When is it okay to kill someone?

[DariusMoranda]

In both cases, killing people is a bad thing and it is not ok. Why? Yes, it is natural to permanently remove a threat to your family. But the very act is the most darkest, gruesome and bizzare thing which you ever have experienced. To extinguish someone's life, to see how he's been separating himself from his soul is an act will be an open wound til the rest of your life.

 

Shorter- Killing a man can be a necessity, but never to be declared as an ok thing to do.

 

Matter of opinion. If someone should shoot and kill a rapist, caught in the act, I see that as a "good thing".

 

I would kill a rapist, because I find it as necessity, I would kill him in order to save someones life and sanity. But I don't find it good, when I take someone's life. I'd feel like an 80's action movie addict with a cocky attitude. A matter of opinion.

[Balagor]

@HeyYou

@DariusMoranda

I do hope that you can tell the difference between a rape and a cople having kinky sex in public :biggrin:

Otherwise: big mistake

[Aurielius]

@HeyYou

@DariusMoranda

I do hope that you can tell the difference between a rape and a cople having kinky sex in public :biggrin:

Otherwise: big mistake

LMAO, trust you to think of that as a possibility old friend, will not ask for any clarification.. :whistling:

[HeyYou]

@HeyYou

@DariusMoranda

I do hope that you can tell the difference between a rape and a cople having kinky sex in public :biggrin:

Otherwise: big mistake

 

Yeah, check back in one of my earlier posts, when I was discussing "when it was ok to shoot, without asking permission first." Rape was one of them, but, the instructions were: "If yer gonna shoot, you'd best be DAMN sure what you are doing."

[pseudobio]

Only when you are protecting yourself or others from a very real threat of harm (i.e. a rapist or a sword/gun wielding psychopath). This includes your squad/battalion/military service mates in a battle.

[ffa1mf]

I've pondered this question a bit since reading it and while I do appreciate the high ideals expressed by the various posts, I don't think it is particularly wrong (in fact it would be OK as suggested by the question) to kill someone if its convenient, expedient or beneficial.

One may pick the circumstances that would match their personal morale standard for any of the conditions I have suggested, but killing someone isn't specifically or particularly hard to do given the correct set of circumstances, and while jeopardy may seem to be a basis for some, it isn't a circumstance I would consider as exclusive within the conditions I suggest.

[Aurielius]

I've pondered this question a bit since reading it and while I do appreciate the high ideals expressed by the various posts, I don't think it is particularly wrong (in fact it would be OK as suggested by the question) to kill someone if its convenient, expedient or beneficial.

One may pick the circumstances that would match their personal morale standard for any of the conditions I have suggested, but killing someone isn't specifically or particularly hard to do given the correct set of circumstances, and while jeopardy may seem to be a basis for some, it isn't a circumstance I would consider as exclusive within the conditions I suggest.

I carefully reread your post twice, so correct me if I have misinterpreted you. " I don't think it is particularly wrong (in fact it would be OK as suggested by the question) to kill someone if its convenient, expedient or beneficial." Expedient or convenient, that seems awfully casual way of deciding when to implement deadly force. Having been in the debate from the start I can't recall one poster taking that point of view, almost all advoctes of the permissibility of the use of deadly force had caveats of contingent circumstance that would override normal civil behavior, IE: Imminent mortal danger, Rape in progress etc. Care to illuminate me as to what you mean by those two terms?

[grannywils]

ffa 1 mf, yes that confused me a little as well. It did not sound like your usual views, so I just thought I was misreading it.

[ffa1mf]

The question asked is; “When is it okay to kill someone?”, but in reading the question, the first thing that came to my mind was “Bad question or test?”. Regardless of the questions authenticity, the question permits individuals to establish an open ended set of conditions that can be used to rationalize or justify that it is either okay or not okay to kill someone.

 

The question is also being looked at by individuals who are predominately from societies with reasonably similar laws and social, moral, ethical or whatever you want to call them, standards. Thus, I would not expect a post that suggests it is okay to kill a female child because she is not male. But, should such a post be made I am quite sure that the poster would establish a set of circumstances or conditions to justify or rationalize the killing of a female for not being male that would fall within a practical, beneficial or perhaps even a convenient reasoning. That is not to suggest such reasoning is right or acceptable or even understandable to everyone, but it would be to the individual who has suggested it is okay to kill a female for not being male and in their mind they would have justified or rationalized their answer.

 

As I said in my post, “One may pick the circumstances that would match their personal morale standard for any of the conditions I have suggested…”, and in the majority of posts favorable to the “OK” answer, individuals have established circumstances that they believe justify or rationalize killing another human being, and in looking at those circumstances, generally a situation is established that makes it expedient, convenient or beneficial to kill someone.

It is somewhat amusing to contemplate such questions as “would you kill Hitler given the chance” or some other sufficiently horrific circumstance when, if one thinks about it for a second; time travel is not a possibility (as far as I am aware) and further, even with the ability of going back in time, Hitler would have been an innocent that was murdered as he would have done nothing to justify someone killing him at that point in time. So conditions, as impossible as they are, are established to justify the answer – which in the Hitler question allows a practical and beneficial justification or rationalization to kill him.

 

And yes, you may ask, “Well then Mr. Smart Guy, what would you do if someone was raping your wife, daughter or sister?”. In all honesty, I would attempt to interject my body between the attacker and the individual being attacked. However, I am also 6’3”, 240 lbs and trained to deal with aggressive individuals bent on causing harm to others and have the ability to restrain them without killing them. Not everyone is the same, so different answers are not unexpected and are the right of the individual.

And yes, someone would be able to establish a set of conditions where I would be forced to answer “Yes, I would kill someone in those circumstances” because it would be practical, convenient or beneficial in the circumstances. However, that is not my answer to the question asked, as given the correct set of circumstances that would force me to choose to kill another human being, it would still not be specifically “okay” in my mind, but it would be necessary, which I have conceded is really just another form of “okay”.

 

Thus my answer to the question, “When is it okay to kill someone?” When it is convenient, expedient or beneficial, based upon the circumstances established to justify the killing of another human being.

[grannywils]

Dang..:facepalm: Okay, okay..... I get it. I'm not at all sure, but I think I may have given a similar but considerably less wordy response somewhere waaaaaaay up above. :ermm: