Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

Only if they're actively aggressing, and collateral damage is unjustified regardless. Even if there is someone in the crowd that I am legitimately entitled to kill (they're trying to kill me, say), I can't just go all NYC's Finest and spray into the crowd.

Killing isn't justified, however, if they only have intent, or ability. They have to be an active threat for it to be justified.

So killing is never justified in the modern war-fighting environment? I mean, it's an impossibility to be sure that the guy's both a threat, and that there's going to be no collateral.

No amount of "collateral damage" is justified, though if every step possible is taken to avoid it then it can at least be understandable. You can make a decision on the spot and yes, there are grey areas, but then there are not-so-grey areas such as when they've surrendered or are unarmed and defenseless.

[Morrigi]

Meh, execute the rapists and murderers, why should society have to pay for their food, clothing, and shelter when they've actively harmed society? And in my opinion, sentencing a young person to decades in prison is a fate worse than death.

[Loud Whispers]

Meh, execute the rapists and murderers, why should society have to pay for their food, clothing, and shelter when they've actively harmed society?

Because they are people just like you and I who screwed up. Devaluing life. Removing all future possibilities that they could do anything good. Creating the risk of executing innocent people.

"I could spend the time trying to make you a functional human being, but I honestly don't care about anything you've been through so I'm just going to execute you now."

Murderers and rapists aren't all born to be so. And it's incredibly horrific to see anyone get dehumanized so because they've committed grave crimes and suddenly now they're worthless. That's not humanity.

[Frumple]

So: Mandatory treatment for suicidal people!

We's gon' need some hella' better methodology, then. And a way to fix society, or at least the individual's local environment. Lot of cases when we as a people have gone in and tried to "fix" someone that's "psychologically damaged" our... neither the methods nor the results have been what I'd call the most palatable, y'know? It's a really damned tricky subject, and mandatory treatment is a really dangerous thing to attempt to actually implement.

Just so long as you realize all that, I guess.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Are you exempt from that? After all, you are killing people as societies revenge.

I am not. I kill if they are an active threat, or resisting too much for me to subdue them and apprehend them if they have killed.

[Loud Whispers]

Are you exempt from that? After all, you are killing people as societies revenge.

I am not. I kill if they are an active threat, or resisting too much for me to subdue them and apprehend them if they have killed.

Despite the fact that you are an active threat to them.

[PanH]

Failure to kill yourself consistently eliminates the desire.

That's why nobody ever tried to suicide more than once. Oh wait. Considering it is very hard to kill himself (except guns, who fail only 10%), there is a lot of people who tried to suicide several times.
33% of people who try to suicide will try again within the next year.

[Loud Whispers]

Failure to kill yourself consistently eliminates the desire.

That's why nobody ever tried to suicide more than once. Oh wait. Considering it is very hard to kill himself (except guns, who fail only 10%), there is a lot of people who tried to suicide several times.
33% of people who try to suicide will try again within the next year.

A lot of the people who register for assisted suicide never commit - just having the power of total control over their life is enough for them to keep living.

[kaijyuu]

I never kill if I can help it. I'm the type that literally wouldn't hurt a fly.

(my morality spreads quite evenly toward most mammals, and it gets progressively more grey area the less intelligent (or more specifically, capable of feeling emotion/pain) the species gets. Eventually it'll hit 0; I've no empathy for anything without a mind. While I wouldn't hurt a fly if I could help it, if I had to for some reason, I wouldn't sorrow all that much)


As for situations where I'd kill a person, self defense is a maybe (if they somehow had a good reason to kill me, I'd let them. If they didn't, I'd probably try to find any other possible recourse before that). Defense of others is assured; I have the right to give up my own life, but not other's, and if I have the power to help them then it is my responsibility to do so.

[DarkWolfXV]

So Tom and Jerry walk into real life. . . and Tom toys with Jerry before mutilating and eating him.

I hate Jerry because he is an asshole, always thought that its unfair that Jerry always wins and he always teases Tom and in the end Tom gets shit for that. I dont know why i post this here but i had to. I know its just a cartoon but... Well nevermind.

Now, on topic, killing human beings is okay when they are posing a direct danger (Someone running at someone with a knife, etc.), in self defense, and stuff like that. Killing animals, is okay for food, except insects which i dont care about so to me you can do whatever you want. I am against torture of any kind, however, if you must kill, go for a quick painless kill if possible.

[Shakerag]

Meh, execute the rapists and murderers, why should society have to pay for their food, clothing, and shelter when they've actively harmed society? And in my opinion, sentencing a young person to decades in prison is a fate worse than death.

On one hand I want to agree with this.  However, on the other hand, I don't feel that murder is the correct solution for anything.  Perhaps the most satisfying at times, but not "right". 

Furthermore, with the clusterfuck which is the legal system (in any country, I'm sure), it's very hard for me to get behind a "kill 'em all" plan when we fuck up and throw an innocent person in prison often enough. 

If we could somehow achieve a 100% confidence that we have the actual person who committed a rape/murder, I'd be all for whoring them out as slave labor.  At least that way we could get something potentially good/useful out of them, rather than just sticking them in a cell for life. 

[GlyphGryph]

Killing is acceptable when the alternative is worse.

If I know someone is going to be engaging in rape and abuse for a time into the future, and the damage they cause will be significant, preventing that damage is a priority. If there are better solutions than killing, they should be employed instead - if there are not, killing is the most acceptable course of action - assuming it has no additional negative side effects, of course, that would make it worse than simply "killing".

If someone is going to suffer for weeks before perishing, and wants their miser to end now, it is acceptable to kill them, and for the same reason - it is better than the alternative.

Considerations such as whether the person is "guilty", or whether they "deserve" to be killed, seem to me as nothing but mere cruelty, and a sign that the killing is likely to be not only wrong but entirely unacceptable. Killing someone for your own emotional gratification or enjoyment is morally repulsive at a fundamental level, and this is what most calls for executing rapists or murderers boil down to. When dealing with matters of life and death, such things as guilt are trivialities - death zeroes them out. The person no longer exists, and the only bits that persists are the event that result or were avoided. We will all die, every one of us, after all - death is no great evil, but it is a tool that evil can wield to achieve it's ends, and the opportunity cost of killing is immense.

In the same vein, collateral damage is unfortunate and regrettable, but sometimes required when the alternative is worse. Engaging in activities where you know some of those you are responsible for will die is essentially killing them, but is also sometimes required for the same reason. It is wrong (unless they themselves take responsibility for the result - bringing about your own death in the hopes for benefits is not really wrong), but it may also be acceptable if the situation demands it.

[Thecard]

I never kill if I can help it. I'm the type that literally wouldn't hurt a fly.

(my morality spreads quite evenly toward most mammals, and it gets progressively more grey area the less intelligent (or more specifically, capable of feeling emotion/pain) the species gets. Eventually it'll hit 0; I've no empathy for anything without a mind. While I wouldn't hurt a fly if I could help it, if I had to for some reason, I wouldn't sorrow all that much)


As for situations where I'd kill a person, self defense is a maybe (if they somehow had a good reason to kill me, I'd let them. If they didn't, I'd probably try to find any other possible recourse before that). Defense of others is assured; I have the right to give up my own life, but not other's, and if I have the power to help them then it is my responsibility to do so.

I'm the same way.  The only things I don't actually feel bad about killing are ticks.

[Nadaka]

I've skipped most of this thread. I just want to ask how does one think that humans are NOT superior to animals?

What special quality do animals have, that humans don't, that compensates for our capacity for rationality, culture and science to make them our equal?

It is completely unfathomable to me.

[Scoops Novel]

There's the evolutionary potential card.