[UBJ3kvP1]

Lately I have dealing a lot with my ethical views and habits.

Me and my friends have been debating this amongst ourselves for a few days now, and I have since wanted to make a debate on it.

Now in most religions, killing another human being is seen as cruel, sinful, damning, basically one of the worst possible things you can do right?

They also celebrate saving lives, as being one of heroics, valor, and just being a good person to do that.

(Those are really watered down, but you get the point)

Here is where our debate took place.

Suppose there was one man/woman, and he was threatening to kill some people on a bus or something like that. And lets say for the sake of the argument, you are the ONLY person in position, or with the resources to stop them.

Your only option for stopping them is to kill them.

What does this make you?

I personally believe strongly in kill one, save a thousand. To me murder and killing is justified if it is done for the good of the people, or in self defense. I dont think it is wrong to murder a murderer, just fair really. If someone has intent to hurt or kill another for malicious means, then to me they dont value life.

I honestly spent a lot of time thinking about it. And while I believe in my feelings, I cant help but still question them.

How do you feel about it forum? Are you an evil, malicious being for killing someone, who's only intent is to kill others?

[Pvfcadbh]

Yeah this is a hard one. I certainly believe that the killing of any kind is amoral. It's a big part of why I'm a vegetarian. On the other hand if my killing him can save others I don't really see any-other option but to save the others and deal with the consequences.

[Heessduernbub]

I definitely believe that there are some crimes that deserve the death penalty. If you brutally rape someone, or murder a child/pregnant woman/serial murder, I think you deserve the death penalty. Some things are unforgivable and prove you are no longer a potentially viable member of society.





X

[JohnMitchel]

I believe every situation is different.
Killing for fun is wrong.
Killing to save lives is right.
Killing to save lives, but having fun doing it is right, but you should be ashamed.

That pretty much sums up my feelings.

---------- Post added October 14th, 2010 at 04:58 AM ----------

I definitely believe that there are some crimes that deserve the death penalty. If you brutally rape someone, or murder a child/pregnant woman/serial murder, I think you deserve the death penalty. Some things are unforgivable and prove you are no longer a potentially viable member of society.





X

This is not the topic of debate.

[Darnisg]

Okay, maybe I put it in a way that's sort of off topic.
"Suppose there was one man/woman, and he was threatening to kill some people on a bus or something like that. And lets say for the sake of the argument, you are the ONLY person in position, or with the resources to stop them."

Is it wrong to kill this person? Not to me, and if he DID kill those people, I would go for the death penalty. K?




X

[RG3rGWcA]

Okay, maybe I put it in a way that's sort of off topic.
"Suppose there was one man/woman, and he was threatening to kill some people on a bus or something like that. And lets say for the sake of the argument, you are the ONLY person in position, or with the resources to stop them."

Is it wrong to kill this person? Not to me, and if he DID kill those people, I would go for the death penalty. K?




X

Looks much better.

[blogforloversxx]

I like, started my thought process, then deleted what I said to rephrase it, and sorta posted the last half of the point I was gonna make without the first half. xD Must stop debating sleepy




X

[newspetty]

Suppose there was one man/woman, and he was threatening to kill some people on a bus or something like that. And lets say for the sake of the argument, you are the ONLY person in position, or with the resources to stop them. I am wondering whether I should be my 'Kira' self or my 'L' self for this debate....
*uses my Shinigami Eyes and gets out my Deathnote* LOL

I think that Kira did all the right things but for all the wrong reasons and 'L' did all the wrong things but for all the right reasons.

It would be nice if you could be some kind of 'moral vigilante' to rid the world of miscreants, murderers and such, but then you not be any different to them would you?

All you would be doing, is replacing hardened, gross criminals for more refined, intellectual criminals.

If I somehow knew that I would be saving innocent lives by killing somebody, I would definitely do it, take no joy in doing it and accept whatever punishment came my way.

If that meant I would also die, I would very happily accept and welcome death as being the ultimate sacrifice for saving those lives.

That's my moral take on the whole situation.

[Auzuigcx]

It's your basic rational exchange theory. The needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few.

[cingularring]

It's your basic rational exchange theory. The needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few.

What if it was one life for one life?

What if you were to kill a murderer to save only one innocent?

*now the debate gets interesting....grabs popcorn*

(I would still knock off the murderer, personally).

[KlaraNovikoffa]

At this point, I do not believe there is a clear right-or-wrong answer.

For one, there is no true or uniform definition of what is "right". There are some who believe in sacrificing a few lives to save many more and there are some who believe that taking a life is wrong, end of story.

For another, there are way too many variations that have to be taken into account. For example, what if the person with the gun was not of a sane state-of-mind? When there is a lack of a clear "evil", what is the right thing to do?

Ultimately, I believe that, as long as you hold true to what you believe to be the "right" thing to do, you should not have any regrets.

As a side note: I'm very amused at how closely this resembles Fate, lol.

[WenPyclenoWex]

At this point, I do not believe there is a clear right-or-wrong answer.

For one, there is no true or uniform definition of what is "right". There are some who believe in sacrificing a few lives to save many more and there are some who believe that taking a life is wrong, end of story.

For another, there are way too many variations that have to be taken into account. For example, what if the person with the gun was not of a sane state-of-mind? When there is a lack of a clear "evil", what is the right thing to do?

Ultimately, I believe that, as long as you hold true to what you believe to be the "right" thing to do, you should not have any regrets.

As a side note: I'm very amused at how closely this resembles Fate, lol.

I agree. You need to be fully aware of the situation.

What if the 'murderer' was about to kill somebody who had already killed others and would kill again? Then all we are doing by killing that murderer, is getting more people killed through our own foolish actions.

I think that this isn't really a very good scenario to ponder when one is reviewing their own ethical code due to countless extenuating circumstances.

If you think this closely resembles Fate, you obviously have not seen Deathnote. LOL

[JacksHH]

Well, from what I know of Deathnote, both main characters have already made the decision to follow their definition of what is "right" and see it to its end. Fate, however, reflects much of the OP in that one's own morals are brought into question.

My post itself is largely based on Fate. Given the nature of the situation, no matter what you do, you will always be accused of having done the "wrong" thing by someone. You just have to recognise that you've tried your best to uphold your morals, realise that not everyone will agree with your morals and move on.

[jesyflowers]

Well, from what I know of Deathnote, both main characters have already made the decision to follow their definition of what is "right" and see it to its end. Fate, however, reflects much of the OP in that one's own morals are brought into question.

My post itself is largely based on Fate. Given the nature of the situation, no matter what you do, you will always be accused of having done the "wrong" thing by someone. You just have to recognise that you've tried your best to uphold your morals, realise that not everyone will agree with your morals and move on.

I must watch Fate. It sounds very interesting.

If you have seen Deathnote, you will understand that bit about the guy on a bus threatening to kill everybody and you being the only one in a position to stop him.

Yes, both Kira and L were doing what they thought was right. Kira believed that killing murderers was right and L believed that punishing killers who killed for whatever reason was right.

The analogy to Deathnote was just too good to go un-noticed.

[kesFockplek]

Just so people know, Im basically saying by whatever means, you and everyone else on that bus are average people (GOD SAYS SO! Lol) And none of you are bad people barring the crazed guy about to kill you. That was the question.

However Yami Bakura and Sayo do pose a valid point, so you all can think about that too.

Im just saying, would you be a evil person to kill someone, if you knew it was going to save the life/lives of more innocent people? Would you be evil if it was to save some scum bag who, in turn from the experience, might turn his/her life around?

Always something to think about really.

Personally, and while I do tend to hate myself for saying this. I would almost love to be in that position. Taking someone's life to help others wouldnt bother me in the least. War botehrs me. because killing another soldier who is only fighting for is homeland and family... That seems wrong to me. All of those soldiers, no matter what side they are on, are all fighting for the same things really...

So a sick murderer? No problem, Im galdly take them out. Someone who is only fighting for the things every human should have? That, I would feel ****ty about. Murderers dont value life, so I dont value theirs.

[weightpillsnow]

I like this debate. Personally I don't think my answer will change in any scenario.

If I were in the position the OP described, I wouldn't really hesitate to end the life of the murderer.

Now if there were one murderer and only one potential victim, then I would obviously end the life of the murderer yet again. My reasoning being that the life of the innocent is more valuable in terms of society than the murderer's life.

Now let's switch it up a bit. What if the person the murderer was after was also a murderer?

[KuevDulin]

Now let's switch it up a bit. What if the person the murderer was after was also a murderer?

Let 'em duke it out and then arrest the survivor. That would be the best way in my mind. Of course there is no guarantee the survivor would/wouldn't get the death penalty.

[oneliRafmeene]

When we throw God out of the picture, we throw out many morals too. Then, because of that, we view sin as subjective, which then wreaks chaos upon the world when some people protect the value of life and morals whereas others don't and/or just don't care. What is next? Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly? Teaching 5-year-olds how to masturbate? Being told by a Canadian special-interest group on CNN to "save the planet by not having children"? Creating an EcoFascist campaign ad where kids and adults are violently blown apart in a pseudo-dark humor attempt to cut our energy reserves by 10%?

How far down the rabbit hole will we fall? Let's wait and see.

[ITYfl01c]

When we throw God out of the picture, we throw out many morals too. Then, because of that, we view sin as subjective, which then wreaks chaos upon the world when some people protect the value of life and morals whereas others don't and/or just don't care. What is next? Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly? Teaching 5-year-olds how to masturbate? Being told by a Canadian special-interest group on CNN to "save the planet by not having children"? Creating an EcoFascist campaign ad where kids and adults are violently blown apart in a pseudo-dark humor attempt to cut our energy reserves by 10%?

How far down the rabbit hole will we fall? Let's wait and see.

One can have morals without believing in God. God is not the source of morality.

And please keep to the subject at hand.

[glopomcyte]

When we throw God out of the picture, we throw out many morals too. Then, because of that, we view sin as subjective, which then wreaks chaos upon the world when some people protect the value of life and morals whereas others don't and/or just don't care. What is next? Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly? Teaching 5-year-olds how to masturbate? Being told by a Canadian special-interest group on CNN to "save the planet by not having children"? Creating an EcoFascist campaign ad where kids and adults are violently blown apart in a pseudo-dark humor attempt to cut our energy reserves by 10%?

How far down the rabbit hole will we fall? Let's wait and see.

Half of that **** is so wildly off topic I am almost surprised even you made these leaps.

Wife: Hi honey how was your day?

Husband: A man held me and the bus I was on hostage. He threatened to kill us all. I had to kill him.

Wife: Again?

Husband: Yep. Busy week. Well I better go, I'm late for my teaching children to masturbate class. Think you can euthanize grandma for me? Thanks.

Wife: You owe me.

Husband: Fine. We can blow some people up and denounce all religion when I get home. And I'll help you run for Emperor of Canada.


The picture you paint is very grim, indeed.



On topic, I would kill him. In the given scenario this makes you a hero at best and an ordinary person forced into an unfavorable position at worst.

Now if the murderer was trying to kill another murderer... I would call the cops.