When is it okay to kill someone?

[marharth]

Marharth said: "So you don't think it is okay to take a human life even if that human life is causing death to happen to others?

 

To everyone else, look outside of the box. What about someone who is costing others their life, yet is not directly affecting you? Such situations where you are directly connected to the person you would want to kill are rather simple to answer. What about situations where you are not directly affected?"

 

Marharth, I will not play this game with you. You may either go back and reread my entire post or not. It is no longer of any relevance to me what you think I said or what you think I meant by it. I was totally honest, and I believe that I was abundently clear. However I will ask you once again to not put words into my mouth. I said that I do not believe that I have the right to take a human life. In addition, I made it clear that in spite of that belief I was uncertain how I would react under some circumstances that had already been described by a variety of very eloquent posters who do read what other people say (and I am pretty sure understand it).

In that case I suppose I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

 

I personally do not think I would feel remorse if I had to kill someone, and would not hesitate to do it if necessary. I have never had to kill someone before, so I suppose I wouldn't know for sure until I am in the situation.

 

I would like to put up a few situations here.

 

1. What if there was a serial killer that lives a few blocks away from you. You are positive he kills a number of victims, but you can't collect evidence for police or law enforcement. The killer only kills a certain type of victim, and does not have any interest in killing you, and you have no reason to fear him. He is not aware that you know he is a serial killer. Would feel it was morally acceptable to kill this person or not?

 

2. There is a corrupt politician that indirectly causes the deaths of multiple people, and this politician is aware that he is causing the deaths and doesn't care. Would it be morally acceptable to kill this person?

[HeyYou]

Marharth said: "So you don't think it is okay to take a human life even if that human life is causing death to happen to others?

 

To everyone else, look outside of the box. What about someone who is costing others their life, yet is not directly affecting you? Such situations where you are directly connected to the person you would want to kill are rather simple to answer. What about situations where you are not directly affected?"

 

Marharth, I will not play this game with you. You may either go back and reread my entire post or not. It is no longer of any relevance to me what you think I said or what you think I meant by it. I was totally honest, and I believe that I was abundently clear. However I will ask you once again to not put words into my mouth. I said that I do not believe that I have the right to take a human life. In addition, I made it clear that in spite of that belief I was uncertain how I would react under some circumstances that had already been described by a variety of very eloquent posters who do read what other people say (and I am pretty sure understand it).

In that case I suppose I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

 

I personally do not think I would feel remorse if I had to kill someone, and would not hesitate to do it if necessary. I have never had to kill someone before, so I suppose I wouldn't know for sure until I am in the situation.

 

I would like to put up a few situations here.

 

1. What if there was a serial killer that lives a few blocks away from you. You are positive he kills a number of victims, but you can't collect evidence for police or law enforcement. The killer only kills a certain type of victim, and does not have any interest in killing you, and you have no reason to fear him. He is not aware that you know he is a serial killer. Would feel it was morally acceptable to kill this person or not?

 

2. There is a corrupt politician that indirectly causes the deaths of multiple people, and this politician is aware that he is causing the deaths and doesn't care. Would it be morally acceptable to kill this person?

 

1. I would clue in the cops to what I knew, and leave them to it. See what happens.

 

2. That is happening today. Has been for over ten years now. But, are any of them seen as 'criminals'? Nope. They like to paint themselves as 'protectors of democracy', or some such nonsense. The american people (for the most part...) swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Those that object, are simply ignored.

Edited August 30, 2011 by HeyYou

[marharth]

1. I would clue in the cops to what I knew, and leave them to it. See what happens.

 

2. That is happening today. Has been for over ten years now. But, are any of them seen as 'criminals'? Nope. They like to paint themselves as 'protectors of democracy', or some such nonsense. The american people (for the most part...) swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Those that object, are simply ignored.

1. The cops wouldn't find any evidence, and a serial killer now knows someone called the cops on him. Good luck with that.

 

2. So? That doesn't answer the question.

[HeyYou]

1. I would clue in the cops to what I knew, and leave them to it. See what happens.

 

2. That is happening today. Has been for over ten years now. But, are any of them seen as 'criminals'? Nope. They like to paint themselves as 'protectors of democracy', or some such nonsense. The american people (for the most part...) swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Those that object, are simply ignored.

1. The cops wouldn't find any evidence, and a serial killer now knows someone called the cops on him. Good luck with that.

 

2. So? That doesn't answer the question.

 

1. But, they would have a bit more to go on, and mr. killer would have no clue who squealed.

 

2. Have I gone out and killed anyone of late?

[draconix]

The question about the corrupt politician is provocative. I'm sitting that one out. :turned:

[marharth]

1. But, they would have a bit more to go on, and mr. killer would have no clue who squealed.

 

2. Have I gone out and killed anyone of late?

1. Without evidence, they wouldn't believe anything.

 

2. What? Would it be morally acceptable to kill our politicians or not? That is the question I am asking you know.

[grannywils]

Marharth asked the following questions:

I would like to put up a few situations here.

 

1. What if there was a serial killer that lives a few blocks away from you. You are positive he kills a number of victims, but you can't collect evidence for police or law enforcement. The killer only kills a certain type of victim, and does not have any interest in killing you, and you have no reason to fear him. He is not aware that you know he is a serial killer. Would feel it was morally acceptable to kill this person or not?

No, absolutely not! I have no moral right to judge another human being. Nor do I have a legal right to do so. I would be just as much a criminal as he was were I to take the law into my own hands. Although our legal system is not the best, I would have to resort to it and turn him in.

2. There is a corrupt politician that indirectly causes the deaths of multiple people, and this politician is aware that he is causing the deaths and doesn't care. Would it be morally acceptable to kill this person?

Once again, no, absolutely not! Basically the reasoning is the same. Who died and made me God. What if my reasoning is flawed? What if I am mistaken? Why do I get to make that decision? Once again, we have a legal justice system. This person would need to be turned over to it. I will say this however: Unfortunately in my opinion this scenario goes on everyday in our country, and no one has the real means by which to prevent it. The Ballot Box only works when properly utilized. But that is a subject for another thread.

 

Let me just reiterate, we cannot just go around eliminating those with whom we have very serious issues. Eventually, the issues become less and less serious. In New York City someone was shoved in front of an oncoming subway train for the "infraction" of stepping on another person's toe. This is just not the way we need to resolve our differences. I recognize that this is an oversimplification; but I am trying to make a fairly simple point.

[marharth]

Marharth asked the following questions:

I would like to put up a few situations here.

 

1. What if there was a serial killer that lives a few blocks away from you. You are positive he kills a number of victims, but you can't collect evidence for police or law enforcement. The killer only kills a certain type of victim, and does not have any interest in killing you, and you have no reason to fear him. He is not aware that you know he is a serial killer. Would feel it was morally acceptable to kill this person or not?

No, absolutely not! I have no moral right to judge another human being. Nor do I have a legal right to do so. I would be just as much a criminal as he was were I to take the law into my own hands. Although our legal system is not the best, I would have to resort to it and turn him in.

2. There is a corrupt politician that indirectly causes the deaths of multiple people, and this politician is aware that he is causing the deaths and doesn't care. Would it be morally acceptable to kill this person?

Once again, no, absolutely not! Basically the reasoning is the same. Who died and made me God. What if my reasoning is flawed? What if I am mistaken? Why do I get to make that decision? Once again, we have a legal justice system. This person would need to be turned over to it. I will say this however: Unfortunately in my opinion this scenario goes on everyday in our country, and no one has the real means by which to prevent it. The Ballot Box only works when properly utilized. But that is a subject for another thread.

 

Let me just reiterate, we cannot just go around eliminating those with whom we have very serious issues. Eventually, the issues become less and less serious. In New York City someone was shoved in front of an oncoming subway train for the "infraction" of stepping on another person's toe. This is just not the way we need to resolve our differences. I recognize that this is an oversimplification; but I am trying to make a fairly simple point.

How are you going to use the Criminal Justice system without evidence.

 

Politicians won't be charged with anything anyways. If a politician takes many lives, I have no problem with taking theirs to stop it.

 

I understand if that is just how you would react though, I am not sure.

[grannywils]

How are you going to use the Criminal Justice system without evidence.

My point exactly. How do you say it is okay to murder someone when you have no evidence against him? You just "know" he is guilty.....

Politicians won't be charged with anything anyways. If a politician takes many lives, I have no problem with taking theirs to stop it.

Governor Fife Symington of Arizona was convicted of Fraud in 1997. (just an example. there are others, including presidents who have been impeached)

I understand if that is just how you would react though, I am not sure.

[HeyYou]

1. But, they would have a bit more to go on, and mr. killer would have no clue who squealed.

 

2. Have I gone out and killed anyone of late?

1. Without evidence, they wouldn't believe anything.

 

2. What? Would it be morally acceptable to kill our politicians or not? That is the question I am asking you know.

 

If it was morally acceptable, I would have done so long ago. Trouble is, there are a bunch of 'em, and the odds of getting all of them, or, even most of them, are about two. Slim, and None. So, even if it were 'morally acceptable', it would be impractical, and a waste of effort, just vote the crooks out. (of course, we don't seem to be smart enough to do that either..... mores the pity.)