-- Posted by TheSte at 9:17 am on May 3, 2009 First off, this is my first post in this forum   Anyway, the reason i thought i'd ask this, is because this is a topic i feel very strongly about, so, i ask you LW, what do you think? Personally, i think it can be justified, read the poem 'The man he killed' - Thomas Hardy, i think. But if i were to kill someone, and i'm joining the Royal Marines, so may well become a reality, i'd say 'If i don't kill this person, he's going to kill me, and possibly other innocent people.' I wouldn't say 'An eye for an eye' works, that will just lead to an endless circle of violence. But out of military situations, back home in England, or America, could it be justified there? Heres a situation, a man has been charged with murder, under difficult circumstances, a man robbed his house, he responed with force and ending up killing said robber. Is he worse then the robber? Discuss. :D -- Posted by Themakingofagod at 9:23 am on May 3, 2009 I don't think killing another human being, or intelligent animal, (although that is another debate) is right.  For the most part, we don't live in a society in which we are as uncivilized as to live by the rule, "an eye for an eye."  We are taught to have faith in the penal system, and to let it run it's course.  In self defense, where you have no other option, you have the right to defend yourself, but because so many people who have been victimized will instantly go for revenge, it doesn't always leave them to do a responsible thing. Say for example, a young woman was raped.  She thinks she knows who the person is who did it, goes to his house, and blows him to dust with a shotgun.  What if he didn't do it?  Sure, it may have been most likely that he did it, but if he didn't, she just killed an innocent man for something he didn't do.  This will also cause a lot of cases of being misused.  I don't like this person, so I made something up about how they assaulted me, as an excuse to kill them.  The legal system is nowhere near perfect, I will say that, but I do not see justifying murder when not in the context of self defense to be any better of a solution. -- Posted by mikeyb at 11:02 pm on May 3, 2009 I do not believe killing is alright, manslaughter in self defense is different though. But it seems like there is quite a different between beating somebody to a pulp, and beating them to death. Mind you, if somebody approached me with a knife, I would go all out. -- Posted by Elm at 3:34 pm on May 4, 2009 The act of killing is amoral.  The reasoning behind the act could be moral, amoral, or immoral. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:12 am on May 8, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 5:34 pm on May 4, 2009 The act of killing is amoral. The reasoning behind the act could be moral, amoral, or immoral. I agree with this if we are talking about killing generally.  I would strike two of those categories if we are only talking about killing people. -- Posted by Blackadder at 8:21 pm on May 8, 2009 Perhaps Theste, a more useful idea is for you to post what you think morality is and let us use that as a framework. Do you believe, for example, that Morality is objective or subjective? If you think objective, then what is the source? (i.e God), and how can we know it? If subjective morality, then matters of right and wrong are mere opinions, so the debate becomes very simple: Killing is wrong is you think it is wrong, right if you think it is right.   -- Posted by Elm at 7:38 pm on May 20, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 9:12 am on May 8, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 5:34 pm on May 4, 2009 The act of killing is amoral.  The reasoning behind the act could be moral, amoral, or immoral. I agree with this if we are talking about killing generally. I would strike two of those categories if we are only talking about killing people. I'll indulge the beleif that you would strike amoral and moral so I'll ask if a crazed person came to canabalize your newborn would the killing of that person be a moral amoral or immoral act? -- Posted by bellreavue at 7:00 pm on May 26, 2009 I generally think that killing is wrong,  but if the man's motive was to defend himself, and not kill the robber, then he's alright. I think the ideal circumstance would be to call the police and let them deal with it, instead of getting involved yourself. I realize this would be impossible in some situations, but it's just a thought. -- Posted by Selfishly at 12:19 am on June 1, 2009 For the most part, I agree with "Themakingofagod". I do not think that under any circumstances should someone be killed by someone else. It happens all the time though, and it makes me disappointed. However, even though I believe that killing a person is wrong, I do not think that the punishment of the death penalty is any better, though that's another debate on it's own. -- Posted by Elm at 4:54 pm on June 3, 2009 Quote: from Selfishly at 12:19 am on June 1, 2009 For the most part, I agree with "Themakingofagod". I do not think that under any circumstances should someone be killed by someone else. It happens all the time though, and it makes me disappointed. However, even though I believe that killing a person is wrong, I do not think that the punishment of the death penalty is any better, though that's another debate on it's own. So you believe nobody has the right to defend themselves or their loved ones from harm caused by an aggressor? -- Posted by mountain hare at 6:21 am on June 7, 2009 Quote: from bellreavue at 7:00 pm on May 26, 2009 I generally think that killing is wrong, but if the man's motive was to defend himself, and not kill the robber, then he's alright. Why wouldn't I want to kill a worthless scumbag who tried to steal my stuff using violence? Any individual who can't survive in the first world with all the government handouts is a worthless dysgenic scumbag who needs to be driven to the grave posthaste. By all rights, I should be able to impale their corpse outside my house to deter any future would-be robbers. -- Posted by matto at 7:12 am on June 8, 2009 I think it's important to remember -- whether or not one believes in it, because I myself probably don't to a large extent -- that original beliefs of most religions state extremely clearly that killing is wrong, and that loving thy neighbor(s) is a requirement in order for everyone to get along.  Religion has been grotesquely treated in recent times, being used as reason FOR mass killing, when in fact its pure form is a set moral guidelines, one of which includes the constant law that killing is always wrong. Personally, I know that we don't live in an ideal society, and situations may occur in which there is no other choice, their life or yours.  However, I believe that this has to do with many of society's flaws in the current moment, and that these can be fixed with cooperation, and that violence simply spreads the problem. So no, I don't think killing can ever be called right. -- Posted by butterflygrl2005 at 5:16 pm on June 8, 2009 I think that if people have to resort to it as the completely last resort, it is only human nature to do so. However, if someone is able to prevent the murder of another being, I think that it does make them worser off. The key detail is if the force he used was required or if he overdid it. Survival is an instinct, and complete pacifism is not always the answer. -- Posted by awesome10 at 3:37 am on June 9, 2009 Yes, Killing is right. There are some people on this earth who just don't deserve to live, The majority of us have heard about them but only the minority of us have seen them face to face. Imagine this, An aids infested child molester who has raped over 20 children; all of the children have caught the aids - the kids *now shortened* lives are ruined for ever. Do you think this man deserves to live? Whether in a jail cell or not i believe he does not deserve to live. We don't need people like that on this earth, the best option is to terminate them as soon as possible. Why waste tax money and other resources on keeping this sub-human alive? Why give this sub-human a chance to live when he has taken away 20 other peoples chances to live? I have personally witnessed these type of people, They are far beyond rehabilitation and cannot live with other people without becoming a danger to them. What is the point in keeping them alive? What is the point of wasting resources to keep them alive? Just terminate them and they are no longer a problem. -- Posted by delysid at 4:04 am on June 9, 2009 Along the lines of this, I don't believe that there is 'universal right' in the world. Or universal wrong. Reality is subjective - something which is considered 'right' by one person is considered 'wrong' by another person. Someone who kills another person may at the time, for whatever reason (i.e. rage, hate crimes, mental disorders) believe it is the right thing to do. So yes, killing can definitely be called right, but not called right by everyone. -- Posted by blitzerdog at 10:03 pm on June 18, 2009 Morality is what society deems necessary to live by right? Or perhaps it is what we as an individual live by to exist in society. Either way, what we learned to be morals differ from person to person. We could have faith based morals, or morals we learned from our parents, or even the government can instill morals at an early age. Killing is immoral by society's stranded, and therefore immoral by all standards. -- Posted by Jasonzlpa at 4:32 pm on June 28, 2009 I believe if they are making you make a choice between you (or a family member) or them, a life or death choice, then it is completely justifiable to kill them.   -- Posted by imatwirp at 6:35 pm on July 1, 2009 In each individual's mind, we almost all see the (eye for eye) rule. I for one, if a burglar broke in my house, I would absolutely 100% act accordingly. He wouldnt leave my house without 2 broken legs, and a concussion. Because, if a person knowingly commits a crime i.e. breaking into a house, they should be aware of the consequences if caught. Thus, they deserve the penalty. In Tx, it is well within legal rights to defend one's self from harm if the perpetrator is on your property. There is no 3 warning rule, etc. It is society's view as a whole that murder is wrong, on all cases. But to the individual, sometimes, our own morals step forward. I would have no hesitation in killing someone that threatened my life. -- Posted by nefari0us at 8:47 pm on July 23, 2009 I only believe that killing is okay if it's in the army/marines (even then it's iffy for me) or if it is in a position of self defense. If someone is attacking you I completely understand if they attack them back, and if they get killed by accident then that's what they get. Otherwise, killing is wrong. -- Posted by stupidbr at 8:44 pm on July 28, 2009 I believe that there is no justifiable reason to take someone else's life, no matter what they did. I do not believe that I could ever purposely kill someone. Each life is special. so why can we decide that someone else doesnt deserve it? -- Posted by Rastafarian at 1:03 am on July 30, 2009 Killing can be called lawful, just, sanctioned, and everything else; and in those senses it can be considered right. -- Posted by Elm at 10:32 am on July 31, 2009 Quote: from stupidbr at 8:44 pm on July 28, 2009 I believe that there is no justifiable reason to take someone else's life, no matter what they did. I do not believe that I could ever purposely kill someone. Each life is special. so why can we decide that someone else doesnt deserve it? When they take a willful action to infringe on the rights of others they cede their own claim to their rights. Why on earth would you not use deadly force if available to stop a mad person from killing you or your loved ones?  The mad person cares not for the lives of others and you and your loved ones do so you would gladly sacrifice a life that holds closer to the belief system that is less likely to cause more loss of life in the future for one that is self-destructive to what you value?  Madness. -- Posted by TheSte at 5:43 pm on July 31, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 6:32 pm on July 31, 2009 Quote: from stupidbr at 8:44 pm on July 28, 2009 I believe that there is no justifiable reason to take someone else's life, no matter what they did. I do not believe that I could ever purposely kill someone. Each life is special. so why can we decide that someone else doesnt deserve it? When they take a willful action to infringe on the rights of others they cede their own claim to their rights. Why on earth would you not use deadly force if available to stop a mad person from killing you or your loved ones? The mad person cares not for the lives of others and you and your loved ones do so you would gladly sacrifice a life that holds closer to the belief system that is less likely to cause more loss of life in the future for one that is self-destructive to what you value? Madness. I'm with Elm here, if someone attacked my family or friends, i wouldn't hesitate to use whatever force was necessary to protect them. If that meant i had to kill someone, then they shouldn't of attacked. However, i would only try to kill said attacker if lives were endangered. So, i suppose i'm saying, i would use the same amount of force that an attacker / thief used on me, or more if it accounted for it. -- Posted by Patronizing Bastard at 6:29 pm on Aug. 2, 2009 Killing is okay. We all love Utilitarians so it is at times fine as is child rape. -- Posted by mellody at 1:51 pm on Aug. 10, 2009 Man vs nature= Killing anything for survival is fine. (plants) Man vs man= Only acceptable if an act was brought upon for revenge. Man vs creature= Only acceptable for when food is limited.