View Full Version : Murder: Is it ever justified?
Paper Dragon
25-10-05, 19:28
Alright, before we begin I'd like to stress something:
Please, please try and keep political undertones and the like out of this. I'd like people to keep a level head and give their own, personal views; not dragging world Government into it, not going on about death penalties and so forth. This isn't about executions or the like, it's about calculated murder.
So with that out of the way....
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?
Again, I'd appreciate if this thread was kept civil. Hopefully some interesting discussion will arise from it.
Why not snipe'em instead? ;)
Paper Dragon
25-10-05, 19:43
Why not snipe'em instead? ;)
Ah, but here's the kicker: Is that murder or assassination? Heck, aren't murder and assassination the same thing in essence?
/flails
x_x
Someone has ethics homework...
[...] it's about calculated murder.
So with that out of the way....
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?
[...]
Not to my standards. He might kill the two people that would kill another two. So letting him go would solve a problem.
I guess.
Personally I believe that killing is justified in many situations, though murder is such an ugly word. With regards to the case in point, I wouldn't advocate killing in that instance as they haven't done anything yet and there are less final avenues to exhaust first.
N
Murdering is all well and good until your caught
Murder is never justified under any circumstances (in my opinion), no one person has the right to choose who lives and dies, I believe no one should have that power except the state
Dade Murphey
25-10-05, 20:45
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?
Personally I don't believe any person has the right to take the life of another, granted though there are situations where you would have little choice. But killing a person to stop the murder of another, especially when it has yet to happen, makes you little better than the one you just killed. With all the possibilities that can happen in even just a matter of minutes could you ever be fully certain that this person was going to murder these 2 people before it happened? What if one of the people that would have been killed had you not intervened turns out to be far worse than the person you stopped? Before an event happens there's too many unknowns. And besides that, in the end you turn out to be worse than the person you killed...he never got a chance to commit his crime.
Vae Victis
25-10-05, 21:01
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?Why? you gonna kill a guy?
I'd say no, it's not justified. If you know 100% sure that that dude is gonna kill 2 people, I'd say call the cops on that one, because killing him because you KNOW he's gonna kill 2 people, makes you a killer, and not him.
I'd say murder is only justified if it's selfdefence, where there's 2 options:
you live, or the other guy lives. Then I'd say it's justified.
Although, if it's selfdefence, you can probably K.O. the other guy, then call the cops.
I'm against murder, but for selfdefence I'd say "murder" is only "needed" caused by an accident, when struggling with a knife, for example.
Murder is never justified under any circumstances (in my opinion), no one person has the right to choose who lives and dies, I believe no one should have that power except the stateThe State having the power to say who lives and who dies?
All those fat pigs do is negotiate with eachother, while making shitloads of money, and living their life like a fucking moviestar.
NOONE has the right to choose who lives and who dies. The only thing the state can do, is justify those who THINK they have that right, by sending em to jail, keeping them behind bars and away from society.
that's my opinion...
I'm not going to say murder, assasinations or whatever, it's all the same in the
end, taking someones life. And i'm going to say that there are situations where
it would be justified.
If you know for a fact, absolutely 100% sure that someone is going to kill two
other people, then what it boils down to in the end is: 2 lives > 1. That would
be justified in my opinion, but only if you were a billion percent sure. Other then
that, I guess if you caught the guy in the act, it would be ok too. But no way
in hell would it be ok if you "think" someone's is going to kill someone else.
And by you, I dont mean anybody in particular, just in general.
Vae Victis
25-10-05, 21:12
I'm not going to say murder, assasinations or whatever, it's all the same in the
end, taking someones life. And i'm going to say that there are situations where
it would be justified.
If you know for a fact, absolutely 100% sure that someone is going to kill two
other people, then what it boils down to in the end is: 2 lives > 1. That would
be justified in my opinion, but only if you were a billion percent sure. Other then
that, I guess if you caught the guy in the act, it would be ok too. But no way
in hell would it be ok if you "think" someone's is going to kill someone else.
And by you, I dont mean anybody in particular, just in general.I think that shouldn't be justified, because that person has NOT killed those people yet, therefore you have shit. try explaining it to the cops.
Let the cops take care of it, if they think you're kidding them, I'd say shoot the "killer" in his knees, making him unable to walk for the rest of his life, but not kill him.
fuck him up pretty bad is what I would do... if I was able
Dade Murphey
25-10-05, 21:13
I'm not going to say murder, assasinations or whatever, it's all the same in the
end, taking someones life. And i'm going to say that there are situations where
it would be justified.
If you know for a fact, absolutely 100% sure that someone is going to kill two
other people, then what it boils down to in the end is: 2 lives > 1. That would
be justified in my opinion, but only if you were a billion percent sure. Other then
that, I guess if you caught the guy in the act, it would be ok too. But no way
in hell would it be ok if you "think" someone's is going to kill someone else.
And by you, I dont mean anybody in particular, just in general.
why kill him...why not inform someone who'd do something about...why not subdue him...and for that matter, what becomes of you after you've committed murder instead of the other guy...when you're the guilty party for murdering an innocent person...in the end 2 people die to save the life of 2...it's not a better trade off at that point
The question is : Is it ever justified.
Id say YES.
Dade Murphey
25-10-05, 21:18
The question is : Is it ever justified.
Id say YES.
Actually, the question is this:
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?
It's a bit more precise :p
There's some people i would rather have dead than ever risk them being free people again. Prison is just like normal life for some people so they don't give a shit
why kill him...why not inform someone who'd do something about...why not subdue him...and for that matter, what becomes of you after you've committed murder instead of the other guy...when you're the guilty party for murdering an innocent person...in the end 2 people die to save the life of 2...it's not a better trade off at that point
Well ufcourse you could shoot someone in the leg or whatever, but the thread
was about killing someone, and if it would be justified.
Everything in life is about the choices you make. I would choose to save two
innocent people by killing one "bad guy" if it came to that. I'm sure the two
people getting stabbed would be grateful.
I believe no one should have that power except the state
because of..... ? are they better ?
Come on dude, get a brain.
Dade Murphey
25-10-05, 21:27
Well ufcourse you could shoot someone in the leg or whatever, but the thread
was about killing someone, and if it would be justified.
Everything in life is about the choices you make. I would choose to save two
innocent people by killing one "bad guy" if it came to that. I'm sure the two
people getting stabbed would be grateful.
sure...you're saving 2 people...but then you have one, so far, innocent person who dies in cold blood to you...then you end up going to jail and probably the death penalty for ruthlessly and premedatativly killing a person...the way to do it if you wished to take it into your hands would be there at the scene to stop this guy...so then you have PROOF on your side...arrive with the cops when he's going to do it...otherwise you're just a wacko insisting you knew this guy was going to kill 2 people some time after he woke up the next day
making yourself into a killer to stop a killer gains you nothing and after the fact you're worse off than him
sure...you're saving 2 people...but then you have one, so far, innocent person who dies in cold blood to you...then you end up going to jail and probably the death penalty for ruthlessly and premedatativly killing a person.. death penalty in europe...never gonna happen
making yourself into a killer to stop a killer gains you nothing and after the fact you're worse off than him
Gains you nothing, but the community is better off. Don't be selfish, think about everyone else.
Yes, murder can be justified.
Does it need a justification?
Laws are made by man (don't bring religion into this please...), so who is to say what is right and what is wrong?
Who is to say taking a life is wrong?
Who is to say allowing someone to live is right?
People say no one has the right to judge a person's life. I say no one has the right to deny the right to make one's own judgement. Now is taking a life denying someone else's right to judge? Yep. There are always exceptions, because guess what? I'm human too.
In a western society (such as the USA, I can't claim to be knowledgable anywhere else), murder is never justified. Even the death penalty requires a non-personal way of dealing with the convict, like lethal injection or gas... a firing squad turns them into murderers too (although Texas still does that I believe, go figure). In self-defense, it often is justified. In America, you have to defend yourself, your property and your rights. Killing in that situation, according to the US Constitution, is okay depending on circumstance. But the question wasn't about western, eastern, northern (?) or southern (?) societies, it was open ended in terms of culture.
So my final answer is yes.
Personally I believe that killing is justified in many situations
N like double posting and discussing exploits?
Vae Victis
25-10-05, 23:35
Gains you nothing, but the community is better off. Don't be selfish, think about everyone else.
Yes, murder can be justified.
Does it need a justification?
Laws are made by man (don't bring religion into this please...), so who is to say what is right and what is wrong?
Who is to say taking a life is wrong?
Who is to say allowing someone to live is right?
People say no one has the right to judge a person's life. I say no one has the right to deny the right to make one's own judgement. Now is taking a life denying someone else's right to judge? Yep. There are always exceptions, because guess what? I'm human too.
In a western society (such as the USA, I can't claim to be knowledgable anywhere else), murder is never justified. Even the death penalty requires a non-personal way of dealing with the convict, like lethal injection or gas... a firing squad turns them into murderers too (although Texas still does that I believe, go figure). In self-defense, it often is justified. In America, you have to defend yourself, your property and your rights. Killing in that situation, according to the US Constitution, is okay depending on circumstance. But the question wasn't about western, eastern, northern (?) or southern (?) societies, it was open ended in terms of culture.
So my final answer is yes.Don't you have the right, in the USA, to shoot burglars when you catch em red-handed ?
I think I read this part from a newspaper once where a guy with a shotgun shot a burglar in his chest (burglar died offcourse)
Is this justified? because you're protecting yourself and your property/rights?
Don't you have the right, in the USA, to shoot burglars when you catch em red-handed ?
I think I read this part from a newspaper once where a guy with a shotgun shot a burglar in his chest (burglar died offcourse)
Is this justified? because you're protecting yourself and your property/rights?
Yes.
(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.)
100 bullets is definetly worth a read if you are interested in stories relating to this subject.
Asurmen Spec Op
26-10-05, 00:47
Robbers and other people who ninja in your house shouldnt be safe, theyll kill ya if they need to.
Laws only effect the innocent.
allowing the assualt of trespassers lets them know that, if they rob the wrong house..
WTF pwned
Is this justified? because you're protecting yourself and your property/rights? what if your stealing to feed your starving family?
paolo escobar
26-10-05, 01:29
actually when does murder become self defence?
If someone is going to try and kill me I shall try and kill him.
However, one hopes that other avenues would be available and exhausted before one has to draw ones sword.
My best form of self defence is my portable gas chamber. I just turn my back and waft my arse in your general direction and its game-over.
Blausiegel
26-10-05, 02:40
That situation the threadstarter is talking about is a real bad double edged sword...imo its all about the consequences:
If you kill the sleeping guy, knowing that he would kill 2 others makes you a murderer...indeed.
But you know that you saved 2 lives by doing that.
If you dont kill him you wont feel the guilt of beeing a murderer...or wait...you let it happen that the person in front of you is killing 2 innocent people?!
Could you deal with that?
Regards
Blausiegel
Bugs Gunny
26-10-05, 02:57
[ edited ]
Paper Dragon
26-10-05, 03:08
[ edited ]
Please take your trolling elsewhere, Bugs. I did ask for some modicum of maturity in my original post.
paolo escobar
26-10-05, 03:31
Alarm bells have gotta ring when ur question pops up tho.
Can you say homicidal maniac?
Asurmen Spec Op
26-10-05, 03:33
Alarm bells have gotta ring when ur question pops up tho.
Can you say homicidal maniac?
I can try.
Paper Dragon
26-10-05, 03:33
Alarm bells have gotta ring when ur question pops up tho.
Can you say homicidal maniac?
Oh, please.
We're playing a post-apocalypse game where survival requires you to massacre hundreds, if not thousands, of living, breathing, thinking beings. If a single question designed to spark debate is enough to make me a maniac, then the entire population of Neocron is obviously composed of sadistically driven individuals with no regard for life.
A little perspective, please.
I'd kill anyone if they murdered one of my family but I'd never kill anyone, anyother time unless it was pure selfdefence
well...i wouldnt kill the guy but id sure as hell dismember him
maybe collect some of the blood...
Don't you have the right, in the USA, to shoot burglars when you catch em red-handed ?
I think I read this part from a newspaper once where a guy with a shotgun shot a burglar in his chest (burglar died offcourse)
Is this justified? because you're protecting yourself and your property/rights?
No and yes, it depends on what laws are set forth in that state and also depends on the guns laws that are in effect as well.
Some places you may shoot a home invader and kill him, but get hemmed up for discharging a firearm within city limits. Also seen cases of robbers that have been shot and sued the home owner and won.
Stopping someone of commiting death or serious bodily harm to yourself and others by the means of deadly force is justified.
Seriously are you going to stand there helpless and allow someone to kill you or your family members? I doubt it.....if you do, you have some serious issues you need to work out.
It is a sick world with sick people out there.
"Now i've seen some silly attentiondrawing posts in my life, but the threadstarter tops em all.
If someone in the world should be shot, it's you. It'll raise the average iq when you're removed from the ranks of the human species."-------> And how is this so? I fail to rationalize what you are trying to express Mr. Gunny.
MuggleMind
26-10-05, 07:11
As a further addition to the question, would people suddenly feel it was justified to murder a specific person? For example (and with apologies if these examples offend anyone), in 1944, if you had the chance to do this suggested deed to ******************? Or, maybe if you were Japanese, to Oppenheimer? Maybe, in more recent times, to Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. And to add to the confusion, did any of those people personally murder anyone, or did they simply provide the reason for the deaths of (at least) two others?
Murder is never justified because of this unhonorable proccess :
1. Person gets ganked
2. Player comes back and owns the hell out of the ganker.
3. Ganker brings a ton of people including a ppu and kills the guy who killed in revenge.
4. The guy who was killed by a group of chickens comes back with a ton of people to fight them.
5. They have a fight and talk shit afterwards like they won when in reality they all got their asses kicked at least once.
That situation the threadstarter is talking about is a real bad double edged sword...imo its all about the consequences:
If you kill the sleeping guy, knowing that he would kill 2 others makes you a murderer...indeed.
But you know that you saved 2 lives by doing that.
If you dont kill him you wont feel the guilt of beeing a murderer...or wait...you let it happen that the person in front of you is killing 2 innocent people?!
Could you deal with that?
Regards
Blausiegel
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. Killing the sleeping guy is 1 death. Assuming you're caught and killed, that's two deaths, one of which is semi-innocent. If the sleeping guy is let go, he goes off and kills two people then himself is caught and killed, making three deaths, two of which are innocent.
Math clearly shows what the correct course is.
MuggleMind
26-10-05, 08:51
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. Killing the sleeping guy is 1 death. Assuming you're caught and killed, that's two deaths, one of which is semi-innocent. If the sleeping guy is let go, he goes off and kills two people then himself is caught and killed, making three deaths, two of which are innocent.
Math clearly shows what the correct course is.
And if the "sleeping guy" is the State Executioner or whatever they call the person that administers lethal injections (or however death penalties are carried out)? He is, after all, going to murder people - just *ahem* legally.
murder and justice are two diffrent things.
I was assuming that if you killed the guy, the two people he was going to kill would live. Bad assumption I guess. If they die anyway, then you probably shouldn't kill the sleeping dude.
But you know, the Earth has too many humans. We're expanding and growing too fast. Population control is key. Every little bit helps!
natural selection will run its corse, so will nature.
killing is justified for self defence, murder is killing in cold blood.
i think it is justified to take ones life if yours is thretend by the one you take. kill or be killed, there is no 2nd place in survival.
Shoot the rich.
Equaility for all through the selective killing of some.
The greater good is served by this, there is some negitivity in the killing of a few individuals but the net benifit gain out weighs that.
natural selection will run its corse, so will nature.
killing is justified for self defence, murder is killing in cold blood.
No it won't. Humanity is the first species on the Earth (besides the beaver) that can bend nature to its will, not the other way around. We may be the first race to be able to stop its own destruction through natural disasters as well. Natural selection will not run its course for humanity. If it did, disabled people would die. Deformed people would die. Stupid people would die. Weak people would die. Evolution through the survival of the fittest no longer applies to mankind. That is our legacy. What nature cannot do, we must.
No it won't. Humanity is the first species on the Earth (besides the beaver) that can bend nature to its will, not the other way around. We may be the first race to be able to stop its own destruction through natural disasters as well. Natural selection will not run its course for humanity. If it did, disabled people would die. Deformed people would die. Stupid people would die. Weak people would die. Evolution through the survival of the fittest no longer applies to mankind. That is our legacy. What nature cannot do, we must.
So your saying that we should kill all the disabled, deformed, stupid & weak?
Dribble Joy
26-10-05, 10:57
It would make sense, pity 'ethics' get in the way.
People need to remember that human nature will allways remain the same, and trying to shoe-horn it into some theoretical social model that assumes it can be altered is doomed to fail. Better to actively use it.
(If capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, socialism is the equal distribution of misery.)
Don't shoot the rich, shoot the poor buggar who can't be arsed to get out of his social situation and makes himself out to be some sort of 'victim'.
In the end everyone is responsible for their own life and where it is.
Yes, it may take some more effort than for others, but that is no excuse.
Remember that while all people may be equal (a point of contention really), they are not the same. Assuming so and trying to bend society and people around that will not work. Human society will inariably form some form of hieracal (sp?) shape, either through inate talent or social birth.
As for the matter of killing people, it's entirely subjective.
You might say no-one has the right to take any life. I might say otherwise. Neither is valid, the former assumes too much about the value of human life, the latter assumes too little. On what authority does either claim any form of superior standing?
Even this is a subjective analysis. While opinion remains, authority lacks. Which again is subjective (and round and round the mulberry bush we go).
look at all the natural disasters atm i would say that the earth and nature is > us atm
and is murder ever justified ? no never ever u cant ever be certain someone is gona do something worse liek kill 2 people until its actually happened so i would say no
only one murder is justified thats if the ppu on my ass sucks :p
Bugs Gunny
26-10-05, 11:18
You forget that the poor are the ones that gives the rich the means to be rich.
If there are no poor people nobody would work for the rich, hence they would have to start baking their own bread to even have breakfast.
And i'm totaly against killing people, both ingame as RL........
actually when does murder become self defence? when you need an excuse in court
RogerRamjet
26-10-05, 11:48
Oh, please.
We're playing a post-apocalypse game where survival requires you to massacre hundreds, if not thousands, of living, breathing, thinking beings. If a single question designed to spark debate is enough to make me a maniac, then the entire population of Neocron is obviously composed of sadistically driven individuals with no regard for life.
A little perspective, please.
You got that from the game manual didnt ya? :D
In my absolute personal opinion, there are times when i beleive i would murder someone beleiving it to be right. For instance, about 200 metres down the load from me an elderly lady who was in her late 60s was bound and gagged, he house ransacked and then **********. Now, if that lady was my grandma, i wouldnt even have second thoughts. People who do things such as that are scum, the absolute lowest form of life on this earth. Similar thing at that Farm that supplies Huntington life sciences with Guinea(sp?) Pigs, where those Animal Rights Activists dug up the body of their mum/grandma from the Graveyard. I mean, they live on a big farm, no one would find em if you get me. Sometimes, those people seem to have more compassion for animals than humans. Dont get me wrong, in most situations it wouldnt matter, but when they start desecrating peoples graves like that, its gone way way over the line.
Hell-demon
26-10-05, 13:08
My view is killing is acceptable in self defence/ self preservation circumstances. It's nature to fight for survival. We humans have the ability to kill. If you have that ability well flaunt it if you got it. But only use it for protection.
Dribble Joy
26-10-05, 13:30
You forget that the poor are the ones that gives the rich the means to be rich.
If there are no poor people nobody would work for the rich, hence they would have to start baking their own bread to even have breakfast.
Like I said, through the simple variation in human capacity, there will allways those who will 'succede' (be it through determination, latent talent or whatever)
and 'fail', (be it through lazyness, in-ability or whatever).
Whether you decide that this is a sign of 'oppression' or simple human nature is a matter of opinion, an opinion, that is (no offence) greatly affected by things that you shouldn't let get in the way in the course of one's judgement making process.
Truly this is an interesting discussion. Remember, keep it clean and of a non-political nature, I've noticed a couple of posts sliding into dodgy territory here.
-L
No it won't. Humanity is the first species on the Earth (besides the beaver) that can bend nature to its will, not the other way around. We may be the first race to be able to stop its own destruction through natural disasters as well. Natural selection will not run its course for humanity. If it did, disabled people would die. Deformed people would die. Stupid people would die. Weak people would die. Evolution through the survival of the fittest no longer applies to mankind. That is our legacy. What nature cannot do, we must. People only want to have sex with pretty girls so therefore they have more babies = evolution
Paper Dragon
26-10-05, 14:15
Let me throw a spanner into the works:
What if that person in my first example was the same as you? Namely he was "only" murdering those two people because they, themselves, would go on to murder even more. Just thought I'd try that and see what you guys make of it, heh.
Interesting reading so far, guys, keep it up.
o.o;
Asurmen Spec Op
26-10-05, 14:16
Stupid people would die. Weak people would die. Evolution through the survival of the fittest no longer applies to mankind. That is our legacy. What nature cannot do, we must.
How unfortunate, stupid people make us have to do more =/
Well its not a law/state question. Cmon, were individuals.
Its about values, and balls.
Values to kill for the reason YOU think are right.
And the balls to take action to change an upcoming situation.
For instance i know if some bitches would be plotting against someone i know
and love, id plot back and kill that ass.Quick, before they do it.
I dont give a shit about proofs or anything becaus in the end the longer you wait the more risk the person you love encounters.
Of course based on my own judgement/values i would not interfere if i knew ppl plotting against someone i hate, dont like, or even am just neutral to.
So if these 2 person are BAD to most ppl's opinion but are GOOD to me, id still plot and murder the first one, because hes fucking with the wrong ppl.
Its all about where u stand in the equation :
(values+judgement) = path of action
balls
Richard Blade
26-10-05, 15:04
Let me throw a spanner into the works:
What if that person in my first example was the same as you? Namely he was "only" murdering those two people because they, themselves, would go on to murder even more. Just thought I'd try that and see what you guys make of it, heh.
Interesting reading so far, guys, keep it up.
o.o;
Justifiable murder in my opinion can only be justifiable if you have absolute proof of the victim doing really bad "evil" things. Such as those next two up the line are murdering a group of people who do things contrary to proper behaviour. A viking raid was well and good in the past, but has no place in modern civilization. Raping and murder for the hell of it would be a good reason for those two people to kill the group. But, they shouldn't be killed for doing it, they should be made into heros for stopping the "evil".
But this also brings up a question. Who's side would be considered right?
So many different problems with judging the difference between all of our societies. Some things in one persons society are judged perfectly acceptable while those same things in another are judged as crimes.
So, I would have to say, murder would only be justifiable if you had absolute proof the target is about to walk out his front door and murder another person for fun or other wrong reasons. (homicidal maniac)
If you had prior knowledge that he was a normal person just like you and was going out to murder two homicidal maniacs, why stop him?
Nobody has omnipotence. We aren't God's. (cept Niddie.)
Without proof that someone is an "evil" beast, there is no justifiable reason.
If someone has proven they are "evil", such as murdering someone for fun or other wrongful gains, then killing them might not be called murder. It could be correctly looked at as self defense / defense of another. That is justifiable.
I keep rambleing on. Hope I haven't repeated myself.
An eye for an eye? No. Not justifiable in any way, shape or form.
Even if you knew with absolute certainty that your next door neighbour was going to wake up the next morning and put his wifes head in the blender, how is killing him beforehand justified? You're no better than he is. Just because he's going to do horrible things, doesn't change the circumstances. Taking any human life is wrong, no matter the context.
It's a problem brought up every single time a person is executed in the states; how can someone turn around and say they've done justice by mimicking the act of murder? The method and controlled environment can be two drastically different circumstances to what the victim of said murderer was thrust into, but the end result is identical.
People keep bringing up examples of "if it was me" - a few years ago a member of my family was murdered at his doorstep all because his words were taken out of context (he was a teacher, shot by a student who thought he was the person those words were directed towards). Hardly something to pick up a gun for in the first place, but he did, and that was the result.
Had I known beforehand, I certainly wouldn't of leapt out of my chair and killed the guy myself, I would've notified the authorities (that's what jails were made for). Even afterwards, if the death sentence had been chosen I would've contested it bitterly. Yes, what he did was terrible, but why would I want to stoop to that level, especially after the original condemnation of his actions?
How can any of the people who say they'd take equal action against the person before or afterwards think of themselves as any less 'evil'? I'd love to hear all the people who think it's just dandy answer that one.
Very idealist.
I wish everyone could apply this to their lives.
On the other hand what makes you think they(ppl that would take action) dont think of themselves as evil ?
I think they actually DO think of themselves as evil, wich is why they choosed that path.
For instance i think i have done enough bad things to sacrifice my life over, say, my sister's life. I dont know what she would think of it, really, and im fool enough to not think about it. I know what that would do to me, and id rather live a life of prison with convicts then live a free life with her dead and knowing i couldve done something.The last option would probably be worst then prison to me, and trust me i know what that feels like.(prison)
I know its wrong, and it would make me even worst knowing its wrong.
But im me, and i never said i was 'good',or implied it.Its just my 'math'.
Dribble Joy
26-10-05, 18:46
Given the 'conventional' meaning of good and evil, I'd probably be considered evil.
Though I'd preffer to reffer to myself (in a rather self-centred way perhaps) as being totally open minded and carry no assumptions about anything.
I generally consider believing in something a sign of inherant narrow mindedness (holding anything to be true is just irresponsible).
Which of course is a belief of sorts, so I don't really believe in that either, haha.
Dade Murphey
26-10-05, 19:10
Though I'd preffer to reffer to myself (in a rather self-centred way perhaps) as being totally open minded and carry no assumptions about anything.
I generally consider believing in something a sign of inherant narrow mindedness (holding anything to be true is just irresponsible).
When you say this do you mean along the lines of you don't form an opinion on anything or believing in something (ie a religion, science, capitalism...whatever) makes you narrow minded...
Because from the way it sounds you're saying you don't like forming an opinion on anything...which is virtually impossible, whether it's admitted to or not...being open minded doesn't mean you don't have opinions or assumptions...it means you're receptive to new ideas regardless of any previous standpoint you might have had
Let me throw a spanner into the works:
What if that person in my first example was the same as you? Namely he was "only" murdering those two people because they, themselves, would go on to murder even more. Just thought I'd try that and see what you guys make of it, heh.
Interesting reading so far, guys, keep it up.
o.o;
Not quite if I understand this. So, hypothetically, I'm supposed to kill someone that kills two people because they on their turn have or will or may commit murder?
In my mind that is unacceptable: what if I had to kill my daughter because she was on a killing spree?
I'm against any form of ending anyone elses life.
Dribble Joy
26-10-05, 19:52
When you say this do you mean along the lines of you don't form an opinion on anything or believing in something (ie a religion, science, capitalism...whatever) makes you narrow minded...
Because from the way it sounds you're saying you don't like forming an opinion on anything...which is virtually impossible, whether it's admitted to or not...being open minded doesn't mean you don't have opinions or assumptions...it means you're receptive to new ideas regardless of any previous standpoint you might have had
Holding an opinion, holding anything as fact, assuming anything about anything is what I would call narrow mindedness.
As for open mindedness, it depends how you define it. It doesn't nessecarily mean new things, but everything. To be open minded about new things means you need to not carry over assumptions from what you allready believe in, meaning you have to be open about things from the start.
That's my opinion on it anyway :P (but then that's the whole point, I'm probably 'wrong').
Vae Victis
26-10-05, 20:11
Given the 'conventional' meaning of good and evil, I'd probably be considered evil.
Though I'd preffer to reffer to myself (in a rather self-centred way perhaps) as being totally open minded and carry no assumptions about anything.
I generally consider believing in something a sign of inherant narrow mindedness (holding anything to be true is just irresponsible).
Which of course is a belief of sorts, so I don't really believe in that either, haha.Lol, everyone is evil then. We all have bad habits.
one smokes, one drinks liquer, one hits other people, one does a prostitute (whatever you're into, right?) etc etc...
if you gotta explain good and evil, you'd probably take the "good" from god, aka strictly follow the bible. and whereas "bad" is considered straying from that path.
(No, I'm not some religious guy)
Anything can be evil if took out of context, period. Look at the surrent state of the world. Examples everywhere.
In my opinion there IS a definite answer to the poll's main question, and it is YES. depending on the context, but yes.
btw the question contains 'ever' wich means its in no way definite to EVERY case.
look :
good : makes feel good.
Bad : makes feel bad.
basically.
so if doing bad to others makes u feel good u might be tweaked, but thats a whole other subject.
AND THE BIBLE HAS NOTHING TO DO IN THIS TOPIC. plz
start a 'i live 100yrs back in time' thread if u wanna talk about it.
Some other thoughts.
What is murder?
Is it just the unlawful killing of another human being?
If unlawful compared to what set of laws? Since there truely is no universal standard of morality.
If a sociopath commits murder can you judge him on the same standards as a base line human? If a retard commits murder can you judge him on the same standards as a base line human?
Since both of those groups can have fundamentally different view points of the world, murder for them has a different emotionally value than most base line humans, so the same standards can hardly apply.
It's really only possible to look at things on a case by case basis and then draw your own conclusion if the action of killing another person was justifiable unless we were to live in some unitarian society which we dont, where every action was based and judged against the greater good it created. That would be the best way to justify murder.
If killing a person creates x of negative value
and it creates y amount of postive value.
The as long as y > x the murder is justifable. But we do no have a group mind style society where this elegant simple solution could work yet.
But instead we live in a state, where a small minority control the masses and dicate down to them what is right and wrong, ignoring circumstances and bending laws to what ever situation suits them personally best.
They say killing someone is wrong, yet they will happy send the poor thousands of miles to kill some equally poor and destitute people if it will create some nice net gain profit for them.
Which inturn dicates human society is shit, So everyone should just be amoralists, going around killing people as much as they want, which is justifiable if it makes them happy.
People only want to have sex with pretty girls so therefore they have more babies = evolution
pretty != fit in terms of evolution.
look at all the natural disasters atm i would say that the earth and nature is > us atm
Nope. If nature was > us, we'd lose a LOT more lives than we did. Face it, the reason any significant number of people die in a natural disaster is because of human stupidity and how some people refuse to leave even though there's a huge ass hurricane comming. If you really don't want to die to mother nature, you won't. Not these days. At least, not in modern countries. I'm not sure about anywhere else for lack of experience.
Btw DJ, I agree with everything you said.
Very idealist.
I wish everyone could apply this to their lives.
I fail to see the right of every person on the planet to live as being idealist. I'm not ignoring the masses of killings that take place every day, but all those people deserved to live, rather than face an untimely death because someone else wanted them to. If you wanted to kill someone
We live in a society where you are condemned and punished for certain actions. Murderers don't just kill. They do have lives outside of what they do, especially when it's one of the many spontaneous murders that everybody hears about. Up until that point, a person may not have even considered it.
Then you take their life as well? Or, if it was predetermined, take it beforehand? With the current system of law I personally would want someone to have time to consider their actions. They might be terrible people and have to be put away for many, many years, but there's still a chance of reform etc.
If not, that's a lot to think about sitting behind bars for what's considered a lifetime. I certainly wouldn't go out and do it myself. And, if it were law here, I wouldn't want them to face the death penalty.
In terms of punishing someone with the same act, I fail to see how that would achieve anything at all besides getting them out of a crap life.
On the other hand what makes you think they(ppl that would take action) dont think of themselves as evil ?
I think they actually DO think of themselves as evil, wich is why they choosed that path.
When you choose to take a path, you should be prepared to face whatever repercussions occur along the way. If you're planning on killing someone, you can be pretty certain of what you'll have to deal with.
For instance i think i have done enough bad things to sacrifice my life over, say, my sister's life. I dont know what she would think of it, really, and im fool enough to not think about it. I know what that would do to me, and id rather live a life of prison with convicts then live a free life with her dead and knowing i couldve done something.The last option would probably be worst then prison to me, and trust me i know what that feels like.(prison)
That's why we have law enforcement, etc.
I understand that stuck in the worst of situations it can be kill or be killed, in which case it could be proven & I doubt that would result in life imprisonment.
xian im not trying to say ur wrong.
i know you are right. but right isnt what our world is. its tweaked, corrupted,
violent, and all-around-crazy.
there is bad ppl, and good ppl, and thats what creates balance.obviously.
i personally think that some ppl deserves to die. im just thinking about those fuckers that ********** and kill (or dont kill) children.
in my opinion they deserve to die, period.
from the moment to do such things, they derserve to die and thats it.
the reason why i was saying about the plot thing is totally another context.
says im in a bar and i hear someone say hes gonna stab my friend and i see him knife in hand with a weird glitch in his eyes...
me and my friend are gonna plot and stop him before he does anything.
the reason why i dont rely on the system is the system fails to give justice to ppl.
i didnt wanna rant about the system but theres plenty examples.
-drug dealing gang members ending up doing 4 yrs for being convicted of murder, drug deal and etc...
-************ getting out of jail in like 2-3 yrs, fuck, a lot of times the victims arent even considered.
a lot of ppl abuse this system and its too big to be precise to all case.
like girls saying a guy ********** him and its not tru, making it harder for other girls to get taken seriously.
or organized crime doing ridiculous amount of time cuz they have the big bucks to play with the system.
man i could argue on that subject for hours !!!
im missing vital class info atm so ill get back on that.
Vae Victis
26-10-05, 23:51
AND THE BIBLE HAS NOTHING TO DO IN THIS TOPIC. plz
start a 'i live 100yrs back in time' thread if u wanna talk about it.DJ started about good, I just gave an example of what good is.
so maybe ur tweaked, cuz in this case, the bible DOES have something to do with this topic, aka being my example of good (not that Ive read it or ever will).
your comment on "i live 100yrs back in time" makes no sense, theres still a few million people strickly living their lives the way their God intended.
Asurmen Spec Op
27-10-05, 05:47
DJ started about good, I just gave an example of what good is.
so maybe ur tweaked, cuz in this case, the bible DOES have something to do with this topic, aka being my example of good (not that Ive read it or ever will).
your comment on "i live 100yrs back in time" makes no sense, theres still a few million people strickly living their lives the way their God intended.
Acording to the English translation of the bible, and the christian churches opinion
your comment on "i live 100yrs back in time" makes no sense, theres still a few million people strickly living their lives the way their God intended.
I don't believe that for one second. In this day and age, I think very few if any people strictly adhere to the bible. That's assuming by God you mean the God of the bible (from the context). If you consider sinning monday-saturday then repenting and living a clean life on sunday "strickly living their lives the way their God intended", then you'd be right. But I don't think so.
Please don't stray into religious territory or I'll be all kinds of unhappy at having to close the thread.
N
Bugs Gunny
27-10-05, 10:32
I think murder is justified when you're going to eat the person.
If not, then it's just senseles killing and a total waste of good protein.
RogerRamjet
27-10-05, 11:30
I think murder is justified when you're going to eat the person.
If not, then it's just senseles killing and a total waste of good protein.
Yes, as Sparks once said "twenty cannibals have hold of you, they need their protein just like you do".
Discuss.
OK question:
How justified is merder when the person doing it has its values fucked up,
or better even, if the person is retarded ?
Do you mean that the murderer is retarded and can't controll actions and will get a different what do you say, commitment?
Or the commitment for killing a retarded person?
well when the murderer is a retard. or has different values.
for instance does a cannibal tribes.
or just a kid thats been raised and been told all his life that murder is ok and that he must do it.
or someone that dont realize his actions because of mental illness.
pardon my english its morning and i cant find the right words...
an i hadnt read otiose's post but i basically ask the same thing he does...urgh...
Bugs Gunny
27-10-05, 16:16
So basicaly it all comes down to the interpretation of good and evil.
Good and evil is something you have to define yourself, based on you environment, education and influences from religion, politics and parenting.
Naturaly, sometimes you have to limit this freedom due to some rather anoying regulations put in place by the surrounding social structure.
In some tribes it would be perfectly acceptable for me to eat my neighbour and then taking his wife as bride n°25 in my harem. I asked the local police department, and unfortunately i'm not allowed to do this where i live.
So the short answer to your question is:
"Depends where you live buddy"
Dade Murphey
27-10-05, 17:38
Do you feel murder is ever justified in any shape or form? Do you feel murdering one person as they sleep, completely defenseless, is justified if that person would go on to murder two people?
.........
What if that person in my first example was the same as you? Namely he was "only" murdering those two people because they, themselves, would go on to murder even more.
This is kind of turning into a "is this accepted when..." instead of what was put forth...is murder ever justified? It's going to depend on the culture the person was brought up in, of course. But in the states, in the sense we were given, I'd have to say no.
justify: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid
murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Under the circumstances given for the murder of this person...and with what these words mean...no, the murder is not justified...you would have no proof that it was right or valid...and all it would be is premeditated murder. Now, quite possibly you, or the person from the second example, are doing a "good" act but the act itself would more than likely still not be found justifiable in most modern, "civilized" societies; which I would guess most of us on these boards were brought up in.
Even in the case of killing in self defense I believe that the act must be proven to have been done as a final resort, when all other options had been exhausted or you could wind up being charged with something like manslaughter.
Honorable intentions, maybe...justifiable, no.
Even in the case of killing in self defense I believe that the act must be proven to have been done as a final resort, when all other options had been exhausted or you could wind up being charged with something like manslaughter.
Honorable intentions, maybe...justifiable, no.
Not always. There are often many options left unused when in self defense you kill someone. But often times, killing is the easiest method. And as I'm sure many people will agree, it's better them than you.
Basically, there's a difference between a final resort and using equal force.
Dade Murphey
27-10-05, 22:41
Not always. There are often many options left unused when in self defense you kill someone. But often times, killing is the easiest method. And as I'm sure many people will agree, it's better them than you.
Basically, there's a difference between a final resort and using equal force.
I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I said or I'm misunderstanding what you said...but what I was meaning is if a guy comes after you with lets say a stick and the first thing you do is kill him...you're probably going to jail...where as if the guy is coming after you with a stick and you exhaust a number of other options before killing him you're probably going to be fine...however if you kill him a brutal manner...you're probably going to jail...
Scanner Darkly
30-10-05, 13:00
"You're a psychopath."
"No, psycopaths kill for no reason. I kill for money. It's a job. Wait, that didn't sound right."
First one to guess the quote gets a prize.*
*of my own choosing
Grosse Pointe Blank
I cheated and just used google though.
Scanner Darkly
30-10-05, 13:18
Hah, well such are the times we live in. I knew someone would google it. Come claim your free Cron sixpack on Terra (Tech Haven 2)
I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I said or I'm misunderstanding what you said...but what I was meaning is if a guy comes after you with lets say a stick and the first thing you do is kill him...you're probably going to jail...where as if the guy is coming after you with a stick and you exhaust a number of other options before killing him you're probably going to be fine...however if you kill him a brutal manner...you're probably going to jail...
Ok, you have a pistol. In your pocket, right now. And you see a guy charging at you with a wooden stick (not a 3cm stick or something, but like a meter+ length) and with every intention of beating you to a pulp, would you shoot him? Would you, say, run away? Would you ask him nicely to stop? If it took you more than 2 seconds to figure out an answer, you're already on the floor unconscious, and you'll never wake up cause you'll be dead. Don't think for one second that a person with a stick is not threatening. Now if he stops after you put a slug in his chest, you shouldn't keep shooting him. That would get you in jail.
Again, your punishment, if any, depends on many things. If he was on drugs and there was no doubt he was going to attack you and kill you, and if you don't have much if any training with a gun (except just enough to get a license to own one), you'll probably get away free. If you're, say, an off-duty police officer, you'd be expected to aim for the legs. But an average person is not expected to have the presence of mind to aim low... it's a panicked situation and you have a right to defend yourself. The easiest way to stop someone (and the most likely place to hit them), is in the center of mass, the chest/torso area.
Asurmen Spec Op
30-10-05, 20:12
My answer to the question is yes.
tbh, if some one wants to attack me or my family, I wouldnt think twice
yes. i have no moral quarms about killing sumbody... seen enough death in my life to totaly desensatise my self from it
wouldnt think twice of batthering sumbody to the point of death if they hurt/raaped/abused my friends
if killing one person will save 1000 people then no problem killing that one person
yet on the flip side if i had to kill 1000 people to save one person close to me, and ment alot to me... i woudlnt have a quarm about killing the 1000 people
=] death dont mean much when u regard life as not very precious
Scanner Darkly
31-10-05, 00:14
Self defence is hardly murder. I would have no problem shooting a person who threatened me or my family. However traumatised I might be by killing/shooting someone, I'd have no problem justifying it to myself if I (or a loved one) was the one being attacked.
Anyway here in the UK, shooting someone at all will land you in a whole world of pain (legal trouble). We're not really supposed to own/carry guns over here. Nor knives or any other offensive weapons for that matter. So if you're going home late at night and some chav is running at you with a broken beer bottle or large stick, best thing to do is just to run, not shoot him with a gun you don't have. M I rite guyZ?
What about shooting him and then running? Since your gun won't be registered anyways.
Dade Murphey
31-10-05, 08:00
Ok, you have a pistol. In your pocket, right now. And you see a guy charging at you with a wooden stick (not a 3cm stick or something, but like a meter+ length) and with every intention of beating you to a pulp, would you shoot him? Would you, say, run away? Would you ask him nicely to stop? If it took you more than 2 seconds to figure out an answer, you're already on the floor unconscious, and you'll never wake up cause you'll be dead. Don't think for one second that a person with a stick is not threatening. Now if he stops after you put a slug in his chest, you shouldn't keep shooting him. That would get you in jail.
Again, your punishment, if any, depends on many things. If he was on drugs and there was no doubt he was going to attack you and kill you, and if you don't have much if any training with a gun (except just enough to get a license to own one), you'll probably get away free. If you're, say, an off-duty police officer, you'd be expected to aim for the legs. But an average person is not expected to have the presence of mind to aim low... it's a panicked situation and you have a right to defend yourself. The easiest way to stop someone (and the most likely place to hit them), is in the center of mass, the chest/torso area.
My first thought isn't to kill them...I might pull the gun but I wouldn't shoot to kill...if I did end up having to shoot I'd be more apt to go for the legs/arms...I'm the type of person who would rather leave someone with a life long reminder rather than kill them
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.