I haven;t gotten the time to get to know A & B on a deep personal level, so their moral dilemmas aren't my problem.
Philosophical/Ethical problem
- Thread starter Avdutch
- Start date
Recommended Videos
despite his victim, since it was an act commited for 'evil reasons' then he's clearly dysfunctional, and his victim was circumstantial and could easily have been and will most likely be in the future, anyone else. thus he has revealed himself for what he is and brought upon himself the wrath of those who call for 'justice'. case closed.
Even putting aside legal issues, murder is such an inelegant solution. Sure it's final, but in a clinical sense. There's no poetry to it.
For a 'completely evil person' (ludicrous for a number of reasons) there is far more you can do to them than simply kill them. If anything, person B should be punished for not being imaginative enough.
For a 'completely evil person' (ludicrous for a number of reasons) there is far more you can do to them than simply kill them. If anything, person B should be punished for not being imaginative enough.
Why cares? There's one less evil person around. The quesiton is whether it is right or wrong for a good person to kill an evil person.
Edit: By the way, evil is defined as working against what is deemed as morally correct and morals are essentially subject to the society that upholds them.
Edit: By the way, evil is defined as working against what is deemed as morally correct and morals are essentially subject to the society that upholds them.
simple answer: yes, he deserves to be punished. the basic social contract says that we, as individuals, gain protection of a governement. for example protection from violence and murder attempts. the payoff is that the monopoly of force goes to this governement. only the governement body is allowed to use force.
grossely simplified, i know, but good enough for this.
the murderer violated the social contract and has to be punished, unless he acted in a manner that grants an exeption to the monopoly of force. self defense or the defense of innocents would be possible exeptions.
another possible point would be the rights of men.
i know the concept is pretty foreign to many people in the united states, but one of the rights of men is the right for life. and the basic human rights are, as we know, invulnerable (certain exeptions again, prison for isntance)
grossely simplified, i know, but good enough for this.
the murderer violated the social contract and has to be punished, unless he acted in a manner that grants an exeption to the monopoly of force. self defense or the defense of innocents would be possible exeptions.
another possible point would be the rights of men.
i know the concept is pretty foreign to many people in the united states, but one of the rights of men is the right for life. and the basic human rights are, as we know, invulnerable (certain exeptions again, prison for isntance)
My best response to the OP is to say that The Boondock Saints sucked. As far as the situation playing out IRL, he should be arrested and prosecuted. The defense can plead out to a lesser charge if the prosecution determines that A was such a shitbag that B really had to do it.
Well if you kill B then it really is "killing two birds with one stone". Really, killing B is the best option here because you no longer have A or B!
Avdutch said:
Well if you are wanting to keep legal reasons out then I would assume you wouldn't want society's view of it. Therefore just judging the ethics of it from the perspective of Person A and Person B, no he shouldn't. My reasoning will be formed from the thought that since I am to believe both men are "evil", and since that which makes something evil is rather subjective then both of these men are "evil" for the same reasons for me to find them evil. Then following that Person B is not doing anything wrong from their perspectives since neither one of them would consider what they do to be "evil". I'll then assume judgement is being rendered from just the one person's ethics (person B) since 1. Person A is now dead and can't render his view and agree upon with person B as to what ethics are, and 2. since the ethics of others in society, ie pretty much what makes the standards for laws that govern a society (since pretty much laws are agreed upon ethics for a society in question), is being ignored in this case. Therefore if only person B's perspective and ethics are to be used then there is no reason to punish in his eyes because from his perspective he did nothing wrong by his standards of ethics. He was just doing something that is normal by his and person A's way of life.
Awesome, lots of replies.
Anyway I've been thinking about this and some of you make a very good point, yes it is true that there is no 'objective' standard for evil or good and that morality is a difficult issue. However, there are certain things that are universally evil that are experienced as apathy by the individual committing them. (For instance stealing that shiny car, pleasure at getting the new car etc and also apathy regarding the owners/consequences etc).
Anyway, what I think is that 'yes he deserves to be punished because his intentions were evil'. I don't see this as an ends justify the means case because I feel this problem falls entirely outside that. (having an 'evil' motive, as an example a break-in gone wrong or something, can't be defined as 'ends' or 'means'.)
My background in philosophy isn't nearly enough to reasonably tackle this problem but I feel there are layers of complexity that I haven't even come close to scratching.
For instance: should person B's punishment be less compared to if he had killed a 'good' person. (I think that it shouldn't, that the fact that he had an 'evil' motive is grounds enough for the harshest possible punishment to be bestowed upon him.)
Oh and maybe I should clarify, while legal issues are of course very hard to avoid with this issue, by 'try to keep them out of it' I mean I wouldn't like to see legal reasons as a motivation for punishment/prosecution. At some point you will of course face the legal system to determine punishment, that's only realistic.
Anyway I've been thinking about this and some of you make a very good point, yes it is true that there is no 'objective' standard for evil or good and that morality is a difficult issue. However, there are certain things that are universally evil that are experienced as apathy by the individual committing them. (For instance stealing that shiny car, pleasure at getting the new car etc and also apathy regarding the owners/consequences etc).
Anyway, what I think is that 'yes he deserves to be punished because his intentions were evil'. I don't see this as an ends justify the means case because I feel this problem falls entirely outside that. (having an 'evil' motive, as an example a break-in gone wrong or something, can't be defined as 'ends' or 'means'.)
My background in philosophy isn't nearly enough to reasonably tackle this problem but I feel there are layers of complexity that I haven't even come close to scratching.
For instance: should person B's punishment be less compared to if he had killed a 'good' person. (I think that it shouldn't, that the fact that he had an 'evil' motive is grounds enough for the harshest possible punishment to be bestowed upon him.)
Oh and maybe I should clarify, while legal issues are of course very hard to avoid with this issue, by 'try to keep them out of it' I mean I wouldn't like to see legal reasons as a motivation for punishment/prosecution. At some point you will of course face the legal system to determine punishment, that's only realistic.
I think the thing with these questions is that they are set up in some sort of metaphorical "Laboratory" space, isolated from mainstream society so that we can extract some sort of "pure" philosophical answer.
On the contrary, i don't think we can isolate ethical questions from their wider social context- application is the ultimate use of ethics after all, so we have to consider what were the circumstances surrounding the murder and such.
But from what i'm given in the question, B has to be punished because for good reasons it's illegal to take another life in most states. B could only get away with it if it were murder in self-defence.
On the contrary, i don't think we can isolate ethical questions from their wider social context- application is the ultimate use of ethics after all, so we have to consider what were the circumstances surrounding the murder and such.
But from what i'm given in the question, B has to be punished because for good reasons it's illegal to take another life in most states. B could only get away with it if it were murder in self-defence.
If B killed A for evil reasons, that means that the killing would have consequences more far-reaching than the simple death of A. So, yes, B should be punished.