Can killing be justified?

[Edavies696]

zombie apocalypse, racking up the zombie kill count that be justified

 

[Ekonk]

massive snippage

That's a nice piece of writing there, but there are still multiple ways that could have been solved without killing. Even a warning shot would probably have done the trick. Or a shot in the leg. Seriously, if you would have shot that man right in the head, you think those girls wouldn't have been traumatized? It's far from the perfect solution, and in the end you'll still have killed a man. Which is wrong.

 

[Billion Backs]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

Because Hitler is the ultimate "evil". And allies have never murdered thousands of Japanese and Germans civilians through bombing and firebombing during WW2.

And there's never been other major genocides done for equally stupid reasons... The Crusades, for one thing.

I say they should change the law if you take someones life yours must be taken as punishment. Only fair i think.

Like in Cumbria that guy who went on a mad one, if he didn't kill himself he should have been shot for what he did.

Yes, because eye for eye is the best approach to anything. Naaaawt.

 

[Vorlayn]

Serial killers are either sick, in which case they need treatment, or evil, in which case they need to be removed from society as permanently as possible. However, the death penalty is irreversible, which means you'll be killing innocents. Might as well lock em up, that's cheaper anyway.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Oh, yes, it totally can.
Death penalties, self-defense and the defense of others are all extremely justified.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

massive snippage

That's a nice piece of writing there, but there are still multiple ways that could have been solved without killing. Even a warning shot would probably have done the trick. Or a shot in the leg. Seriously, if you would have shot that man right in the head, you think those girls wouldn't have been traumatized? It's far from the perfect solution, and in the end you'll still have killed a man. Which is wrong.

Yeah, I know, it was far from the perfect situational example.

I just ad-libbed it as an attempt to get the reader to a mental place where the count-down would be heading into "for christ's sake shoot him already" country.

Anyway, you can't shoot to wound. If you're not trying to kill him, you shouldn't be shooting at him at all, and if you're not prepared to kill him you shouldn't be pointing it at him.

Also: dead men can't sue you.

 

[BanZeus]

The situations are "morally gray" precisely because people justify killing every day.

What's muddying the water is the subtext: "When is it right to kill?"

Well I thought it was mainly because abortion is already it's own topic with no real black or white answer and whether or not judicial systems are just is also it's own issue.

I don't agree. If you're going to exclude war, vegan lifestyle, destruction of natural habitat, any number of other topic that have killing as a core theme under the premise that they're self contained unresolved discussions, you're going to be left with a pretty bare tree.

In this context I'm not concerned with the morality of these issues, I'm pointing out the absurdity of our own internal filters. Abortion and execution are two examples of 'justified' killing. The perceived rightness or wrongness of the act is irrelevant.

 

[Ekonk]

massive snippage

That's a nice piece of writing there, but there are still multiple ways that could have been solved without killing. Even a warning shot would probably have done the trick. Or a shot in the leg. Seriously, if you would have shot that man right in the head, you think those girls wouldn't have been traumatized? It's far from the perfect solution, and in the end you'll still have killed a man. Which is wrong.

Yeah, I know, it was far from the perfect situational example.

I just ad-libbed it as an attempt to get the reader to a mental place where the count-down would be heading into "for christ's sake shoot him already" country.

Anyway, you can't shoot to wound. If you're not trying to kill him, you shouldn't be shooting at him at all, and if you're not prepared to kill him you shouldn't be pointing it at him.

Also: dead men can't sue you.

I think that if he's dead the government will sue you. You're getting dragged into court anyway.

 

[wolf92]

There are situations were killing can be justified, like self defense or stopping someone from committing a Holocaust level genocide

 

[Riven Armor]

massive snippage

That's a nice piece of writing there, but there are still multiple ways that could have been solved without killing. Even a warning shot would probably have done the trick. Or a shot in the leg. Seriously, if you would have shot that man right in the head, you think those girls wouldn't have been traumatized? It's far from the perfect solution, and in the end you'll still have killed a man. Which is wrong.

Yeah, I know, it was far from the perfect situational example.

I just ad-libbed it as an attempt to get the reader to a mental place where the count-down would be heading into "for christ's sake shoot him already" country.

Anyway, you can't shoot to wound. If you're not trying to kill him, you shouldn't be shooting at him at all, and if you're not prepared to kill him you shouldn't be pointing it at him.

Also: dead men can't sue you.

I think that if he's dead the government will sue you. You're getting dragged into court anyway.

There will be an investigation, of course, but by no means is an impending suit of doom guaranteed. Self defense is still a valid claim in the US.

EDIT: Having read the hypothetical, not sure what the DA would think about that. Hm. But for all the people talking about shooting to wound...no such beast. Any kind of bullet hole has the possibility of death.

 

[Necrofudge]

I believe its wrong to kill a person up until they break that rule themselves. It classifies them (at least in my book) as no longer a human being but an animal to be put down.
humanely of course

 

[The Night Shade]

Yes it can be justified,like self-defense but other times too like killing a gang of thugs

 

[Ekonk]

massive snippage

That's a nice piece of writing there, but there are still multiple ways that could have been solved without killing. Even a warning shot would probably have done the trick. Or a shot in the leg. Seriously, if you would have shot that man right in the head, you think those girls wouldn't have been traumatized? It's far from the perfect solution, and in the end you'll still have killed a man. Which is wrong.

Yeah, I know, it was far from the perfect situational example.

I just ad-libbed it as an attempt to get the reader to a mental place where the count-down would be heading into "for christ's sake shoot him already" country.

Anyway, you can't shoot to wound. If you're not trying to kill him, you shouldn't be shooting at him at all, and if you're not prepared to kill him you shouldn't be pointing it at him.

Also: dead men can't sue you.

I think that if he's dead the government will sue you. You're getting dragged into court anyway.

There will be an investigation, of course, but by no means is an impending suit of doom guaranteed. Self defense is still a valid claim in the US.

EDIT: Having read the hypothetical, not sure what the DA would think about that. Hm. But for all the people talking about shooting to wound...no such beast. Any kind of bullet hole has the possibility of death.

Yeah, but this sure as hell wasen't self defense, duuuuuuuude.

 

[Riven Armor]

Yeah, I got that after I read the snip.

 

[BanZeus]

Yes, absolutely.

I was watching a movie "The Rock" a couple ays ago and it featured a scene where the president was agonising over the loss of 81 hostages versus 1million killed by a chemical weapon.

Seemed to me to be a total no-brainer and really could not get the angst.

Actually, you can break this down mathematically:

L = the value of human life

IF "you can't put a price on human life", then L = infinity

infinity * 81 = infinity

infinity * 1000000 = infinity

Therefore: 81L = 1000000L

 

[Valksy]

Yes, absolutely.

I was watching a movie "The Rock" a couple ays ago and it featured a scene where the president was agonising over the loss of 81 hostages versus 1million killed by a chemical weapon.

Seemed to me to be a total no-brainer and really could not get the angst.

Actually, you can break this down mathematically:

L = the value of human life

IF "you can't put a price on human life", then L = infinity

infinity * 81 = infinity

infinity * 1000000 = infinity

Therefore: 81L = 1000000L

I'll admit that sort of thinking was not on my mind and I gave up maths as a subject many years ago.

I was more in a sort of - needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few. Kill 81 to save a million just made sense.

 

[Naheal]

Would you let Hitler live?

Yes. People like that can be used.

It's not a matter of morality with me. It's a matter of efficiency. Can a criminal who would normally be sentenced to death be useful in some manor or another later on down the road?

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Like in Cumbria that guy who went on a mad one, if he didn't kill himself he should have been shot for what he did.

Yes, because eye for eye is the best approach to anything. Naaaawt.

A slap on the wrist on no pocket money for a week would be a suitable punishment then? It's only fair to have your life taken also now for killing someone you don't even go to prison for life!

 

[BanZeus]

...

EDIT: Having read the hypothetical, not sure what the DA would think about that. Hm. But for all the people talking about shooting to wound...no such beast. Any kind of bullet hole has the possibility of death.

While that's technically true, the intent to wound is different than the intent to kill. Then again, you probably shouldn't be shooting at a house that has 2 children inside...