Killing...Is it always wrong?

[NeckStabber]

On a completely unrelated note,*wink*wink*,has anyone seen S06E04 of House MD called the Tyrant?

 

[Pifflestick]

Its okay to kill murderers, rapists, pedophiles and in self defense.

 

[Diablini]

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

What about a man that steals money from a charity that can potentially save lives?

A counciler that delays construction on an apartment block that would supply shelter to the poor.

Surely by murdering murderers you can claim no justification?
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Who the hell is talking about revenge. It's for the safety of everyone. Not only does execution decrease crime in the area. It potentially stops people from getting out in 20 years and doing the same shit all over again.

 

[TheMatt]

Watch the movie swordfish.

and yes, I would kill a million to save 5. Sucks, but the greater good is the greater good.

 

[Steve Dark]

It's never the action that is wrong, but the motivation. Killing someone out of selfish greed because you want their stuff is wrong, killing someone in order to defend your wife and kids is not.

 

[Datalord]

NO, killing is not always wrong, in fact i don't think there is anything a human could reasonably do that is inherently, unambiguously, purely evil

 

[Gawspel]

Killing is always okay, doesn't matter who is killing who, it's a-okay in my book.

 

[HappyPillz]

this isnt a search bar rant, and is actually very little to do with this, but it was about "is killing ok if:" the guy was just trying to be as offensive as possible to boost the number of people replying
it was basically at the point of "if you could save 30 white people by eating a black baby, is it ok?"
OT(because that wasnt): yes, if you are forced to by your government/more important factors

You are the only person to bring races into this...This is about morals, not ethnics.
It would be the same if it was saving 30 black people by eating a white baby.
And what about my question is "as offensive as possible"?

 

[HappyPillz]

your argument is a flawed one, the 10 people were gonna die regardless, what you have done is simply killed 4 people by your hand. At least killing should be a last resort.

Yes the 10 people WERE going to die regardless, but my question was about killing. Say there is some kind of disaster, and anyone who stays behind dies. You have a boat that can only hold 6 people excluding yourself. How do you make that choice?

 

[HappyPillz]

Back to the subject at hand though. Is killing ever okay? Examining the issue further, I don't think killing is okay even in terms of self-defence. It is still tabboo if you end up boasting about it, people sometimes end up terribly scarred by the experience, and in the end it just seems like people try to sweep it under the rug with a self-defence ruling and try to pretend it didn't happen. As previously outlined I don't think the law in general doesn't make many efforts to be a morally sound system. Completely accidental killing, wherein you could not have taken any measures in your power to stop it happening, would be acceptable on the other hand - but these are rare and far between - if you had no control over the situation whatsoever (such as an -unprecedented- mechanical fault for example that had no telltale signs of occuring before the incident) then it can't reasonably be considered at your expense.

Likewise, I don't understand the belief that killing some in favour for more or others can be morally justified. By numbers you are 'winning', but, would you really want someone to consider you little more than a numerical representation of a person? They are a person, they may not be saintly or even good or even deserve your kindness, but for all you know you might've been born in the same shoes and ended up in their spot - and they deserve life just as much as you do in that reasoning. Courtesy to them is to yourself. I don't understand the 'survival as a species' bit either in committing massacres. If we're willing to make such sacrifices of our own flesh and blood, so brutally and in a calculating fashion, do we really deserve to survive at all? Evil begets evil. You never achieve a morally positive act through use of evil means no matter the motivation. That would be like saying 1 + 1 = 3.

I don't even want to consider those situations where you supposedly have 'no choice' and 'must' decide. What sort of deranged madness is that? There are -always- choices, even if that choice is to not partake at all and let everyone die. You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. There is no middleground in this.

By taking away life you are removing someone's right to exist. How do you make a judgement call on that, even? By their actions? Can you really understand their motivations? Think about all the times you've yourself been misunderstood, or someone has presumed something in error, or anything along those lines. How about all those secret thoughts and ideas that you have which will never know the light of day to another living person? I don't know, let's throw in another difficult factor, maybe they're mentally ill? For all you know this person is far more justified in their decisions and actions than you are in deciding to wipe them off the earth.

I break killing down to 3 scenarios:
There is killing for the sake of killing, which is wrong and unjustified.
There is Killing to save yourself, which is still wrong, but at least justified
Then there is killing for the benefit of everyone, which CAN be right and justified.

Accidental killing is just that, accidental, and can't be moraly right/wrong because no choices were made.

As for killing the few to save the many, while not necessarily moraly right, is still logicaly and statisticaly right, making it justified.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Of course killing isn't always wrong. People just aren't of equal value. This is essentially saying that someone is a precious little snowflake because they exist. What kind of fucking criteria is that? You breathe therefore you are good?

Bullshit.

 

[Shycte]

In self defence maybe.

Killing is never the right way.

 

[The Cheezy One]

this isnt a search bar rant, and is actually very little to do with this, but it was about "is killing ok if:" the guy was just trying to be as offensive as possible to boost the number of people replying
it was basically at the point of "if you could save 30 white people by eating a black baby, is it ok?"
OT(because that wasnt): yes, if you are forced to by your government/more important factors

You are the only person to bring races into this...This is about morals, not ethnics.
It would be the same if it was saving 30 black people by eating a white baby.
And what about my question is "as offensive as possible"?

i did say it had very little to do with this, it just reminded me of a thread i had seen before
reading it again, i didnt make that clear, sorry!

 

[HappyPillz]

this isnt a search bar rant, and is actually very little to do with this, but it was about "is killing ok if:" the guy was just trying to be as offensive as possible to boost the number of people replying
it was basically at the point of "if you could save 30 white people by eating a black baby, is it ok?"
OT(because that wasnt): yes, if you are forced to by your government/more important factors

You are the only person to bring races into this...This is about morals, not ethnics.
It would be the same if it was saving 30 black people by eating a white baby.
And what about my question is "as offensive as possible"?

i did say it had very little to do with this, it just reminded me of a thread i had seen before
reading it again, i didnt make that clear, sorry!

Ah, I see what you meant now. You were refering to a different thread. I guess I miss read and thought you were talking about this one. Ah well, my bad.

 

[Sneaky Paladin]

Depends who you kill and why. Now ask your sister if she would kill hitler and save millions of jews or not do it because it's wrong because I sure as hell would

 

[aebonhawk]

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.

I agree. Concepts of right and wrong are relative. No one has the exact same definition for right and wrong. Dead is dead how or why a person died doesn't change that fact so what does it matter if it is right or wrong?

 

[The Cheezy One]

Ah, I see what you meant now. You were refering to a different thread. I guess I miss read and thought you were talking about this one. Ah well, my bad.

no, i insist, it was my bad phrasing
i went through the post, editing it before i actually posted it, but as i did so i forgot to put in that it was actually a different thread