I think the point is to distingish ETICS from MORALITY. Morality is imposed by society; the common self-behaving rules: not steal, not kill etc. Etics is what a person feels it's right or wrong. It's self imposed. So asking a person if killing is right or wrong makes no sense; even if he thinks thath sometimes it can be the only potion (thanks Frank Castle), he will, because of morality, ban it as wrong.
True. For example, a sociopath would claim killing to be completely acceptable. However, some of us would disagree (I hope). Again we are faced with the eternal question: What is right, and what is wrong? Because, unfortunately they are subjective.
So, assuming the crime has already been commited, is it justified to kill the perpitrator, thus causing greater loss of life?
Only if he is unable to be controlled. If you're looking for a high punishment, life in a maximum security prison is much worse than death.
I think the point is to distinguish EThICS from MORALITY. Morality is imposed by society; the common self-behaving rules: not steal, not kill etc. Ethics is what a person feels it's right or wrong. It's self imposed. So asking a person if killing is right or wrong makes no sense; even if he thinks that sometimes it can be the only option (thanks Frank Castle), he will, because of morality, ban it as wrong.
Princeton defines ethics as "the philosophical study of moral values and rules," so nope.
Also: if someone believes that murder may sometimes be the only option/best option (but also acknowledges that it is viewed as immoral by the mass of society in such context), and that person is in said situation, they will murder that person.
Regarding ecological backlash from human extinction: I do realize now that certain animals left un-hunted by humans (ie: deer) would be a backlash. However, the huge amount of new geological niches would make up for it completely. There would be thousands of new species.
Yes, only if you could justify your reason for killing him. Such as self defense as RenegadePlayer has mentioned. If he's going to kill you, than kill him so you won't be harmed since he's trying to kill you in the first place. So no its not wrong as he already has taken the risk to kill you therefore you are right to kill him.
Depends on how you killed him, if you wanted to defend yourself from him and you had to kill him to survive, then i guess that was not wrong, if you just grabbed a knife, and slashed him neck, then i guess THAT is truely wrong.
I think everyone has already said that it depends on the situation, and I agree. I think also depends on the manner in which you kill someone. I think setting someone on fire and letting them suffer is quite a bit different than killing them instantly.
I say it depends on the situation. If someone breaks into your house, rapes your family, takes everything, then threatens you then feel free. If your just walking by an old man and randomly shoot him, then that is arguably wrong. If you are in a life or death situation, then go for the life, if you are a soldier, then fight, if you have any cause that you consider just then its fine. Though, evil is relative, if you kill someone you will be looked at negatively by some and positively by others.
I think that we all generally agree that it completely depends on the situation. However, I think that killing a man by accident isn't wrong, unless you killed him by accident while trying to hurt him anyway, and things got out of hand.
