Is it worth getting a point across if it means killing someone?

So, in Art class today, we were asked to write on Picasso's Guernica. It was a painting he had made when a peaceful little town in Spain was used as "target practice" during the Spanish Civil War prior to World War II. As I was writing things down, I felt angry. This wasn't a town filled with soldiers, or people really related to the war at all. This was a little town with people who were just living their lives and minding their own business. They were innocent, at least in terms of having anything to do with the war. And they were bombed like sh!t. I asked myself, why? Why did they kill them? Target Practice? Really?? And later, I thought, there have been a lot of times where countries in war would kill thousands of people in order to send a message. Is it worth it? Even killing just one person?

In general, no, I would not consider it okay to kill someone in order to send a message, simply because I believe it is wrong to kill people. However, depending on the message, this act could possibly save more people than it could kill and in that case I would have to say that sending the message by killing these people would actually be the better scenario.

To me, killing to send a message isn't just wrong; it's kind of stupid too. I mean, committing an act of cruelty like that to demonstrate your power might or might not make others fear you, but it's a surefire thing that they'll hate you. Because of Germany's belligerence during and prior to WWII, they ended up with no allies at all by the end of the war. That's because they proved that they couldn't be trusted, and that they would be willing to betray in order to gain power. Would it be any more logical to break a man's nose in public and then tell everyone else not to f--- with you? I know if I saw a guy do that, I would keep my distance, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust him. No, intimidation is a hazardous path to travel to get respect. And the respect that violent power mongers like Hitler and Vlad the Impaler get is contaminated by hate and contempt. So how does a person honestly earn respect? I think it's a matter of honor. Never compromise your principles; stand by those you're loyal to and protect those who are loyal to you.

I would say, taking morality out of the equation, it is entirely worht getting th point across. Sure, it breeds hatred and contempt, which may at one point down the road may manifest itself in a revolt or uprising of some sort. But, if the ruler/preson in question demonstrates their power correctly, the uprising, if it even occured, wouldn't hold any threat.
The key here is to be undeinably just-- if someone leads an assasination attempt on a political leader, the just thing to do would be to penalize the assistance with prison terms, but publicly execute the leader or leaders. It is a necessary demonstration of what happens to those who do something inexcusable. That being said, blunt demonstrations of power are ridiculous and unecessary. When the penalty for the act committed is death, make the death a dreadful public affair that you wish you didn't have to do; then carry it out mercilessly. But when the crime or defiant act is something that can be solved in a different matter, show that you can be just. There are the crude forms of intimidation, and then there is the matter of enforcing your law or word.

I have to agree with everyone else; killing people for a message is highly looked down upon. I mean, from a reputation point of view, how can you possibly trust in a country with the ability to destroy another country and yet have no moral regard for what it has done? Even if it says it has moral regard, the country that just killed innocent lives! I certainly do not approve this.

From a war point of view, the message given is "I like killing babies." No, I'm not kidding. You're not killing soldiers willing to die for their country, but rather women, children, elderly, and infants who are no longer given a chance at life. Whoever does this is pretty much giving a plea to have every country hate your guts forever unless other countries approve of killing innocent lives.

meaganfaller wrote:

I would say, taking morality out of the equation, it is entirely worht getting th point across. Sure, it breeds hatred and contempt, which may at one point down the road may manifest itself in a revolt or uprising of some sort. But, if the ruler/preson in question demonstrates their power correctly, the uprising, if it even occured, wouldn't hold any threat.
The key here is to be undeinably just-- if someone leads an assasination attempt on a political leader, the just thing to do would be to penalize the assistance with prison terms, but publicly execute the leader or leaders. It is a necessary demonstration of what happens to those who do something inexcusable. That being said, blunt demonstrations of power are ridiculous and unecessary. When the penalty for the act committed is death, make the death a dreadful public affair that you wish you didn't have to do; then carry it out mercilessly. But when the crime or defiant act is something that can be solved in a different matter, show that you can be just. There are the crude forms of intimidation, and then there is the matter of enforcing your law or word.

Disregarding morality, what general circumstances would make a murder justified?

Magickirby wrote:

I have to agree with everyone else; killing people for a message is highly looked down upon. I mean, from a reputation point of view, how can you possibly trust in a country with the ability to destroy another country and yet have no moral regard for what it has done? Even if it says it has moral regard, the country that just killed innocent lives! I certainly do not approve this.

From a war point of view, the message given is "I like killing babies." No, I'm not kidding. You're not killing soldiers willing to die for their country, but rather women, children, elderly, and infants who are no longer given a chance at life. Whoever does this is pretty much giving a plea to have every country hate your guts forever unless other countries approve of killing innocent lives.

What about killing in order to prevent the murder of the innocent. As an example, if you suspect a group of people to be terrorists, would you consider it justified?