When is it okay to kill someone?

[Aurielius]

Marharth excerpt-

"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 find trying to determine your moral center of gravity quite difficult, on one hand you deplore wars and on the other you propose and condone the above. Wars are sanctioned by governments which are in turn elected by the people, what you so glibly propose is murder by fiat. For someone who has never killed anything by their own admission I find this quite ironically droll.

[marharth]

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.

1. Seeing it with your own two eyes multiple times should be evidence enough. That also means that their is no evidence to present to anyone else however.

 

2. Its quite rare, and moral issues are not always covered by law anyways.

 

"I find trying to determine your moral center of gravity quite difficult, on one hand you deplore wars and on the other you propose and condone the above. Wars are sanctioned by governments which are in turn elected by the people, what you so glibly propose is murder by fiat. For someone who has never killed anything by their own admission I find this quite ironically droll."

I have no problem with war. I have a problem with wars that are done without good intentions. I understand war is sometimes needed, my problem is wars that are started without being necessary.

Edited August 31, 2011 by marharth

[grannywils]

1. Seeing it with your own two eyes multiple times should be evidence enough. That also means that their is no evidence to present to anyone else however.

 

2. Its quite rare, and moral issues are not always covered by law anyways.

 

Marharth, I no longer understand your point. I have answered you time after time. If you feel it incumbant upon you to kill people in the above described circumstances, so be it. I however have given you my standards, and they are my standards. I choose to live by them and will continue to do so. I think that our converstation on this particular subject has just about run it's course. Don't you?

[marharth]

1. Seeing it with your own two eyes multiple times should be evidence enough. That also means that their is no evidence to present to anyone else however.

 

2. Its quite rare, and moral issues are not always covered by law anyways.

 

Marharth, I no longer understand your point. I have answered you time after time. If you feel it incumbant upon you to kill people in the above described circumstances, so be it. I however have given you my standards, and they are my standards. I choose to live by them and will continue to do so. I think that our converstation on this particular subject has just about run it's course. Don't you?

I am a bit confused about your point.

 

Your saying that you personally would not kill these people right? Are you also saying that its not morally acceptable or not?

[Aurielius]

'I have no problem with war. I have a problem with wars that are done without good intentions. I understand war is sometimes needed, my problem is wars that are started without being necessary."

Not an answer to the question or a justification to your extra judicial process of murder. I could bring up your quotes on wars to refute the first part but then again whats the point?

[marharth]

'I have no problem with war. I have a problem with wars that are done without good intentions. I understand war is sometimes needed, my problem is wars that are started without being necessary."

Not an answer to the question or a justification to your extra judicial process of murder. I could bring up your quotes on wars to refute the first part but then again whats the point?

You could bring up my quotes on certain wars, not war in general.

 

What question?

 

I find it kind of funny that so many people here say its fine to kill in self defense, or kill for your family, yet you think its completely unacceptable to kill in defense of thousands of people you don't know.

[Aurielius]

'I have no problem with war. I have a problem with wars that are done without good intentions. I understand war is sometimes needed, my problem is wars that are started without being necessary."

Not an answer to the question or a justification to your extra judicial process of murder. I could bring up your quotes on wars to refute the first part but then again whats the point?

You could bring up my quotes on certain wars, not war in general.

 

What question?

 

I find it kind of funny that so many people here say its fine to kill in self defense, or kill for your family, yet you think its completely unacceptable to kill in defense of thousands of people you don't know.

Who made you an arbiter of that decisional process? Self defense is totally different from what you so glibly propose, you propose murder not self defense.

[grannywils]

Marharth said: I am a bit confused about your point.

 

Your saying that you personally would not kill these people right? Are you also saying that its not morally acceptable or not?

Marharth, ok I am trying to be patient. I am taking deep breaths. I am speaking slowly. I do not understand what it is that you do not understand. How many times and in how many ways must I say the following to you:

 

I am in no position to make judgements on the behaviour of anyone other than myself. I, personally do not believe that I should take the life of another human being. I am not God (or whatever anyone else believes in). Therefore, I cannot make that call for anyone else. Hence, I am not saying whether or not it is morally acceptable for anyone else, as I have no right to say what is morally acceptable for anyone else. Please tell me that we are now clear on this issue......

[marharth]

Marharth said: I am a bit confused about your point.

 

Your saying that you personally would not kill these people right? Are you also saying that its not morally acceptable or not?

Marharth, ok I am trying to be patient. I am taking deep breaths. I am speaking slowly. I do not understand what it is that you do not understand. How many times and in how many ways must I say the following to you:

 

I am in no position to make judgements on the behaviour of anyone other than myself. I, personally do not believe that I should take the life of another human being. I am not God (or whatever anyone else believes in). Therefore, I cannot make that call for anyone else. Hence, I am not saying whether or not it is morally acceptable for anyone else, as I have no right to say what is morally acceptable for anyone else. Please tell me that we are now clear on this issue......

So you don't think its up to any human being to decide morals? The reason I don't understand that is because our entire society runs on humans deciding what is morally acceptable.

 

If that's your position, not much point in debating that seeing as this entire topic is pretty much about morals.

 

Why is killing for your family self defense when the person is not currently a threat? Breaking someones kneecaps could easily kill them if they don't get help. Would you feel that it would be justified if the person who you broke the kneecaps of did die due to it?

Edited August 31, 2011 by marharth

[Aurielius]

Why is killing for your family self defense when the person is not currently a threat? Breaking someones kneecaps could easily kill them if they don't get help. Would you feel that it would be justified if the person who you broke the kneecaps of did die due to it?

 

That is a pathetic defense of your position on political murder.