Someone's been watching House.2012 Wont Happen said:
And yea, I wouldn't say it's a shady area, I don't think I would call someone a bad person for killing someone like Hitler, they'd have to live with it though.
Poll: Is it ever moral to kill when it is not in self defense?
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And yea, I wouldn't say it's a shady area, I don't think I would call someone a bad person for killing someone like Hitler, they'd have to live with it though.
Agreed totally. As long as proper regualtion is in place, I can't see any reason not to allow assisted suicide.Berethond said:
I also think that rounding up an killing off holocaust deniers is okay, just for the irony value
Depends on if you define it was "In defense of self or others" or just "In defense of self".2012 Wont Happen said:
Legally, "Self-defense" also includes the defense of others, I believe. That or its a seperate, valid defense.
As for going back in time and killing Hitler, as some people have suggested, I would argue that that is not moral, as you'd be wiping us out time. The butterfly effect and quantum variance would ensure everyone alive today would never have been born.
That said, if someone popped a dictator like Mugabe's head, I'd pat them on the back for hopefully protecting lives.
Of course, you're not just pulling a trigger are you?Ridley200 said:
That's like saying 'would you say no to push a button' when that button launches a nuke that wipes out a quarter of the planet. Or 'would you say no to waving a knife around' when that knife is right next to a child's face.
YEs if you could go in time to kill someone and cause a time paradox that would be reallyKuchinawa212 said:
helpful.
Also killing hitler would mean World war 2 would have never happened therefor the SOviet union
woudl have risen in power and you would have created a new Cold/Nuclear war.
And to all the others whohave said something like this...Kuchinawa212 said:
Chaos theory. If you go back and jkill someone you could change the entire timeline. You go back and kill Hitler, you may never be born...and according to some theories, You go back, you kill Hitler, but then you're never born, so you didn't kill Hitler. So Hitler remains alive, and you get born...
I would personally lay down the argument that killing a total hateful evil bastard who doesn't deserve to live IS self-defense on the basis that he/she was going to totally hatefully bastard us all to death. Or, as it's put in some states, "He needed killing". (Note: This is a legitimate defense.)
Well, that would depend on the individuals morals.
Me I'd say yes. But my morals are quite different from most.
Me I'd say yes. But my morals are quite different from most.
You forgot the ever important, kill Hitler and NJBIH(Nice Job Breaking It Hero). Suddenly their is an evil vacuum and the universe demands bad shit go down during that time period so... Super Hitler.Eykal said:
It is never moral to kill someone. In self defence or to stop tyranny is still not a good reason, but you still have to do it.
I apologize for not properly quoting you earlier. So you are saying that as long as they are nameless faces with "no value" you would be perfectly in favor of killing them?Kubanator said:
How do you determine if y > x? How do you determine if one people is better than another?
A thread called "Is this wrong?" was slighty similar to this on the grounds that it was asking if killing someone or their loved one was ok if they had killed someone you loved first as a 'punishment' to you. I will say what I did on there.
I find killing when not in self defence should only be done if it helps someone else rather then protecting myself. Also if that person has killed a loved one then blind rage would make me seek revenge on them or someone they loved. I know that may sound harsh considering their loved one did nothing to us but if you think about it, what did your loved one do to them.
If they want to kill you then they should kill you, not kill your loved one out of spite to torture you instead. In which case, do the same back. They deserve it...
Otherwise no killing is wrong. I hate seeing random people being killed for no apparent reason other then the murderer's fun or perhaps misunderstanding at some point.
I find killing when not in self defence should only be done if it helps someone else rather then protecting myself. Also if that person has killed a loved one then blind rage would make me seek revenge on them or someone they loved. I know that may sound harsh considering their loved one did nothing to us but if you think about it, what did your loved one do to them.
If they want to kill you then they should kill you, not kill your loved one out of spite to torture you instead. In which case, do the same back. They deserve it...
Otherwise no killing is wrong. I hate seeing random people being killed for no apparent reason other then the murderer's fun or perhaps misunderstanding at some point.
It is sometimes necessary to take another's life, in situations of self-defense, because one can be forgiven for doing so in concern for their survival. Those situations can looked over because the intended victim was only acting in accord with their survival instinct.
Self-defense has legal implications, and will draw only sympathy instead of contempt from the surrounding community and media. This law can be exploited, in which case the murder in question is wrong because it was committed with the intent to kill. All in all, what distinguishes what makes killing right or wrong is whether it was done out of intention or out unfortunate consequence.
The matter becomes far more entangled when something like war is thrown into the equation, in which case the question of who's to blame is thrown up in the air for interpretation. And in response to those who said they would kill history's greatest monsters, I disagree. I can empathize with the desire to have revenge on monsters like Hitler, but it perfectly possible that murdering him would have no effect on history whatsoever ( after all, Hitler was also aided by about 4 other people who could have taken his place and used his death to paint him as a martyr and inspire the masses to take up his message with renewed vigor).
And while Aristotle might say that killing once does not make you a killer, but doing so repeatedly does, I think that killing out of a premeditated notion does make you a killer. Trust me, I can guarantee you that most people, no matter what they say, would not want to extinguish something as important as human life.
shit, i pressed yes button on the poll
Self-defense has legal implications, and will draw only sympathy instead of contempt from the surrounding community and media. This law can be exploited, in which case the murder in question is wrong because it was committed with the intent to kill. All in all, what distinguishes what makes killing right or wrong is whether it was done out of intention or out unfortunate consequence.
The matter becomes far more entangled when something like war is thrown into the equation, in which case the question of who's to blame is thrown up in the air for interpretation. And in response to those who said they would kill history's greatest monsters, I disagree. I can empathize with the desire to have revenge on monsters like Hitler, but it perfectly possible that murdering him would have no effect on history whatsoever ( after all, Hitler was also aided by about 4 other people who could have taken his place and used his death to paint him as a martyr and inspire the masses to take up his message with renewed vigor).
And while Aristotle might say that killing once does not make you a killer, but doing so repeatedly does, I think that killing out of a premeditated notion does make you a killer. Trust me, I can guarantee you that most people, no matter what they say, would not want to extinguish something as important as human life.
shit, i pressed yes button on the poll