Can killing be justified?

[micky]

if a man murders he deserves that same fate, if a man rapes he also deserves to die.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

If Hitler never started that War my grandfather would've never fled England and would never have met my grandmother in Australia, so.........

So you're saying 6 million deaths on his hands is worth it?

Yes. Why give a mass murderer the pleasure of death and having it all over, nothing bothering him?

Nah, I'd put him in a jail cell and prod him with a sharp stick 'till he dies anyway.

This is the only decent alternative except there is a possibility that he would be freed

i would

Care to explain your answer?

Mao wasn't a douche. Bad things happened under his rule, but he punished the ones who abused their power. he was a good man, with a little lack of controll over his subjects.

He let between 20-40 million people die and cause massive economic damage. People are still starving today as a result so you think he wasn't?

 

[MercurySteam]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

If Hitler never started that War my grandfather would've never fled England and would never have met my grandmother in Australia, so.........

So you're saying 6 million deaths on his hands is worth it?

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

 

[The Rockerfly]

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

For 6 million lives, yes. Nothing personal but I feel it's for the greater good

 

[MercurySteam]

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

For 6 million lives, yes. Nothing personal but I feel it's for the greater good

Yeah but the "greater good" is always more complicated.

You'd also need to account for all the babies that wouldn't have been born if the War never led to the generation of the Baby Boomers.

 

[The Rockerfly]

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

For 6 million lives, yes. Nothing personal but I feel it's for the greater good

Yeah but the "greater good" is always more complicated.

You'd also need to account for all the babies that wouldn't have been born if the War never led to the generation of the Baby Boomers.

However think about all the extra families there would be with 6 million more people. There might have been a boom due to WW2 but there would have been a much more stable population growth and families on average would live in better conditions due to the gradual change

 

[MercurySteam]

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

For 6 million lives, yes. Nothing personal but I feel it's for the greater good

Yeah but the "greater good" is always more complicated.

You'd also need to account for all the babies that wouldn't have been born if the War never led to the generation of the Baby Boomers.

However think about all the extra families there would be with 6 million more people. There might have been a boom due to WW2 but there would have been a much more stable population growth and families on average would live in better conditions due to the gradual change

How about we agree that since we do not know how things would've played out if the war never happed that while it was terrible, there's nothing wrong with how the world is shaped today.

 

[open trap]

I say hooray for population controll through murder

 

[Madkipz]

x1 snip combo!

x2 snip combo!

I've pulled these two posts out because you both mentioned rape as an offense that you'd allow the offender to be killed for.

*checks profiles*

Ok, you're both male, Anoctris is 7 years older than me and doesn't mention any religious beliefs, RedMenace has no further info, so I'm going to guess you're the same as the majority: Old enough to drink alcohol and get into pubs and clubs. Also, with no info on marital/relational status, I'm going to assume you are both single, heterosexual males, interested in women. If any of these assumptions are wrong, please tailor the following appropriately.

The reason I pulled that up is a discussion I had with my Law tutor a little while ago. I, like you, decided that rape is so bad that it should be an executable offense. He gave me a scenario:

You're on a night out. You're at a party, at a club, just chilling out with friends in a bar, whatever. Point is that you've been drinking in a social environment. You look up and you catch the eye of the gorgeous redhead on the other side of the room. You get up the courage and go and talk to her. You have a couple more drinks, dance a bit, then she grabs your hand and tells you she wants to go somewhere quieter. You go back to yours, and being as you are both drunk, one thing leads to another, and you sleep together.

You wake up in the morning, the redhead has left. About an hour later, the cops show up at your door and arrest you for rape.

Her side of the story:

Mandy's not having a good day. With only 6 weeks until she's set to marry her boyfriend, they have a blazing row. She storms out of the house, ends up meeting with some friends at a bar. She has a drink to steady her nerves, one drink turns to four, and suddenly thoughts of discontent turn to thoughts of revenge. She catches the eye of a guy in the corner, and decides that if her boyfriend is going to be in a bad mood when she arrives home, she may as well have fun whilst she's out. A couple more drinks, half an hour on the dance floor and she has a better idea: What if she doesn't go home tonight? That'd show him, let him stay up all night worrying about where she is. She grabs the guy who she's dancing with and tells him she wants to go back with him.

Mandy wakes up, the events of last night are all a bit blurry. She's got a thundering hangover, and she's... wait, where the hell is she? All she knows is that it's not her boyfriend, it's not her bed... Damn, what happened last night? I mean... She loves her boyfriend, there's no way that she'd go with a guy willingly, right? That means... Oh no! That means it must have been rape! She's off to the police station, he must have slipped something in her drink, there's no way that she'd have consented otherwise!

But hey, thanks to social perception, I'm sure a jury of your peers will TOTALLY believe you over a hot redhead who's standing in the witness box saying that you did it. Have fun with the electric chair, bucko, I'll take my chances with the justice system as it is, if that's cool?

Just a little something to take into consideration

yea because the more severe the punishment the less it will be investigated right? its not like they can disprove claims of drugs with a blood, urin test and thourough investigation.

 

[The Rockerfly]

How about we agree that since we do not know how things would've played out if the war never happed that while it was terrible, there's nothing wrong with how the world is shaped today.

Good plan, I don't want to get into a mssive argument about thins I don't know about

 

[tsb247]

It should be a last resort, but lethal force is perfectly justified in quite a few situations. Those who would argue that it is never necessary to take another life would only victimize themselves if they were ever put in a situation where they may have to. Then they probably wouldn't feel that way, but oh wait... They would be dead.

 

[MercurySteam]

How about we agree that since we do not know how things would've played out if the war never happed that while it was terrible, there's nothing wrong with how the world is shaped today.

Good plan, I don't want to get into a mssive argument about thins I don't know about

Great minds think alike

 

[Madkipz]

So you're saying that if you were in my position you would've prefered if the war hadn't started?

For 6 million lives, yes. Nothing personal but I feel it's for the greater good

Yeah but the "greater good" is always more complicated.

You'd also need to account for all the babies that wouldn't have been born if the War never led to the generation of the Baby Boomers.

If not for ww2 europe would never have had this socialist stance this early. genocide would not have been up for condemnation and nationalism / racism would have been a heated topic to this day. IF NOT for ww2 our society would be more imposing and demeaning, our industrial boom would have been slower warfare would still be about trenches and troops. No microwave oven, less entertainment for the masses. Perhaps the berlin wall would never have fallen as quickly.

so be carefull what you wish for, preventing evil in the past prevents us to learn and be better for it and darkens the future considerably.

 

[CincoDeMayo]

I think death is a cheap escape, let them suffer in a tiny cell until they die "au natural" from old age or disease.

 

[Xanadu84]

In matters of life and death, justice is a trivial thing compared to ruthless practicality. If killing a person prevents more deaths, then it is not only morally justified, it is a moral imperative: in terms of actual events, which is all that matters, a person who fails to kill a multiple murderer would, essentially, be a murderer from any perspective that truly matters. But if a murderer could just as easily be thrown in jail and left to rot, then killing is unjustified. Net effect is still a preventable death. When life is on the line, it is unjustifiable to let oneself be governed by flawed, biased systems like humans instinctive sense of morality.

 

[tsb247]

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.)

Try looking at it from a non-religious point of view.

Ok, no, there is no justification for taking anothers life unless you are truly ready for the consequences. Ending another persons life is wrong, this is my belief, not that of a religion, and that only a person who is really ready to do such a thing and realize that what they did was in fact murder, regardless of circumstance, is the only person who should. If you must kill to save your children do so, but do not think that you can do that and just move on, same goes with all things in life, be aware that what you are doing has consequences. Even a killer might have loved ones.

Of course there can be justification for taking a life. If faced with a situation where someone could easily take your life with malicious intent, and you choose to do nothing, you are placing your life in their hands.

How is that a good idea?

There are situations that occur where it is kill or be killed. We don't like to think that we will be put into those situations, but we cannot predict the future can we?

There are even laws concerning, "Justified Homicides," that cover the ass of a person defending themselves from an armed assailant. If the killing in question can be ruled to be justified by law enforcement, that's it! There are no reprecussions. Some people may find the event traumatizing, but most people I have spoken to who have had to defend themselves with lethal force don't lose any sleep over it.

The only problem with killing someone in self-defense are the civil suits that can be filed by the family. With a police report (depending on the circumstances), a lot of those can be dodged and dismissed quite easily.

It always burns me up when I hear about some homeowner who shot an armed gang-banger who broke into their home for reasons unknown to the homeowner, and the gang-bangers parents come on the TV and scream, "He was a good boy!"

 

[wordsmith]

x1 snip combo!

x2 snip combo!

I've pulled these two posts out because you both mentioned rape as an offense that you'd allow the offender to be killed for.

*checks profiles*

Ok, you're both male, Anoctris is 7 years older than me and doesn't mention any religious beliefs, RedMenace has no further info, so I'm going to guess you're the same as the majority: Old enough to drink alcohol and get into pubs and clubs. Also, with no info on marital/relational status, I'm going to assume you are both single, heterosexual males, interested in women. If any of these assumptions are wrong, please tailor the following appropriately.

The reason I pulled that up is a discussion I had with my Law tutor a little while ago. I, like you, decided that rape is so bad that it should be an executable offense. He gave me a scenario:

You're on a night out. You're at a party, at a club, just chilling out with friends in a bar, whatever. Point is that you've been drinking in a social environment. You look up and you catch the eye of the gorgeous redhead on the other side of the room. You get up the courage and go and talk to her. You have a couple more drinks, dance a bit, then she grabs your hand and tells you she wants to go somewhere quieter. You go back to yours, and being as you are both drunk, one thing leads to another, and you sleep together.

You wake up in the morning, the redhead has left. About an hour later, the cops show up at your door and arrest you for rape.

Her side of the story:

Mandy's not having a good day. With only 6 weeks until she's set to marry her boyfriend, they have a blazing row. She storms out of the house, ends up meeting with some friends at a bar. She has a drink to steady her nerves, one drink turns to four, and suddenly thoughts of discontent turn to thoughts of revenge. She catches the eye of a guy in the corner, and decides that if her boyfriend is going to be in a bad mood when she arrives home, she may as well have fun whilst she's out. A couple more drinks, half an hour on the dance floor and she has a better idea: What if she doesn't go home tonight? That'd show him, let him stay up all night worrying about where she is. She grabs the guy who she's dancing with and tells him she wants to go back with him.

Mandy wakes up, the events of last night are all a bit blurry. She's got a thundering hangover, and she's... wait, where the hell is she? All she knows is that it's not her boyfriend, it's not her bed... Damn, what happened last night? I mean... She loves her boyfriend, there's no way that she'd go with a guy willingly, right? That means... Oh no! That means it must have been rape! She's off to the police station, he must have slipped something in her drink, there's no way that she'd have consented otherwise!

But hey, thanks to social perception, I'm sure a jury of your peers will TOTALLY believe you over a hot redhead who's standing in the witness box saying that you did it. Have fun with the electric chair, bucko, I'll take my chances with the justice system as it is, if that's cool?

Just a little something to take into consideration

yea because the more severe the punishment the less it will be investigated right? its not like they can disprove claims of drugs with a blood, urin test and thourough investigation.

Already answered this argument, but hey:

Even if he didn't roofie her, you can get people so drunk that it has much the same effect. And guess what will appear when they do the blood and urine test? Masses of alcohol. What the test won't tell you is whether she drank it knowingly or not. By putting something in her drink, I don't just mean drugs. After 2 vodka and cokes, are you really going to notice when your next drink is a triple vodka and coke?