If i could go back in time and kill the guy who was going to murder my brother before he did, i would but i would never claim that it was justified. There is no difference between killing in self defense and killing for no reason. The outcome is the same for both. Someone kills and the other dies.
Also, considering that the only purpose of morals is to uphold certain values like human life, it is stupid make laws of them such as "stealing is always bad".
It is generally bad because someone dies, which violates our value of life but each situation has to be analyzed differently and justified on the basis of whether it is good or bad to society.
Hell as a nihilist, you can come kill me right now. Death is only a concept.
I don't think that you can ever justify killing. But you have to take into account that I am approaching this question from a larger perspective, not from a personal one. A civilization cannot allow its civilians to kill other civilians. If a society did allow this, it would be admitting that there is not a better alternative to killing. It would be saying that killing in self defense is the best action that the victim can take. Obviously, we as a society should work out a way to salvage the lives of both the attacker and the victim. If you are being attacked and you think your life is being threatned, why do you have to KILL the other person? You never have only one option in life. Unfortunately, in the current state of our society the other options may not be as obvious as killing. In the panic of the attack, a victim might do anything to save his/her life, even taking the life of his/her assailant. But as long as we allow and even encourage (to a point) killing in self defense, we will never discover and distrubute the alternatives to killing that surely must be out there.
I don't think that you can ever justify killing. But you have to take into account that I am approaching this question from a larger perspective, not from a personal one. A civilization cannot allow its civilians to kill other civilians. If a society did allow this, it would be admitting that there is not a better alternative to killing. It would be saying that killing in self defense is the best action that the victim can take. Obviously, we as a society should work out a way to salvage the lives of both the attacker and the victim. If you are being attacked and you think your life is being threatned, why do you have to KILL the other person? You never have only one option in life. Unfortunately, in the current state of our society the other options may not be as obvious as killing. In the panic of the attack, a victim might do anything to save his/her life, even taking the life of his/her assailant. But as long as we allow and even encourage (to a point) killing in self defense, we will never discover and distrubute the alternatives to killing that surely must be out there.
Out of curiosity, what other options did you have in mind?
murder is good if you have a big gruge on the person
I fail to see how that justifies murder. You hit my dog. Die! DIE!! Methinks there is a flaw in that justification.
A civilization cannot allow its civilians to kill other civilians. If a society did allow this, it would be admitting that there is not a better alternative to killing.
Spot on. And more specifically, a society that condones the killing of its own members simply won't last long. A simple question like this calls for a simple answer, and I think that answer can be found in Kantian ethics. There's a moral imperative that we shouldn't kill. Period. Of course, this is also the guy who would say it's wrong to lie to Nazis about the Jewish people hiding in your house. But on a basic level, the Kantian duties work. Maybe with more information, we could apply some utilitarian considerations... but as the question is, I say Kant ftw.
No, it is not wrong to kill another. Right and wrong are but opinions. The killer may think it is right, the victim wrong. It's split halves. Some think it wrong, some think it right.
Is it immoral? Yes, yes it is. Nothing can ever justify murder, even in retribution or self defense. Is it necessary? Yes it can be. It's not moral to execute a quadruple murderer, but it is necessary. It's not moral to kill someone who is trying to kill you, but it is necessary. Sometimes things need to be done.
But we will never know if what we did was right, or wrong. Only when we get to Hell's gates will we know, assuming you believe in the whole afterlife yadayada.
But, in the end, death is still death. We just cause it if we kill. But it will come to us one day, so we all get punishment for whatever bad things we've done in life.
Death = bad. It is the final punishment, for everyone. It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done.
It's not moral to execute a quadruple murderer, but it is necessary.
How is it necessary?
It's not moral to kill someone who is trying to kill you, but it is necessary.
Why is it immoral?
Spot on. [Blah blah blah]
LN? Anyway, I think "utilitarian considerations" are what's important here: Mitigating circumstances do exist. The defense of oneself or others could be one such circumstance.
What is "wrong"? "Wrong" is defined by.....? What society believes it wrong? With so many societies, and many radical ones, what are the 'right' "wrong"s? How do you even begin to define "wrong"?
and who is one person to tell another that something they do is "wrong"?
That is the question.
And honestly from experience, when it comes down to a point where you hold someone's life in your hands, your instincts don't tell you "i'd go to jail for this". It's a second or third or inexistent thought, because it is transplanted and not natural. That's a little more cutthroat than i wanted to sound but it is what it is.
Because it isn't moral. It's not normal, either, by human definitions of normal. We're a collaborative and social type of creature, and we develop deep bonds with just about everything around us.
Killing each other has never been a natural part, and if it is, it's for the wrong reasons.
Morality is another debate, so let's not get into it now.
Yes. Completely wrong. Sure, you may kill someone in the act of self defense, but that doesn't make it right. A man's life should not be taken away from him unnaturally. A human life is worth more than anything.
Yes. Completely wrong. Sure, you may kill someone in the act of self defense, but that doesn't make it right. A man's life should not be taken away from him unnaturally. A human life is worth more than anything.
