Killing...Is it always wrong?

[HappyPillz]

I was having a discussion with my sister, who firmly believes that killng is wrong under any circumstance. I don't exactly belive in the concepts of right and wrong, because it's such a black and white way of looking at something. Nothing is ever 'just' right or wrong.

So say that there are 10 peoples lives in danger, and you can only save 6 of them, by killing the other 4. Is that wrong? These people all have lives, and families. What about killing 100 to save 1000? Or 500 000 to save 2 000 000? Where do you draw the line?

When is it OK to to take human life? How do you measure an individuals worth? Is everyones life equal?

Just an interesting converstion I had, and I wanted to know what peoples opinions are.

 

[Diablini]

When he is a murderer, a rapist, or if you are defending yourself.

 

[Axeli]

Killing in itself is never inherently wrong.

People have disagreed though.

 

[NotAProdigy]

I like Immanuel Kant's take on it. He gives a good description of moral objectivism (it's better than it sounds).

Killing is beneficial, sometimes, but it's always wrong because the outcome doesn't define the action that you're taking. The motive is far more important than any justification and thus it will always have the moral highground.

For example, say a person killed someone but accidentally saved a million people. People would call him a hero, but in reality he never really cared. Or if a person accidentally killed someone with no malice in forethought it doesn't really mean he's a murderer.

I know this is a VERY simplified way of looking at the categorical imperative, but yeah. It's wrong but often times beneficial.

 

[Biosophilogical]

It depends on what you think is more important. If killing 10, 000, 000 corrupt people improved quality of life for the rest of humanity (lowers pollution, makes people better people, increases wisdom, blah, blah, blah) then I would go around with a sword and murder those 10, 000, 000 people myself as long as they weren't like ... ninjas or something.

 

[RelexCryo]

When he is a murderer, a rapist, or if you are defending yourself.

This. The life of a murderere or a rapist is not equal to the life of the victim. If killing them is the only way to stop them, then yes, it is right. For crying out loud, if the only way to end an oppression of your rights is killing, then it is okay. Even if you are not being harmed. I am disgusted by the very idea that someone who kills to save themselves from being murdered, raped, or from being enslaved, has done something wrong.

 

[Kollega]

Well,in self-defense it is perfectly acceptable,as well as killing one to save one hundred. Killing 4 to save 6 is morally ambiguous.

I like Immanuel Kant's take on it. He gives a good description of moral objectivism (it's better than it sounds).

Killing is beneficial, sometimes, but it's always wrong because the outcome doesn't define the action that you're taking. The motive is far more important than any justification and thus it will always have the moral highground.

For example, say a person killed someone but accidentally saved a million people. People would call him a hero, but in reality he never really cared. Or if a person accidentally killed someone with no malice in forethought it doesn't really mean he's a murderer.

I know this is a VERY simplified way of looking at the categorical imperative, but yeah. It's wrong but often times beneficial.

This sounds pretty reasonable,too.

 

[Woem]

When he is a murderer, a rapist, or if you are defending yourself.

I was going to put a lengthy reply but this pretty much covers it. Same goes for pervert pedophiles in my book. But this only counts if it's done in an act of unplanned rage. So any kind of forethought renders this into an act of crime.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

In a personal scenario, if someone is attacking you with intent or provision to kill (they have a deadly weapon in a fight they started) then killing them is justified. It's about not using an unequal force. If someone is trying to kill you, you may have to kill them to survive. If someone is just trying to steal something, snapping their neck is not exactly an appropriate response.

On a larger scale...

I'm never quite sure. The utilitarian in me says that if you kill a hundred people in order to save a million, you're probably justified, but it would depend on circumstance. If you had a medical test for a vaccine for AIDs, and all of your (say) 1000 control group died, but your vaccine worked and you eradicate AIDs forever, it's probably worth it. (I know the whole control group can't die and a vaccine still work, but you get the gist.)

If you were to have an experiment to cure a specific type of cancer and thousands die, it's a bit more iffy, since cancer is not 100% lethal, AIDs is. If you were trying to find a vaccine for a cancer which only kills 2% of the time, it's harder to justify.

 

[Le_Lisra]

Yes, it is.

But that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where I would kill without hesitation. Justifiable isn't the same as making it right... but if I, for the sake of argument, wander to my female best friend's home, get suspicious and arm myself in the kitchen with the fucking huge knife, then went up and discovered a rape in progress 17-stab self-defense is in order. Would still be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Edit:
So I subscribe to Kant's simplified view.

And no, every life is equal. If you start making "ranks" then we can just as well burn down civilization and start again.

 

[thiosk]

I like Immanuel Kant

Every time I read this name I burst into the song. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc]

 

[Baby Tea]

I'd say in self defense only.
I don't have the authority or right to kill anyone in any other circumstance, and I always stand by that violence is a poor answer to greater questions.

 

[NotAProdigy]

Yes, it is.

But that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where I would kill without hesitation. Justifiable isn't the same as making it right... but if I, for the sake of argument, wander to my female best friend's home, get suspicious and arm myself in the kitchen with the fucking huge knife, then went up and discovered a rape in progress 17-stab self-defense is in order. Would still be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Everyone should stay away from you.

 

[Le_Lisra]

Yes, it is.

But that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where I would kill without hesitation. Justifiable isn't the same as making it right... but if I, for the sake of argument, wander to my female best friend's home, get suspicious and arm myself in the kitchen with the fucking huge knife, then went up and discovered a rape in progress 17-stab self-defense is in order. Would still be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Everyone should stay away from you.

Now then, wouldn't you kind of get cross when someone rapes someone you deeply care for? Sure, thats not the same but its about the principle.

And ok, even one stab is enough, really, cos I know where to stab (mandatory anatomy lessons^^).

 

[Glass_House]

Yes killing is always wrong. However there is nothing wrong with crippling injuries... lets see a guy in a wheel chair rape somebody huh!

Edit: Oh and this

violence is a poor answer to greater questions.

 

[NotAProdigy]

Yes, it is.

But that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where I would kill without hesitation. Justifiable isn't the same as making it right... but if I, for the sake of argument, wander to my female best friend's home, get suspicious and arm myself in the kitchen with the fucking huge knife, then went up and discovered a rape in progress 17-stab self-defense is in order. Would still be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Everyone should stay away from you.

Now then, wouldn't you kind of get cross when someone rapes someone you deeply care for? Sure, thats not the same but its about the principle.

And ok, even one stab is enough, really, cos I know where to stab (mandatory anatomy lessons^^).

Oh. I misread what you wrote, but yeah 17 stabs is excessive. But hell, what do I know, even Julius Caesar took like 100 stabs and still didn't die.

 

[Le_Lisra]

Yes, it is.

But that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where I would kill without hesitation. Justifiable isn't the same as making it right... but if I, for the sake of argument, wander to my female best friend's home, get suspicious and arm myself in the kitchen with the fucking huge knife, then went up and discovered a rape in progress 17-stab self-defense is in order. Would still be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Everyone should stay away from you.

Now then, wouldn't you kind of get cross when someone rapes someone you deeply care for? Sure, thats not the same but its about the principle.

And ok, even one stab is enough, really, cos I know where to stab (mandatory anatomy lessons^^).

Oh. I misread what you wrote, but yeah 17 stabs is excessive. But hell, what do I know, even Julius Caesar took like 100 stabs and still didn't die.

True, but even with 5 he would have died eventually. Even one rather deep stab is enough to kill you eventually if its in the wrong place. There's only so much you can bleed, yknow.

Back to the subject of killing.. despite a momentary inclination to do so, I still hold it as wrong, no matter who does it, so I'm also opposed to the death penalty.

 

[NotAProdigy]

I'm surprised nobody's thought of the people who want to die...
If your mother was old & sick & couldn't do anything for herself & asked you to kill her, would you do it?

The mother's life is owned by the mother and the grandmother's life is owned by the grandmother. Really, you have no right to bear anything to go against their autonomy. Even the Christian god supposedly allows free will. Dying is a part of the human condition and life outside your own isn't yours. Suicide = just?

Back to the subject of killing.. despite a momentary inclination to do so, I still hold it as wrong, no matter who does it, so I'm also opposed to the death penalty.

I support a reasonable death penalty. For two reasons: life-sentence is pretty much the death sentence, just drawn out and prolonged. It can arguably be torturous and unwarranted to the crime. Secondly, if the prisoner committed a premeditated murder with solid proof I think the death penalty is valid. It's agreeing that the person had a choice, did what he did, and is respecting the choice by giving him a sentence befitting to the crime, no more and no less.

If you're interested in a philosophical point of view from it: http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/kantcap.html

The only thing that would make me say 'no' against this system is how easily abused and mistrialed it can be, like the one we have. Texas is a great example (the state I live in). They put to death a retarded person, making him believe that he committed the crime and getting a confession out of him when evidence clearly proved that he wasn't even at the scene of the crime.

So I say that if the jury weren't a bunch of baffling monkeys a lot of the times, the death sentence should be okay to have. To sum up with Kant again:

I believe "His death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable."

 

[Le_Lisra]

People who need assistance in suicide shouldn't get any, unless they are physically unable to. If you want to kill yourself, do it bloody yourself. If you can't you don't really mean it, mefinds.

 

[HappyPillz]

When he is a murderer, a rapist, or if you are defending yourself.

This. The life of a murderere or a rapist is not equal to the life of the victim. If killing them is the only way to stop them, then yes, it is right. For crying out loud, if the only way to end an oppression of your rights is killing, then it is okay. Even if you are not being harmed. I am disgusted by the very idea that someone who kills to save themselves from being murdered, raped, or from being enslaved, has done something wrong.

I would have to say that it IS in the wrong to kill someone for the act of rape, unless it's a situation where the rape will become a murder. I reason it with equal taking of rights. Someone who is willing to take someone elses freedom, shouldn't have the right to their own freedom. Likewise, someone willing to take a life, has no right to their own life. While rape is inexcusable under any circumstance, it doesn't necessarily warrant an instant death sentence unless there is ABSOLUTELY no choice, and the situation has/will become more than rape.(Should be punishable via castration)