Poll: Is it ever moral to kill when it is not in self defense?
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He actually will admit that no "true" communist state has ever occured, but thinks those were close.GreyWolf257 said:
I think he's just a dreamer, my friend. Just let him bask in his own ignorance.2012 Wont Happen said:
Well, no, I'm generally opposed to killing humans.
You don't have to kill people in a position of power to remove them, think of Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, he's been executed but he was captured alive.
If the guy dies while we try to apprehend him, well, too bad.
But we shouldn't aim for killing him.
You don't have to kill people in a position of power to remove them, think of Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, he's been executed but he was captured alive.
If the guy dies while we try to apprehend him, well, too bad.
But we shouldn't aim for killing him.
If a person or group of individuals attempt to cause harm to me, my family, or those I care for harm, then I shall resist. With violence, if necessary. However, I hope I need not be placed into a situation that requires such measures. The morality of such an act is up in the air. On one hand, you're defending yourself/those you care for. On the other hand, you are taking life/lives.
You would be willing to ignore the possibility (especially in Hitler's case) of winning the war in Germany's favor, or retarding the development of several important technologies brought on by the war? You would allow the possibility of killing Hitler while the Nazis were in power and allowing a new, more intelligent leader to take his place and not do stupid crap like invading the USSR while simultaneously fighting Britain or something of that manner. Perhaps if you were to track down and kill him while he was still an aspiring painter then Germany would never have risen again as a world superpower, but who knows what the Soviets, lacking the massive casualties they sustained in the war against the fascist beast, would have done? Who knows how much exactly science would have suffered without all the achievements made during the war. And without the Holocaust, what would have been the fate of the Jews? A hated people doomed to forever be a minority. Who knows, as horrible as World War Two and the horrors of Nazi Germany were, some very good things came from them.Kuchinawa212 said:
Hitler was an irreplaceable genius. He was hailed as a god by the people, and his death would demoralize the population to the point of surrender. As for scientific progress, Nuclear technology was well underway pre-WWII, and we simply would have built nukes a decade later.Dancingman said:
Also, Israel is a happy place.
There is never a morally clean way to kill someone, not even in self-defense. In your Hitler example, killing him would be the greater good (the greater good) or the ends justifying the means or whatnot but it's still immoral nonetheless. In fact, if you do something for the greater good (the greater good) you're probably the bad guy if movie logic is applied IRL.
To the point of surrender? I doubt it, an ample leader, and god knows there were a scary amount of skilled people working for the Nazi regime, could have swayed the German people to his side by cleverly playing the "martyr" (i.e. let's win this for our dear departed fuhrer) card. Some of Hitler's blunders cost Germany the war, though he almost vetoed the production of the Stg-44, weapons producers went around it, and he invaded the USSR as per his old ambition of doing so, his insistence on proceeding with extermination plans also wound up diverting trains that could have been used for the war effort. He was an impressive leader, but far from an irreplaceable genius.Kubanator said:
Also, for tech, I'm discussing more about the breakthroughs in medicine {penicillin) and of course, the rocket program from Germany which was repurposed for American use after we got out hands on the lion's share of Germany's rocket scientists.
Also, without the Holocaust, not meaning to endorse it here or anything, but Israel probably would not have come around, that event was a wake-up call to the world about the plight of the Jews and united it in support of the Jewish plight.
I would say so. The question is "is it moral," not "is it legal." In my opinion, there are situations where murder is justified.
If they fire at you with the intention to kill, and you shot back and killed them, you're conscience is cleared.
You would have to define moral to start with, because there's no set in stone morality in the universe as far as we can determine. But if you mean moral in the sense that the end justifies the means then yes, of course. If you know someone is going to kill many other people then logically killing them would be less of a violation of ethics. Heck, police and soldiers go by this notion, I mean it's unlikely that many of them go out with the intention of killing but it happens, they may have to kill someone not for their own self defense but rather in the defense of others.