[pharmaclid]

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.

Its interesting that you say that last line about calling the cops.

Now, that would be ideal. But lets assume you didnt have that kind of time.

Would you try to stall for it? Maybe temp cripple the criminal?

Because you said that I want hear what you might try if you had more options then just killing them?

[CymnMaync]

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 makes it wrong to defend people from a person so violent that he/she must be killed to be stopped?

[Carfanate]

What makes it wrong to defend people from a person so violent that he/she must be killed to be stopped?

Some people say its wrong to kill under all circumstances.

I feel there is justice is some murders. It just depends on cause and intent.

What seperates a war hero or Cop from a Killer or a Psycopath?

Intent... And maybe sanity too, actually scratch that definately sanity.

[carpartsho]

Some people say its wrong to kill under all circumstances.

I feel there is justice is some murders. It just depends on cause and intent.

What seperates a war hero or Cop from a Killer or a Psycopath?

Intent... And maybe sanity too, actually scratch that definately sanity.

It depends on what level of deontologic thinking you have. It is very rare to be completely deontologic. I do not think it is man's place to murder, at all. To call a hero, cop, soldier, defender, etc a murderer is wrong because the intent is to save and protect. Otherwise, you're a murderer for defending people from a bomber. See how silly that is?

[career-builder]

I forgot that killing is the only option in this situation when I said I'd call the cops.

I guess I am indifferent if a murderer were trying to murder a murderer so if I had to kill one of them or stand by and watch I'd pick the latter. I wouldn't like to see someone die and it's not that I think neither of them deserve to die Or that I think both of them deserve to die. I would choose to watch because if I get involved in that kind of activity I'm putting myself at unnecessary risk.

I guess the original question is better because it's forces you to be involved and make a choice.

[estelle]

Some people say its wrong to kill under all circumstances.

I feel there is justice is some murders. It just depends on cause and intent.

What seperates a war hero or Cop from a Killer or a Psycopath?

Intent... And maybe sanity too, actually scratch that definately sanity.

Remember: Kill and murder are not terms that can be used interchangeably. Killing is taking another organism's life, whereas murder is kind of a sub-category, where the killing was done with malicious intent.

Soldiers and police are killers, there's no question there. Whether they are murderers or not depends on both the situation and the people perceiving them. Some will call them heroes, some will call them killers, some will call them murderers.

The labels will be derived from both the circumstances of the event and your own moral beliefs. And this then goes back to my OP: There's simply no way to reach a general consensus that the entire population can agree on for every single possible scenario. In that case, the best you can do is judge according to your own morals and decide on an action from there IMO.

[trettegeani]

Remember: Kill and murder are not terms that can be used interchangeably. Killing is taking another organism's life, whereas murder is kind of a sub-category, where the killing was done with malicious intent.

Soldiers and police are killers, there's no question there. Whether they are murderers or not depends on both the situation and the people perceiving them. Some will call them heroes, some will call them killers, so will call them murderers.

The labels will be derived from both the circumstances of the event and your own moral beliefs. And this then goes back to my OP: There's simply no way to reach a general consensus that the entire population can agree on for every single possible scenario. In that case, the best you can do is judge according to your own morals and decide on an action from there IMO.

YOur right, I dun goof'd there. Must have lost track of what I was typing.

And I agree with your post entirely.

[adarmaSen]

We, being humans, have no right to decide who lives and who dies.

[inchaaruutaa]

Hmm... I dont know if I agree with that.

[Faungarne]

We, being humans, have no right to decide who lives and who dies.

If we were to follow that, there would be no death penalty, no wars, and no juries.
Since all these things exist, it is my thought that while this may be your belief, the majority of the human race does not agree with you.

[Bvghbopz]

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.

You know, Zell...it would be nice if we could all live in a Utopian world, where people didn't kill each other...where morals existed and all that...I'd like that very much too.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Like it or not, God gave us all free will.

I believe that killing is the wrong thing to do but would that stop me from killing a killer? It would not. I would have to live with my own conscience and the consequences of my actions.

There is a saying and I think it's time it got quoted:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) How does one know they are 'good' though?

We could take the 'pacifist' view and go 'hey matey, why not put that gun away before you hurt somebody?'

Oh look.....a dead pacifist.

Or we can be a 'moral activist' and shoot the guy ourselves and live to kill another day.

It's not right of course and two wrongs don't make a right, but nothing else makes it right either...not even walking away.

[BadbarmrapBef]

If we were to follow that, there would be no death penalty, no wars, and no juries.
Since all these things exist, it is my thought that while this may be your belief, the majority of the human race does not agree with you.

Y'know what? Lemme go all Devil's Advocate up in this debate. It's about time.

I would say that the majority of the human race believes ____ is not a defendable point. The majority of the human race believes homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't make it right. The majority of germans believed Hitler was doing the right thing. Majority =/= correct.

Those juries could opt for life imprisonment instead, juries are not only around to execute people. If everyone believed that we have no right to kill each other, we WOULDN'T have wars, death penalties, etc. What right do people have to decide the life or death of another person? How can we disrespect the value of a human life by allowing ourselves to become murderers along with the criminals we are punishing?

The death sentence is a relic of times when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were the norm. It's just as barbaric as any of those things, and has no place in a moral, civilized society. So in this specific case, where there is someone threatening to kill people, and he must be killed to be stopped? I would not kill him, because debasing myself by becoming a murderer is out of the question. I would rather attempt to incapacitate him, knock him out, etc.

(lawl devil's advocacy lawl)
edit: i forgot to reply to zell's post. what you posted is a ridiculously [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope"]slippery slope[/ame] argument. please try to be a little more logical. logic here does not mean complete removal of emotion, it means reasonable, sensible argument points that can be refuted. emotion fuels all human decision but "what's next, teaching toddlers to masturbate?" is a practically insane mental leap to make and your debate partners can not follow that sort of train of thought.




X

[priceyicey]

There are some, albeit few, cases where a pacifist approach reached an idealised solution of everyone, including the potential murderer, being saved. I recall a case a few years back where a hostage showed kindness to his/her captor and shared the stories of the bible with him/her. This ended up making the captor realise the errors of his/her ways and submitted himself/herself for appropriate punishment to the police.

While the only life at risk was the hostage's own, I believe that this is a very respectable effort on his/her behalf. He/she followed through with what he/she believed to be right and was able to resolve the issue with the best possible outcome. there's no denying the fact that this will probably fail more often than it will work, but I would not consider such an approach a stupid one.

EDIT: Xari inb4'd me. My post is directed at YB's post.

[ZonaPutaX]

Y'know what? Lemme go all Devil's Advocate up in this debate. It's about time.

I would say that the majority of the human race believes ____ is not a defendable point. The majority of the human race believes homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't make it right. The majority of germans believed Hitler was doing the right thing. Majority =/= correct.

Those juries could opt for life imprisonment instead, juries are not only around to execute people. If everyone believed that we have no right to kill each other, we WOULDN'T have wars, death penalties, etc. What right do people have to decide the life or death of another person? How can we disrespect the value of a human life by allowing ourselves to become murderers along with the criminals we are punishing?

The death sentence is a relic of times when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were the norm. It's just as barbaric as any of those things, and has no place in a moral, civilized society. So in this specific case, where there is someone threatening to kill people, and he must be killed to be stopped? I would not kill him, because debasing myself by becoming a murderer is out of the question. I would rather attempt to incapacitate him, knock him out, etc.

(lawl devil's advocacy lawl)



X

1. OH NO YOU DI'INT

2. Regardless of how many times we may try to deny it, we all know that humans are emotional, barbaric creatures who, in a pinch, will do anything to survive.
As much as we would love to look civilized, we know that (just like in mafia) if a majority think the person is doing evil, that person will be stopped by any means necessary.

[Joesred]

Y'know what? Lemme go all Devil's Advocate up in this debate. It's about time.

I would say that the majority of the human race believes ____ is not a defendable point. The majority of the human race believes homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't make it right. The majority of germans believed Hitler was doing the right thing. Majority =/= correct.

Those juries could opt for life imprisonment instead, juries are not only around to execute people. If everyone believed that we have no right to kill each other, we WOULDN'T have wars, death penalties, etc. What right do people have to decide the life or death of another person? How can we disrespect the value of a human life by allowing ourselves to become murderers along with the criminals we are punishing?

The death sentence is a relic of times when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were the norm. It's just as barbaric as any of those things, and has no place in a moral, civilized society. So in this specific case, where there is someone threatening to kill people, and he must be killed to be stopped? I would not kill him, because debasing myself by becoming a murderer is out of the question. I would rather attempt to incapacitate him, knock him out, etc.

(lawl devil's advocacy lawl)
edit: i forgot to reply to zell's post. what you posted is a ridiculously slippery slope argument. please try to be a little more logical. logic here does not mean complete removal of emotion, it means reasonable, sensible argument points that can be refuted. emotion fuels all human decision but "what's next, teaching toddlers to masturbate?" is a practically insane mental leap to make and your debate partners can not follow that sort of train of thought.




X

WHile I Would agree with this, I would also like to say simply this:

Those who do not follow those rules should not be given the benefits of them. If they feel that it was ok to murder someone in cold blood, they too deserve to be murdered, or some equal punishment. Why should they get what they dont deserve? Killing in self defense, or in the defense of someone else, as I feel personally, is not a crime, its not even wrong.

If they feel that some innocent person doesnt deserve to live, then I feel they shouldnt deserve to live, because after all you said it yourself, who are they to decide who lives or dies?

EDIT: Temp also said some good points I would use to support this in the above statement.

[Vobomei]

I would rather attempt to incapacitate him, knock him out, etc. Just so you know...Ideally, I would prefer to do this myself than having to resort to killing another person. This would be the most desirable outcome for all concerned.

[italertb]

Because the majority of the human race is not civil, does that mean we, as a society, should not strive to be so? Again, majority =/= right. Ideally we are a civilized society, and that means acting civil and making decisions that do cause us to resort to barbaric tactics to handle our problems.
Edit: Damn people for posting as I'm posting. Rawr!
I'm not saying that self-defense should be illegal or something, I'm saying it's still morally wrong to willingly take the life of another. Just because someone has murdered, that doesn't mean YOU are exempt from also becoming a murderer by enacting "eye for an eye" punishment. And in that case, why shouldn't you also be killed? And whoever killed you killed, and so on? The solution seems to stop the chain of death at the start, and instead imprison the original murderer for life in solitude or something similar.



X

[namaikaimvputka]

Because the majority of the human race is not civil, does that mean we, as a society, should not strive to be so? Again, majority =/= right. Ideally we are a civilized society, and that means acting civil and making decisions that do cause us to resort to barbaric tactics to handle our problems.




X

The majority may not always be right, but the fact remains that it will most likely, win every dispute ever.

Sad truth is, most people, if they knew they could basically get away with it and never suffer the consequences, would sooner kill you to get what they want rather then argue with you. Why? Because it sure was a Hell of a lot easier.

Fortunately, as a race, Humans have made leaps and bounds to keep this to a minimum. For which I am very, very grateful.

EDIT: No, I dont believe that by killing someone who has killed in cold blood that I deserve to be killed myself. In my eyes, once you have murdered someone, your value as a living thing is now completely diminished, and therefore anyone should have free game to kill you. But that isnt to say that it first shouldnt be PROVEN that they murdered someone. I am totally a man of the courts and justice system.

[sportlife]

The majority may not always be right, but the fact remains that it will most likely, win every dispute ever.

Sad truth is, most people, if they knew they could basically get away with it and never suffer the consequences, would sooner kill you to get what they want rather then argue with you. Why? Because it sure was a Hell of a lot easier.

Fortunately, as a race, Humans have made leaps and bounds to keep this to a minimum. For which I am very, very grateful.

But I already argued that point. :\ Give me something new.
Edit: By taking someone's life, anyone's life, how are you now not also a murderer? And therefore someone who deserves to be killed as well?



X

[perhilzit]

But I already argued that point. :\ Give me something new.




X

I made an edit broseph, its up there.