kill his time is, at most, only to temporarily relieve him of an aspect--that of interested participation in an event or activity--of his consciousness.

Reply to Objection 1: Although a right-holder can waive her right, it does not follow that she ought to.

Reply to Objection 2: Although some duties to others are unique because they directly stem from the otherness of other people, the duty to not remove a basic good from another is not such a one. The duty not to remove a basic good from another is a primary duty consequent to personhood, which the self and other people have in common.

Reply to Objection 3: Isolated instances of time-killing are not immoral. The argument as stated above addresses consistent, systematic time-killing. Such would be the case with many addictions, be they substance abuse or experiential abuse. Experiential abuse consists of the inappropriate consumption of experiences, including excessive sexual experiences and technological experience. Addictions may be unto death, the possibility of which raises it to a level of gravity higher than what can only be temporary. Killing time is not as heinous because it is not always unto death, whereas all forms of murder are. When taken in isolation, the act of self-murder and time-killing can have the same motivation (e.g. dissatisfaction with recent/current consciousness). It is the intent that makes the similar acts immoral.