When is it okay to kill someone?

[phoneyLogic]

Sometimes the only way to stop someone is by killing them.

 

Because the person is unarrestable, uncatchable, just plain unstoppable? :-/

[marharth]

Sometimes the only way to stop someone is by killing them.

 

Because the person is unarrestable, uncatchable, just plain unstoppable? :-/

If its impossible to capture someone and the only way to stop them would be to kill them, then yes.

 

Impossible to capture also includes people in high positions of power that are pretty much exempt from law.

[phoneyLogic]

Sometimes the only way to stop someone is by killing them.

 

Because the person is unarrestable, uncatchable, just plain unstoppable? :-/

If its impossible to capture someone and the only way to stop them would be to kill them, then yes.

 

Impossible to capture also includes people in high positions of power that are pretty much exempt from law.

 

What kind of persons need to be stopped?

[marharth]

Sometimes the only way to stop someone is by killing them.

 

Because the person is unarrestable, uncatchable, just plain unstoppable? :-/

If its impossible to capture someone and the only way to stop them would be to kill them, then yes.

 

Impossible to capture also includes people in high positions of power that are pretty much exempt from law.

 

What kind of persons need to be stopped?

Not saying anyone in general, just saying the situation I described would be a valid reason to kill someone imo.

[nosisab]

Never, maybe the question should be "when is it necessary to kill someone", although more than one divergent answers could be provided and neither totally right nor totally wrong.

[Aurielius]

Oh Balagor my old friend, Orcas, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Water Buffaloes, Hippopotamuses, Wolverines, Tigers,and Lions to name just a few engage in mortal combat. We might be the only mammal that does it for intangible reasons but nature is hardly pacifistic, you need to go hunting more often . As for the main question there are definitely exceptions to the rule , meaning certain people that would have been better terminated before they got a full head of steam...Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan come to mind.

 

Justifying killing with killing will just ensure that it never ends.

A well placed bullet in 1917 or for that matter in 1933 would have saved over 50 million lives in Hitler's case and you don't think that would have been a equitable exchange? Utopian ideals are all well and good and when mankind evolves they might actually have a real world suitability but thats not the world we actually live in, so forgive me if I take a pragmatic view of evil and it's suppression.

[LadyMilla]

A well placed bullet in 1917 or for that matter in 1933 would have saved over 50 million lives in Hitler's case and you don't think that would have been a equitable exchange? Utopian ideals are all well and good and when mankind evolves they might actually have a real world suitability but thats not the world we actually live in, so forgive me if I take a pragmatic view of evil and it's suppression.

 

In hindsight, yes. But back then nobody took him seriously, and even when he came close to gaining seats in the Reichstag, he was considered by many a hot headed extremists who at least kept the left wing in check.

 

If you don't have a time machine to fast forward the calendar, your targets that are so obvious in retrospect will vanish into thin air.

 

 

[ginnyfizz]

My Grandfather, who was alive at the time and because of his religious background, shall we say, had good reason to mistrust Hitler, was certainly aware of his lunacy and attitudes by the early to mid 1930's, and so were many others. He had already made his anti Semitism clear and begun killing mentally ill people, too, way before WWII broke out. There were plenty of people who realised that Hitler needed a bullet long before he self administered one. Pity no-one did it.

[Aurielius]

A well placed bullet in 1917 or for that matter in 1933 would have saved over 50 million lives in Hitler's case and you don't think that would have been a equitable exchange? Utopian ideals are all well and good and when mankind evolves they might actually have a real world suitability but thats not the world we actually live in, so forgive me if I take a pragmatic view of evil and it's suppression.

 

In hindsight, yes. But back then nobody took him seriously, and even when he came close to gaining seats in the Reichstag, he was considered by many a hot headed extremists who at least kept the left wing in check.

 

If you don't have a time machine to fast forward the calendar, your targets that are so obvious in retrospect will vanish into thin air.

You didn't need a time machine all you needed to know was written in Mein Kampf published in 1925.

[LadyMilla]

A well placed bullet in 1917 or for that matter in 1933 would have saved over 50 million lives in Hitler's case and you don't think that would have been a equitable exchange? Utopian ideals are all well and good and when mankind evolves they might actually have a real world suitability but thats not the world we actually live in, so forgive me if I take a pragmatic view of evil and it's suppression.

 

In hindsight, yes. But back then nobody took him seriously, and even when he came close to gaining seats in the Reichstag, he was considered by many a hot headed extremists who at least kept the left wing in check.

 

If you don't have a time machine to fast forward the calendar, your targets that are so obvious in retrospect will vanish into thin air.

You didn't need a time machine all you needed to know was written in Mein Kampf published in 1925.

 

And you think such rubbish,but potentially dangerous ideologies are not being penned by the dozen these days?

 

Let me give you another example: during my college days I had a brief chat with a Muslim student, who claimed that Islam is a peaceful religion, and non-believers misinterpret it. I cited to him the verses where the followers of the true faith are called upon to fight relentlessly against 'infidels', to disregard promises made to infidels and so on. He said, yes, but they are only applicable if infidels attack the followers of the true faith and there is a war. Then I asked him, why, the terrorists claim that Muslims today are under attack by infidels and there is a war.

 

Now, the reason why I quoted the above conversation is: you cannot kill someone on the basis of what is written in a book. You can only act if that person starts to implement the tenets of such books. Hitler's antisemitic policies were kept low-key before his rise to power, mostly because Hitler needed the support of various financial groups in which there were many Jews at the time. Most believed that the antisemitic rhetoric, including the Mein Kampf was mainly targeted at the uneducated masses, and unless my memory fails me, he actively sought to reinforce that impression in the presence of those supporters.

 

It was not before their rise to power in 1933 that his intentions became evident.