Philosophical/Ethical problem

[Avdutch]

Hey guys,

So I've been thinking, and the following problem just occured to me.
Say that you have two people, let's call them A and B. Now A is a completely evil human being. Person B is not much better. Now let's say that person B kills person A for evil reasons. (The actual reason does not matter, all that matters is that the reasons are in some form evil, use your own moral compass to define 'evil', let's just say that B kills A because he wants to rob A, just an example, don't overthink this bit).

Now keeping in mind all of the above, does B deserve to be punished for killing A? And if yes how? (Anything goes). Please use philosophical/ethical reasons to justify, and keep legal reasons out of it.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I haven't yet come up with an answer to this problem.

 

[bob1052]

Hey guys,

So I've been thinking, and the following problem just occured to me.
Say that you have two people, let's call them A and B. Now A is a completely evil human being. Person B is not much better. Now let's say that person B kills person A for evil reasons. (The actual reason does not matter, all that matters is that the reasons are in some form evil, use your own moral compass to define 'evil', let's just say that B kills A because he wants to rob A, just an example, don't overthink this bit).

Now keeping in mind all of the above, does B deserve to be punished for killing A? And if yes how? (Anything goes). Please use philosophical/ethical reasons to justify, and keep legal reasons out of it.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I haven't yet come up with an answer to this problem.

Should he be legally prosecuted, keep legal reasons out of it. Sounds good.

 

[Avdutch]

Hey guys,

So I've been thinking, and the following problem just occured to me.
Say that you have two people, let's call them A and B. Now A is a completely evil human being. Person B is not much better. Now let's say that person B kills person A for evil reasons. (The actual reason does not matter, all that matters is that the reasons are in some form evil, use your own moral compass to define 'evil', let's just say that B kills A because he wants to rob A, just an example, don't overthink this bit).

Now keeping in mind all of the above, does B deserve to be punished for killing A? And if yes how? (Anything goes). Please use philosophical/ethical reasons to justify, and keep legal reasons out of it.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I haven't yet come up with an answer to this problem.

Should he be legally prosecuted, keep legal reasons out of it. Sounds good.

Perhaps I should clarify. I am not asking if he should be legally prosecuted, I am asking whether he deserves to be punished. That is to say answer the following question: 'Is what B did wrong and if yes how does he deserve to be punished.'

 

[ramboman88]

Murder is murder. Since his reasoning was "evil" then there is no way for him to justify his actions on the ground that he was "doing everyone else a favor". Better he had killed someone who deserved it, but their actions and reasoning behind it leaves one to assume that they might end up killing again, and not necessarily someone who deserves it.

What if he wanted to steal biological weapons from him/her?

Anyways, murder is murder

 

[Wierdguy]

Yes. Theres really not much to it.

Doesnt matter if person A was a psycotic phedophile with a dossen children chained in his basement for his night time pleasures. Person B should still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Pinkamena]

Not sure. But I think I have to go with "yes".
But what if person B was a good person? Would that be any different? Doesn't the fact that Person B is evil make us more compelled to get him punished for the murder?

 

[DannyBoy451]

Since there are no objective external standards for morality then your question really doesn't have an answer.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Depends how "evil" A was. If A was a mass murderer and was still at large than I doubt many would like to see B punished. However this applies to B as well; if B were also a mass murderer than B would need to be apprehended anyway.

This is why your question is a bit of a false dichotomy.

 

[Avaholic03]

So it's basically the Boondock Saints debate, only assuming they killed the bad guys for the wrong reasons. Well, it doesn't matter what your motives are, killing is killing. I would say they deserve to be punished, but I would also be glad that the evil person A is dead.

 

[bob1052]

Hey guys,

So I've been thinking, and the following problem just occured to me.
Say that you have two people, let's call them A and B. Now A is a completely evil human being. Person B is not much better. Now let's say that person B kills person A for evil reasons. (The actual reason does not matter, all that matters is that the reasons are in some form evil, use your own moral compass to define 'evil', let's just say that B kills A because he wants to rob A, just an example, don't overthink this bit).

Now keeping in mind all of the above, does B deserve to be punished for killing A? And if yes how? (Anything goes). Please use philosophical/ethical reasons to justify, and keep legal reasons out of it.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I haven't yet come up with an answer to this problem.

Should he be legally prosecuted, keep legal reasons out of it. Sounds good.

Perhaps I should clarify. I am not asking if he should be legally prosecuted, I am asking whether he deserves to be punished. That is to say answer the following question: 'Is what B did wrong and if yes how does he deserve to be punished.'

Punishing someone without legal grounds is quite unethical in society.

 

[William MacKay]

yes he should. if it were for non-evil reasons, it could be justifiable homicide.

 

[Sajuuk-khar]

I think B should be punished. The world is indeed better off without A (probably), however the murder was morally bad because it happened for evil reasons. A being evil doesn't change B being evil as well. The fact that B got rid of A not because he thought it was for the best means B doesn't really care about people's moral position and thus would probably not care killing a good person either (and still have killed A).
That said B was an evil human being so society would probably be better off without B as well anyways (regardless of what happened to A).

What if B wasn't evil? I have to admit I can somewhat sympathise with vigilantism, however not having an independant objective body being the judge causes chaos and arbitrariness.

 

[ramboman88]

Ends justify the means.

As far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that in this case, B killing A is the means... but the end is left as an ambiguously described "evil".

I don't think someone could justify "killing" on the grounds that it was necessary in order to produce an "evil deed".

 

[Someperson307]

B should be killed because he is evil and will probably do something evil to a person that doesn't deserve it. His murder of a person that is also evil is most likely a coincidence.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Define Evil.

Anyways if both are by my definition "evil" (or better put, i dont like their ways, generally an evil person is a threat to my way of life and the life of those around me, or things that affect my life) Wether B deserves punishment for killing A is irrelevant, he is by my personal definition evil, and therefore his punishment would be beneficial.

murder is murder

Murder isnt acctually universally bad, only by society's standard.

Well actually, murder as an isolated event can be seen as bad simply due to teh fact that it ends sentient capacity. I mean, if you had two people in the world, on opposite sides. So they didn't know about each other, and there was no-one for them to hurt. Now let's then assume that one person is exactly what a child-molesting, bank-robbing, murdering, etc person would be if they didn't have opportunity. Now person B kills person A for no reason (somehow person B found person A).

Even though person A is a horrible person, he hasn't and cannot harm anyone, so the only thing being ended is his capacity for experience. So by my standards, the actual murder of person A is a bad thing.

In the context of the OPs scenario, I'd say that nobody should be punished, because punishment is just 'an eye for an eye'. The proper course of action would be to remove person B from society because he poses a threat to other human beings. During this separation, rehabilitation of B should be a high priority, as the purpose shouldn't be to punish B, or to separate B, but rather to make it so that B can live his life without harming or threatening other people. Now the thing is, if B was a good person, and had only killed A because it was the only way to protect someone else (like B's family/friends, and only if there wasn't another way, so if the police didn't have any evidence to act on for either an arrest or protective custody), then B should, in an ideal world, receive counselling for his actions (for his benefit, and to make sure that he isn't a bigger threat to other people than the average person), during which time he should be limited in his social interactions merely as a safety precaution.

 

[Del-Toro]

See, to me, killing really isn't inherently wrong. Certainly killing can be wrong, and often is, but there can be a lot of benefits to getting rid of someone, for example, they are no longer able to do any harm. I know you can rebuke with "put him in jail" but I don't really care for that answer. To me, jail is something you use to punish someone for a limited period of time or to keep someone who's dangerous but not gallows dangerous from hurting others who might actually be good and productive. They could escape, the trial could not go too well for the prosecution, the list goes on. The only way to be truly sure they don't strike again is to put them down for the dirt nap. That's cold logic speaking, so I can understand if someone might find that view distasteful, because I for realzies didn't take emotions into account.

Now, as to the specific incident in question:

B should be killed because he is evil and will probably do something evil to a person that doesn't deserve it. His murder of a person that is also evil is most likely a coincidence.

This is my view, basically, you said the dude was "evil", and his actions demonstrate willingness to kill and his motives demonstrate that he doesn't really need a good reason to do so (dude's trying to rape and kill your girlfriend, so you, in the heat of the moment, strike him dead, that's a "good" reason to kill someone by my particular compass). It sounds like he already had punishment coming, and this act demonstrates, at the very least, that someone better bring the hammer down before he does. My answer, therefore, is yes, but not for the oft cited reason that "killing is wrong", it's more on the grounds that "this particular act was unjustified and demonstrates what could happen to an innocent if action isn't taken".

 

[Rex Fallout]

Hey guys,

So I've been thinking, and the following problem just occured to me.
Say that you have two people, let's call them A and B. Now A is a completely evil human being. Person B is not much better. Now let's say that person B kills person A for evil reasons. (The actual reason does not matter, all that matters is that the reasons are in some form evil, use your own moral compass to define 'evil', let's just say that B kills A because he wants to rob A, just an example, don't overthink this bit).

Now keeping in mind all of the above, does B deserve to be punished for killing A? And if yes how? (Anything goes). Please use philosophical/ethical reasons to justify, and keep legal reasons out of it.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, I haven't yet come up with an answer to this problem.

Being Evil, and doing evil are entirely different things. I may be considered evil by most people's standards, I refuse to give to the poor most of the time, find no pity in my heart for the starving masses, and believe that the economic depression was caused by socialism. People disagree with me, and may even label me as, 'evil' but does that mean that if I am murdered I don't deserve the respect to have justice given to the wrong doer? If person A has done nothing wrong then hell yeah B should be persecuted and sentenced to at least life in prison for murder. No questions asked.

 

[callit4]

Define Evil. Evil is a generic social concept, no one has ever believed them-self to be evil. Personally I believe everyone that believes them-self important enough to end a life should in turn have their life ended(kind of a contradiction but it is the only solution I can fathom). Murder is never acceptable the fact that it is so commonplace is testament to how stupid our species is.
Does the person that kills the murderer "deserve" to die?

 

[Scabadus]

Absolutely, B should be punished. With the possible exception of a legally permitted execution, murder is murder. In any practical situation, if B knew A's location then B could call the police/army/batman to apprehend them (and possibly end up killing A depending on the situation, but at least this would be an official, documented police/army squad using what we could hope is reasonable force). If B just ups and kills A for good reasons then B's a vigilante and they never end up with Happily Ever Afters in real life; if B kills A for evil reasons then B's a dick and the next person they kill probably won't be pure evil.

 

[Extravagance]

Many problems with this, and no answer, so here goes:

The first problem: The moral grounds by which I judge A or B are not necessarily the moral grounds by which they live. It is therefore difficult/impossible to call for the punishment of A or B, because we do not operate along the ethical lines. It is also impossible to judge them as moral/immoral persons under anything other than a personal moral basis - and so is not applicable.

The second problem: If both A and B are judged by myself to be roughly equally immoral ("evil"/"good" are very complicated terms to use), then it could be easily considered a moral act for A or B to hurt/kill the other. The removeal of an immoral person is generally considered a moral act.

The third problem: There is a difference between Intention and Action. If the intention is immoral, but the act moral then how do I judge it? And vice versa. It would be necessary to find out the intentions of both A and B both before, during, and after the scenario.

The fourth problem: Judgement and punishment are both part of a legal system, and can only be part of a legal system. Anything else is a personal descision and therefore not justifiable using anything other than personal morals (see problem 1).

The fifth problem: Killing/murder are entirely subject to personal morals. There is no other way to judge these acts and give some kind of seperation of the two, without resorting to a legal defenition - often based on an originally personal ideal.

In essence, there is no true answer. Everyone who comes up with something with this will base it on their personal moral attitudes. Things like 'good' and 'evil' are extremely subjective and there are so many modifiers that it is fairly impossible to come up with a singular answer that would satisfy everyone. These problems are all without the inclusion of Religion, particularly the Christian conventions, that often further complicated ethics. So yeah. I've not given a proper answer, because there just isn't one.