When killing is "right"

Originally posted by Leveller
Which is worse?
To kill one to save the lives of millions.
Or to stand by and do nothing as that one kills millions.

The question in the title is loaded. It's not a simple yes or no answer.

I agree. And just since you mentioned "millions" I'm afraid I have to share one of my favorite quotes, even though it's not completely relevant:

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." -Stalin

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, to answer your question Leveller, (even though I think it was rhetorical), I think that killing one person in order to save millions can be a good thing, but only if there was NO other way to save those million people AND the one person. But, there's not really any way to judge if there's another way sometimes, and maybe it's not worth the risk. I dunno, it's a pretty hard question to answer.

[edit on 6-12-2004 by an3rkist]

When we talk about Al Qaida, why send them to their 'heaven'? Make them sit in a jail cell for a few decades to think things over. We have boatloads of stun and tranq technology, why not use it?

In my opinion killing is only morally justified, either by the heat of the moment, where you are fighting for your very life, or in the name of mercy.

Killing for revenge can never be morally justified.

First - didn't the big G lay down some wrath along the way??

Second, we have to consider that morals, by definition are not the same for all people or all societies. There can be generally accepted morals, but we shouldn't stray too far from the fact that we are animals and not that far along the evolutionary ladder.

Now - the big problem is that there are no deterrents to keep people from killing these days (keep war out for the moment). In the past the pillory and public humiliation was excellent as was the public hanging or guillotine executions. People saw live, just what your punishment would be for taking another life (or committing a petty crime for the pillory). Nowadays, people never see the punishment and many violent killers are put up and given 3 squares a day and some nice exercise time. In many cases, that life in lock up is better than what they had on the street!

Not saying we should go back to the old days but I have no moral problems if there is clear and irrefutable truth in taking a cold blooded murder suspect out. It should be painful, ugly and displayed live so people get a taste about what will happen if they chose to do the same thing. Accidents and cases without clear evidence (Peterson thing) are different altogether. We should also make the prison system a lot less cushy - people should not want to ever go back (cold showers, no tv, no visitors, no nothing). Hard labor and uncomfortable should do it. Hell, then televise it so people see what it is really like. I continually get peeved that my tax dollars go to provide a life to the thugs behind bars. The moral do gooders have the blame pointed at them for this - there is no deterrent for crime and until there is it will continue to affect the normal, good, hardworking people of the society....

Originally posted by saint4God
When we talk about Al Qaida, why send them to their 'heaven'? Make them sit in a jail cell for a few decades to think things over. We have boatloads of stun and tranq technology, why not use it?

Tranqs arent a sure fire thing, especially in the case of someone whacked out on PCP, there are plenty of stories of cops emptying entire clips into them before they drop dead. Plus take a look a the legal system, it doesnt work half the time. Rapists get out early (when they should go straight to the pine box anyway) murders get parole, and generally those with severe mal-alignment seem to have a revolving door situation with the jails. So why pay for them to go back for a short stay to work on their abs and catch up on reading and a few good meals when they can be dispatched straight to their respective person in the afterlife for a swift judgement and dismissal?

Originally posted by quango

If I accidentally run over a person in a car and kill them, it is an accident. If I am drunk when I ran them down, I would call that murder, as I was not in control of what I was doing.

I don't see the difference. Neither is intentional.

Alcohol may impair driving ability, but if someone runs over someone without alcohol, then perhaps they have NATURALLY impaired driving ability. (Or genetically impaired)

Don't be so quick to demonize alcohol without also demonizing cell phones, makeup mirrors, changing CD's, eating, drinking, talking, being overly tired, or just not paying attention.

Ok, I agree with what you say. Other factors in driving could prevent you from driving to your full potential. If I don't wear my contacts, I would have a lot higher chance of smashing into another car or running someone over. If I don't replace my brake pads or tyres I would not be able to stop fast enough and increase the chance of causing an accident. If I am speeding then again I will increase the chance of having a smash. The common theme here is, I am doing something or not doing something that will increase the chances of me killing someone, therefore I am being negligent.

Is this murder if you kill someone under these conditions? Well it isn�t premeditated but the end result is the same.

I echo the sentiments of others. God is the one to judge, however, death in any form was not in God's original design. Humans were not built to die, that is why there is such an issue with mortality.

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
humm Personly I wish person in the world would pile all the guns tanks and everother wepone used to kill into a big pile to be mealted down into plows so as we can feed our children and wifes instead of killing them.
But because I know this will never happen if anyone from anyware be it the US or the UK or russia or anyware threatens my family I would kill them .
But this is only because they gave me no other choice I would take no pleasure in this . Is killing wrong yes it is . Is killing the one who is trying to kill you wrong ? No in this case your using your servivel instinks to stay ALIVE . Sometimes its not a question of wrong but a question of who dies you or the other guy and the only two choices you have are stand there and let the person kill you or fight and kill them so they cant kill you.
Personly I Strongly belive you have the right to protect your self to what ever extreme is nessery.
I live in the US and have worked jobs and listened to these guys saying all day ill kill you man to each other .To me this constutes a Threat and at that point you should be able to protect your self with deadly force.
After all if they dont want to kill you why are they saying it?
Ps ill one other thing if everone use this meathed Murder would become a RARE thing .As people would think twice befor trying it because they now know it mite be there death .
Lets say they revamped the laws to reflect this . Law you have the right to protect your self to what ever extreme nessery.
ok now how long do you think these teens would keep robing gas stations? Because with this law even pointing a gun constutes a death threat giving you the right to kill to protect your self. inside two years tops the murder rate would drop to close to zero and all of you who belive killing is black and white would no longer have to debate it.

The thing is, you do have this right. If at any point in time some one points a gun at you, you have the right to kill them. The thing is most people don't make sudden moves to whip out a gun and blow the other guy's head off because A. he's not insane and killing is not worth all the money in the world, B. he doesn't want to get his own head blown off, C. he's just plain scared.

Also the thing is that murder is a relatively rare thing as it stands and you are more likely to be killed by some one you know, rather than some one holding you up at a gas station. Not that you don't have a good idea, it is just that when it is tested out as it has been done in real life, it has yeilded no better results, instead things might just be worse.

Imagine if the said liquor mart clerk had killed the supposed robber, then found out that the gun wasn't real, that the reason the robber was taking a desperate action was to feed his family. Now we have a needless death and a family with one less adult bringing in money. Don't give me crap about him getting a job because the federal minimum wage is far below the poverty level.

Also, by your logic, everyone on death row has the right to kill thier gaurds to get off of death row. After all they are being dirrectly threatened with death, by their gaurds, which is the same as having a gun pointed at your face.

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Acecool79]

.
From the far side,

I am amoral, I do not believe in God. Expecting some fictional being to make determinations you would rather avoid is a cop out.

We live in this reality and we individually and, if possible, collectively should make those judgements.

I approve of the idea that lethal self-defense can be justifyable.
I think for a person operates in such a manner that all reasonable [yes it's a bit vauge] precautions are taken to not harm others.
I do not think that insanity is an excuse. There are certain levels of conduct that are expected of all of-age adults. The inability of some to measure up is not societies burden.

Consquences:
The point is to make society reasonably safe to live in. People are locked away not for immorality or punishment but simply because they have violated the implicit 'social accord'. It is pragmatic judgement to keep society safe.
.

Killing is right when the person commiting the act believes it to be "right". When is killing right for me? When there is no other option.

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Killing is right when the person commiting the act believes it to be "right".

You're saying killing is justified when the killer feels it to be right? I'm sorry to say but that sounds extremely twisted. When a Muslim extremist blows himself and several others up, he is justified because he believes it is right?

Originally posted by iceofspades

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Killing is right when the person commiting the act believes it to be "right".

You're saying killing is justified when the killer feels it to be right? I'm sorry to say but that sounds extremely twisted. When a Muslim extremist blows himself and several others up, he is justified because he believes it is right?

It's not justified to me. But I dont think what he did is inherently wrong. It's wrong to me, but not absolute.

And also alternateheaven per below:

Originally posted by alternateheaven

Originally posted by saint4God
When we talk about Al Qaida, why send them to their 'heaven'? Make them sit in a jail cell for a few decades to think things over. We have boatloads of stun and tranq technology, why not use it?

Tranqs arent a sure fire thing, especially in the case of someone whacked out on PCP, there are plenty of stories of cops emptying entire clips into them before they drop dead. Plus take a look a the legal system, it doesnt work half the time. Rapists get out early (when they should go straight to the pine box anyway) murders get parole, and generally those with severe mal-alignment seem to have a revolving door situation with the jails. So why pay for them to go back for a short stay to work on their abs and catch up on reading and a few good meals when they can be dispatched straight to their respective person in the afterlife for a swift judgement and dismissal?

I think you're both right in that jail should be hard labor without the broken parole system. The problem with killing someone off is those who are innocently convicted. What if you were that one person? What do you say to the family of the one person wrongly accused? We're human, we're going to make judgemental errors. What if it was in fact someone who comes realize and tells others not to follow in his/her path? Not saying it happens often, but it does happen.

.
If anyone subverts the American electorial process, anyone and everyone should kill them. Perhaps slowly and extremely painfully. [don't usually get into punishment, but am willing to make an exception for something as egregious as this]
.

Originally posted by Ruffy
Murder is murder. If you kill someone in war you commit a murder. If you kill someone who stole your sweat socks you commit a murder. Do you think GOD will show sympathy for a man who kills in war, or will GOD treat all murders and such acts similar?

Absolutely,

The bible makes it clear that, government and religion are seperate issues. Do what your told by your gov. ect. At least partially.The bible also makes it clear that people were glorified by God for killing in certain battles....ALL THROUGH THE OLD TESTAMENT. God made it Ok in many cases.

If murder is murder, than how can God condemn it if He has murdered also?