Justified Killing

Ask any average Joe whether or not (s)he thinks killing is bad and most likely they will say, "Yes, because killing people is a horrible deed."

Well, let's say you are given the option to kill one person, e.x. a convict, and he plans to murder innocent people to escape from jail and re-establish his life.

You know that killing is a "bad" deed, but is it justified if you're doing it for "good" reasons?

Even if the person was a convict that was planning on killing lots of people, I still wouldn't kill them because if I kill once, what's to stop me from killing again in a less justified situation? Usually what holds a person back from killing another person is that they can't bear the thought of taking life away from another person, it's wrong and it'll send them to hell (tho personally, I don't believe in Heaven or in Hell), but if they'd already killed someone, they might just be like "Hey what the heck, I'm already doomed" and kill someone who might not completely deserve it. The only time I'd ever kill someone is if it's by accident, or if it's to protect myself or someone I love.

quwoosh wrote:

Even if the person was a convict that was planning on killing lots of people, I still wouldn't kill them because if I kill once, what's to stop me from killing again in a less justified situation? Usually what holds a person back from killing another person is that they can't bear the thought of taking life away from another person, it's wrong and it'll send them to hell (tho personally, I don't believe in Heaven or in Hell), but if they'd already killed someone, they might just be like "Hey what the heck, I'm already doomed" and kill someone who might not completely deserve it. The only time I'd ever kill someone is if it's by accident, or if it's to protect myself or someone I love.

So you wouldn't kill Adolf Hitler as long as he didn't pose a direct threat to you or your loved ones. I would kill anyone as long as it would prevent him from killing more people. Simple formula.

To quwoosh: I agree with what you're saying that someone who claims is going to hell will continue to act wrongly because he might not think that "killing" is so wrong. However, not everyone who kills once is motivated to kill once more. If you were to kill someone to protect someone you love, that does not make you a ruthless killing machine.

To Erwin: Let's assume that I kill people who endanger my family (this is not a reflection of myself in real life). So you would kill me because I'm killing people to protect my family?

Magickirby wrote:

To quwoosh: I agree with what you're saying that someone who claims is going to hell will continue to act wrongly because he might not think that "killing" is so wrong. However, not everyone who kills once is motivated to kill once more. If you were to kill someone to protect someone you love, that does not make you a ruthless killing machine.

To Erwin: Let's assume that I kill people who endanger my family (this is not a reflection of myself in real life). So you would kill me because I'm killing people to protect my family?

No since your reason for killing is justified.

I don't think killing is ever really justified unless you've been dead before and came back to life. I think the eye for an eye thing plays into effect here. Like, a guy could kill thousands of people, which is bad, but killing him would still be wrong. I mean, there's the thing where you think he's going to go kill other people, and you're killing him to stop him, which isn't as bad as just killing him out of no where, but still means making another person not live anymore. I know there are times when people kill others out of self-defense, but unless you died too, I don't think it could be justified even if I understand where you're coming from.

To Erwin: So killing people to save more people is justified and killing to save family is justified. If a thousand people tried to kill my sister for some unknown reason and I kill each one of them to save one person, would you kill me because I'm killing a large amount of people just to save one family member?

To Komal: It's horrible how thin the line of "wrong" is because letting him kill more people is "wrong" but killing him to save thousands is "wrong" in it's own way. It seems that anything involving killing is an argument for "which is less wrong."

Like, the thing is, after a while it becomes like, it's better to kill 499 people to save 500 people since you're saving more lives. Like death isn't something you can learn from, and it's not something that can alter your behavior, so why kill someone?

To Komal: Well, after a while, you're assuming that people consider human lives to be equal. People MAY say that, but why are we having debates of saving 100 people vs your best friend? Human emotions seem to play a part in deciding who to save because someone saving someone he knows cares for the person being saved.

True. But even if we don't value human lives at the same level, could you be justified? Justice is pretty like facts-only, by the way the court system works anyway