Can killing be justified?

[X-07]

I prefer to take the Boondock Saints approach to this argument. If someone were to go around killing off all of the drug dealers, serial killers, pimps, and mafiosos would you lose any sleep over it? Because I certainly wouldnt.

Every day we see evil men released back onto the streets because no one is willing to do what is necessary to remove them. The difference would be environment, if you are some rich white person in a gated community, it is much easier to say that it is wrong to kill someone. But if you are living in a barrio or a project you almost pray that some of those gangsters who are threatening your kids everyday to just drop dead.

 

[rex922]

Kill only in self-defense
imprison the rest

 

[Tdc2182]

In almost every case. Many of us deserve to die, some just need it alot more than others.

But dont take my word if you ever become in charge of who needs to die. I am pretty harsh when it comes to punishment.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Yes. It can be justified.

If you're trying to argue for an absolute morality, I would suggest such a thing cannot be proven one way or another.

Part of what makes The Punisher (especially in MAX) such a compelling protagonist is that he doesn't TRY to rationalize what he does, but at the same time he never compromises his ideals. He just doesn't explain them away, either.

I think we should take some of our jailed lifetime killers and re-purpose them to better serve the needs of society.

"If you kill these ten people, we'll grant you a pardon. Kill anyone else and you get the chair. Kill anyone after you've finished your assignment and you get the chair. Got it? Oh, and if you ever try to leave the country again in your entire life, you get the chair."

 

[AWDMANOUT]

Yeah.

I live in Texas.

Somebody breaks into your house, kill em.

We don't eff around.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

In which year? Around 1941 shooting him would have left more competent people in charge.

To the OP: Yes, it can be justified, but bear in mind:

"When you set out to destroy all evil, you must end by destroying yourself."

Anyone who threatens the security of the people will be executed. Evil for evil, Harry. Retribution.

-That's just fine. But how does murder fit in? When police start becoming their own executioners ... where's it gonna end, Briggs? Pretty soon, you'll start executing people for jaywalking. And executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor 'cause his dog pisses on your lawn.

 

[Biosophilogical]

What purpose does killing him serve? I mean, if he can be rehabilitated, you effectively save a life, if he cannot then keeping him locked up would serve the purpose of sparing future victims, while killing him would serve the purpose of saving the resources required to have him imprisoned for his entire life. So yes, death can be justified, but it would take years of psychological analysis and dozens of professional opinions and studies to make sure that rehabilitation was truly impossible.

 

[Downfall89]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

Exactly. This.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

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.

 

[DayDark]

Killing should be avoided, if it can, but if you can't avoid it, than it justified. Like say, someone is going to shoot a child and you don't have time to help them with whatever made them become that way, then you must pick the lesser evil and just kill him.

 

[Keava]

Self defense, if just injury wont cut it - yes. As for death row id be all up for it if not the fact that there is always chance you are sentencing an innocent person, if there is even a slightest possibility that the person is not guilty despite all the evidence, just life time should cut it.
The reason why im not fully against death penalty is because some victims may not have chance to defend themselves.By eliminating the threat you protect any possible further victims from that one person at least.

 

[Safe in the Dark]

No, if there is a god then no matter why you killed someone you will do your turn in hell. Ending the life of another is horrid and to "justify" such an act is just an attempt to console the soul. The harsh reality is killing is killing, and those who kill, be it their job or some sick twisted reason, will burn in hell for the appropriated length of time. Cause it turns out hell isn't forever, you roast for a time, then once you have atoned, you go to heaven. (what do you know, god might not be such a dick after all.)

I'm not religious but I'd rather dine in hell than let a killer walk the earth.

 

[Kiereek]

A philosophical point of view says no. Any means which result in the sacrifice of another human being's life is a moral no-no. If you push a fat man in front of a trolly to stop it from killing 10 people it's still morally wrong. However, if you sacrifice yourself well that's okay.

Legally, conditions can allow you to kill someone, but not be held culpable for your actions include, but not limited to: Self-defence, someone forcing you to do something by threatening you or someone else, and if you didn't know it was wrong (yes I know that sounds shakey, but people have gotten their case dropped on it). These are still argueable in court. Just because someone comes at you with a bat it does not give license to shoot them.

Militarily, a combatant is always subject to be killed, no debate needed. Although some, such as Wazler, recommend that due care be taken in order to save even combatant lives. In other words, if the enemy is all unarmed and bathing in a watering hole, you have a bit of a moral obligation as humans to take them alive, although if you wanted to shoot them that wouldn't result in a penalty towards you.

 

[Sansha]

I believe 'shits and gigs' is justification for anything.

 

[atombeast707]

fuck yes killing can be justified. look at the premise for law abiding citizen. to me, that is perfectly justified for him to kill those people, and Darby needed to die. an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but if someone takes your balls, you have every right to take his pinky finger. in other words, a one time killer shouldn't be tortured or anything, but people like Hitler and Charles Manson need to be killed in horrible fucking ways. this serves as both a punishment and a deterrent for other people to become serial killers.