Justifiable Homicide.

[Varchld]

Soooo, do you think intentional murder could ever be an acceptable means of resolving an issue or bettering society?
Generally most people are going to say no right off the bat, and that's the most reasonable answer, but just think about it for a minute.
I don't mean Euthanasia, I don't mean assisted suicide or self defence or even spur of the moment rage driven murder. Those are all seperate issues and Euthanasia has it's own thread. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.80067#1034084]

A common question that used to be asked is "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he got any power, would you do it?". Common answers tend to be a flat out "murder is wrong" or "no, because you can't tell what effects on the future it would have". But if there was someone like Hitler, or Saddam Hussein or anyone who would cause more death and pain and suffering then any good they could possibly ever do, so they deserve to die, and could you do it?

Some of you are already saying a big plain "no", but just think about this some more. Where would you stop, at what point does it no longer balance out?
You know those loud mouthed people who yell insults at strangers just for kicks, the people who go out of their way to harass people. The kind of person who will grope a stranger or shove a cripple. You know them, I doubt there are any here on the Escapist but one or two of them would have been banned from a ZP thread I bet.

Now these people, these wastes of space, would it be all that wrong if while they were playing the big man that they can only dream of being the "victim" turned around and assaulted them.
What if they were beaten so badly that they died. Obviously the "victim" would be facing a murder charge, but what damage has actually been done?
The deceased would never harass or assault anyone ever again making people feel safer and society generally a little better, but their family would likely be distraught, though their lives may be better off without this type of person around.
The type of person the deceased is tends to be involved in some sort of crime, so they would never injure, kill or rape anyone ever, though they may not have in the future anyway.
But what were they contributing to society?
Would them no longer being present have a positive or negative effect?
What downside is there to their deaths aside from it being wrong?

I'm not condoning murder or violence, if anything there's way too much going on in the world at the moment. But i'm interested if there can be a reasonable argument to such a morally wrong act.

 

[Sewblon]

Assassinating deranged dicators who are killing innocents in mass numbers or who could concievably start a nuclear war is O.K but beyond that unprovoked homicide does more harm than good. Never allow yourself to forget that Light Yagami, The Shinigami and Deathnotes are fictitious.

 

[jasoncyrus]

I shall sum this opinion up in one sentence.

Give me a licence to kill and i shall make immediate use of it and i shall need an automatic rifle and a constant supply of ammunition.

 

[Bleak777]

Has anyone else ever watched "Minority Report", because this plot is sounding pretty similar...?

 

[Dragonrabbit]

I think if someone is at such a morally defunct stage in their life then maybe we could use, and just hear me out here, reeducation. Not like the Dystopian dictator reeducation from scifi stories and what not, but like, classes on how not to be a douche. And after someone has had to take the class twice (do to their continuing doucheness), and they managed to earn the class a third time they be executed, because clearly they do more harm than good.

So basically, steal a crippled man's wheelchair take the class. When you get out you harass strangers for no apparent reason, take the class again. You get out again and celebrate by lighting a bum on fire, now you die.

This might sound a bit extreme, but really would it be that bad if everyone in the world was nice, and there weren't any more douches?

P.S. You wouldn't be eligible for reeducation until you were 21, time to mature and what not.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Every cloud has its silver lining.

Around the world, people were suffering due to the Great Depression. It was only someone the likes of Hitler who helped us rise out of the ashes and rebuild industries. He might have been evil, but good things come out of even the worst things.

Except maybe the Sandakan Death marches. The Japs had serious issues back then.

 

[Skalman]

While not entirely relevant to the question, I can safely say that if some one tortured, raped and painfully/slowly murdered everyone I've ever known and/or loved and by some unexplainable randomness didn't get convicted for it: I wouldn't let that person live for very long, despite whatever the consequences may be...


And no, I would not kill either Hitler or Saddam, were I ever given the chance. Despite how many people have suffered because of them, they've been a part of the shaping of our civilization and the removal of them would only make others take their place. Sooner or later. And removing those in turn would only be moving more and more towards a Utopian society by eliminating any one who are seen as "evil", which I think is the wrong way to go.

These things are a necessary evil in the shape of the world/society/civilization and couldn't possibly be avoided even if we tried. We just gotta deal with it when we come to it.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Jason, you read my mind. There are so many...

 

[Seydaman]

I think if someone is at such a morally defunct stage in their life then maybe we could use, and just hear me out here, reeducation. Not like the Dystopian dictator reeducation from scifi stories and what not, but like, classes on how not to be a douche. And after someone has had to take the class twice (do to their continuing doucheness), and they managed to earn the class a third time they be executed, because clearly they do more harm than good.

So basically, steal a crippled man's wheelchair take the class. When you get out you harass strangers for no apparent reason, take the class again. You get out again and celebrate by lighting a bum on fire, now you die.

This might sound a bit extreme, but really would it be that bad if everyone in the world was nice, and there weren't any more douches?

P.S. You wouldn't be eligible for reeducation until you were 21, time to mature and what not.

i vote for this idea.

 

[Sycker]

Judge: "Why did you run over that child under the influence?"

Man: "Future dictator."

Judge: "Oh....Alright then. Are you sure?"

Man: "Very."

Judge: "FREE TO GO LOL."

 

[corporate_gamer]

Murder is wrong, therefore doing murder makes you a bad person. However i hold to the saying evil prevails because good men can do nothing. So yes you could murder Hitler or kill off some future psychopath and it might be for the greater good but you would still be a bad person for doing it. If you could live with that and not mind that people might want to lock you up or otherwise punish you for being a bad person, then well knock yourself right out.

 

[Lord George]

Society seems to have something against me wiping out the weak and undesirables so for now I must stick to killing the odd small animal.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

A common question that used to be asked is "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he got any power, would you do it?". Common answers tend to be a flat out "murder is wrong" or "no, because you can't tell what effects on the future it would have". But if there was someone like Hitler, or Saddam Hussein or anyone who would cause more death and pain and suffering then any good they could possibly ever do, so they deserve to die, and could you do it?

There's two problems:

1. My father explained this best to me- If an infamous person were to be taken out of the running a much worse person could still take their place. Worse still, a person who was more effective at the same role.

Tying this back to the example: Hitler had several physical, emotional and psychological conditions. If he didn't have these the Allies may not have won the bluff that tricked Hitler into moving his forces away from Normandy on D-Day. A replacement Hitler may not have over-extended themselves into Russia as well.

2. Pre-emptive punishment ultimately means conviction/passing of sentence on thought or even before thought. If forewarning is/was/will be available then there are other actions that can be taken.

 

[Hevoo]

Society seems to have something against me wiping out the weak and undesirables so for now I must stick to killing the odd small animal.

ok.............

Moving on.

"Evil" Dictators are the best thing this world has. It brings the best out of men. Look what the allies did during world war 2, we beat back the Nazis, and the Japs. I will bet you all the money in the world that we will never fight a war on that scale ever again. So if I had a chance to kill Hitler before he came to power, I wouldn't do it. There is no reason to, kill him, the Nazis lose anyway, yeah 50 million people die. But look what came out of WW2.

As far as Justifiable Murder.... Big no on that, let the law take its course. The reason for that is everyone has there own idea what is Justifiable, and I really don't want to have people killing each other over candy bars. Justify something is to subjective, law systems in theory are objective, I would much rather have a fair system punish the few(even if some get away), then a unfair system punish everyone.

 

[Benny Blanco]

Weird ethics threads... The problem with allowing justifiable premeditated homicide is who gets to say what the justification is, as well of course as their mood is on a given day and current mores in the society involved.

Those who might fall under our working definition of human sewage now could be judged as normal in another time and place and vice versa (a slave-owner who raped, maimed, beat, tortured and generally mistreated his slaves might have been accepted by his peers in the US before the civil war, likewise a pederast would have been accepted in Ancient Greece or Rome, not to mention the degree to which religious differences have been used as an excuse for murder in numerous cultures in the past and some into the present day, a prejudice that most modern Western people would find appalling)

Not to mention that the average member of the public is a fickle creature given to split-secod prejudices and irrational mob behaviour.

Much as the realities of self defence involve split second decisions which are picked apart by legal experts at their leisure in a safe courtroom, the thought processes behind a decision to remove an individual from the planet in cold blood, however loathsome they may be, are very subjective.

 

[samsprinkle]

I think if someone is at such a morally defunct stage in their life then maybe we could use, and just hear me out here, reeducation. Not like the Dystopian dictator reeducation from scifi stories and what not, but like, classes on how not to be a douche. And after someone has had to take the class twice (do to their continuing doucheness), and they managed to earn the class a third time they be executed, because clearly they do more harm than good.

So basically, steal a crippled man's wheelchair take the class. When you get out you harass strangers for no apparent reason, take the class again. You get out again and celebrate by lighting a bum on fire, now you die.

This might sound a bit extreme, but really would it be that bad if everyone in the world was nice, and there weren't any more douches?

P.S. You wouldn't be eligible for reeducation until you were 21, time to mature and what not.

Not to be a douche oh master...but wouldn't that make the reeducators douches who enjoyed killing people for petty crimes(the exception being setting a bum on fire...)

 

[Zer_]

There are only three types of situations where I think it's right to kill.

If the rules of engagement aren't respected, and the killing of civilians on an industrial scale becomes collateral damage to someone.

If your life is directly threatened by someone.

If an animal, or person is simply better off dead then staying alive. (IE in extreme pain with no hope of survival).

Otherwise I'm against any form of killing. Yes that also means I'm against the death penalty.

 

[canarmane]

I'll surmarize with this: IF you could go back in time and kill Hitler, Stalin, etc. then that action would not be justifiable. Sure killing them before they started their rampages would save hundreds of thousands of people, but in order to do that you would have to kill someone, which is wrong. So if you wanted to kill Hitler/Stalin go ahead, but then you too would have to die.

BTW For Death Note, the only thing Light didn't realize was that if he actually managed to kill all the criminals in the world, then he would have to commit suicide to make it perfect.