Print

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

[Frumple]

I wasn't suggesting we SHOULD execute them. Only that they would deserve it if they were executed. Killing someone that was attempting to rape would prevent the act, which is a net good, but there is almost always a better way.

It... wouldn't be a net good. It would be less of a loss, yes (and very much so), but it's hard to actually justify dehumanizing someone like that (by saying that the potential value of their life afterwards is worth less than the value of preventing the rape). Unfortunately. If that was actually true, it'd make a lot of morality a lot more simple. Mind you, I'd attempt to kill the person, too, but I make no qualms about it being immoral to do so. If it has turned to violence, someone has already fucked up beyond the point of redemption, from a moral standpoint. Everything after that's just damage control.

More generally, no situation in which someone is killed is a net gain. Period. At best, it breaks even. More likely, it prevents a greater wrong. Often, it just makes the situation worse than it would have been. The only way to make a net gain in that kind of situation is to prevent the attempt from ever happening, in such a way that, at the very least, does not harm the one who would make the attempt. Ideally, the situation of everyone involved is improved. More likely, someone's life gets worse, but a greater harm is prevented.

That's my $0.02, anyway. People keep spouting some kind of vague bullshit about the value of human life being inestimable or infinite or priceless or something or other. Then they squirm or start trying to justify going against that precept when you actually hold 'em to it, yeah.

'Course, as I often see it, the path that is least wrong is ultimately most preferable. That doesn't always mean the most preferable path is moral, or right. Just least wrong.

[Hanslanda]

It also doesn't go any good. Evil begets evil. You can only break the cycle by doing good.

I saw a show the other day, about a serial killer. At his trial, they let the families of the victims come up and speak to the guy, in front of the courtroom. All of them condemned him, cursed him, and railed at him, but one man. One elderly, white-haired old man that had lost his beautiful, young daughter, came before this gathering of vengeful people, and said something that finally got through to the serial killer. He forgave the killer, and that was the first time, throughout all of this time, that the killer had showed any emotion. The emotionless psychopath broke down and cried when he was forgiven but this crying old man.
I strongly believe the killer expected condemnation, was prepared for it, welcomed it. It would only fuel his conviction that he was different, that he had a duty as a 'predator' to cull the herd so to speak. But the old man totally brought my point home.
You can visit evil upon evil-doers all you want. All it will do is continue the cycle of evil. Sometimes, you might have to break down, forgive them, and try and help them. Sometimes these evil people are just sick people, but you can't tell because they've hidden their sickness behind their violent, cruel acts.

[King DZA]

While I've certainly had my fair share of moments where I would have loved nothing more than to hum placidly along to a throng of unified, tormented mortal screams as the streets flooded with the warm blood of the masses and life in its entirety was swallowed up in the soul-searing flames of a world-cleansing inferno, I generally try to ignore my more homicidal tendencies, and instead do my best to follow a single simple rule whenever I'm dealing with the lives of others:

Avoid killing when you can, recompense for it when you can't (well, try to, at least).

[Criptfeind]

I have a feeling that you might be blaming yourself for your actions too much Frumple, all you need to do is consider the outcomes of your own actions, which is killing and not killing. That's where the idea of a net good comes in, from your own actions. The situation is still fucked yes, and it is a net loss for society no matter what happens, but that is past already.

[Xantalos]

While I've certainly had my fair share of moments where I would have loved nothing more than to hum placidly along to a throng of unified, tormented mortal screams as the streets flooded with the warm blood of the masses and life in its entirety was swallowed up in the soul-searing flames of a world-cleansing inferno, I generally try to ignore my more homicidal tendencies, and instead do my best to follow a single simple rule whenever I'm dealing with the lives of others:

Avoid killing when you can.

For me, at least.

[Gamerlord]

While I've certainly had my fair share of moments where I would have loved nothing more than to hum placidly along to a throng of unified, tormented mortal screams as the streets flooded with the warm blood of the masses and life in its entirety was swallowed up in the soul-searing flames of a world-cleansing inferno, I generally try to ignore my more homicidal tendencies, and instead do my best to follow a single simple rule whenever I'm dealing with the lives of others:

Avoid killing when you can, recompense for it when you can't (well, try to, at least).

I also have a simple rule: If anyone dares to harm an innocent, make them pay.

[Hanslanda]

Let's skip the whole, "Innocence" thing right here and say that an innocent is someone that did not provoke an attack upon themselves, and were subsequentally attacked for no reason.

[Criptfeind]

So basically your rule is perpetuating cycles of hate for petty revenge that does not actually help?

[Xantalos]

While I've certainly had my fair share of moments where I would have loved nothing more than to hum placidly along to a throng of unified, tormented mortal screams as the streets flooded with the warm blood of the masses and life in its entirety was swallowed up in the soul-searing flames of a world-cleansing inferno, I generally try to ignore my more homicidal tendencies, and instead do my best to follow a single simple rule whenever I'm dealing with the lives of others:

Avoid killing when you can, recompense for it when you can't (well, try to, at least).

I also have a simple rule: If anyone dares to harm an innocent, make them pay.

You have no idea how tempting that statement is...
*smack*
No! Bad homicidal alternate personality!

[Scelly9]

PTW

[Loud Whispers]

So basically your rule is perpetuating cycles of hate for petty revenge that does not actually help?

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[Mr Space Cat]

PTW.

Some people deserve to be killed. The true monsters; rapists, child molesters and the like. I would have no problem if one of them was brutally killed in front of me. In fact, I would most likely join in.

This kinda struck a chord for me. I agree that sometimes there's nutjobs, wackos and complete pricks who do some dumbass deed such as "two adolescent guys kill a young girl because they want her bicycle," or "teenager kills parents and stashes the bodies in their bedroom before throwing a party and bragging about it to his friends because the parents said no about the party," or most recently the shooting in that elementary school; sometimes people are short-sighted, illogical pricks.

And while I would not condemn executing said criminals for their crimes in the name of "higher good" I would have a problem with seeing them brutally killed in front of me nor would I join in. "Brutally" suggests it'd be painful, over-the-top, and feature unnecessary removal of their guts using only ones' bear bare hands. Not really the guts part, but it gets the point across. Personally, I wouldn't want to join in such a thing because I just don't comprehend the thought of applying such pain to another individual, no matter how much I might despise the individual and their stupidity in whatever way I might define it.

Some things are worse than flat death (See all these sorts of tropes on TVTropes, such as I Must Scream), because sometimes death might be the preferred option for an individual.  The extra pain and torture that would be caused for the sake of inflicting harm would be no different than what these criminals could be getting killed for in the first place.

Also, how would suicide fit in all this? Sure it's killing, although the act of killing oneself is different from killing another in many ways, but it is none the less an act of killing. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.

[Frumple]

I have a feeling that you might be blaming yourself for your actions too much Frumple, all you need to do is consider the outcomes of your own actions, which is killing and not killing. That's where the idea of a net good comes in, from your own actions. The situation is still fucked yes, and it is a net loss for society no matter what happens, but that is past already.

Likely to a degree, yeah. But I'd rejoinder -- if it's not a net good for society, how is it a net good at all? If it's good for me but bad for society, or vise versa, at best you have cancellation -- a positive and a negative canceling (how can society be genuinely improved if I am lessened, how can I genuinely be improved if society is lessened? Either way, both are lesser than they could have been.) out, unless you start weighting virtues or whathaveyou -- and I tend to start this kind of ethical reasoning with the base precept that human life is infinitely valuable. I don't even particularly believe that (personally, I lean toward nihilistic equality -- all things value is equal because all things have no value), but that's the party line just about everyone seems to spout. And by the nonexistent gods, if that's what they're going to say I'm damn well going to hold 'em to that standard, y'know?

Slight tangent aside, I won't say this as a descriptive thing, but a prescriptive statement for myself: Moral action involving other people must consider the consequences of the action beyond the self and the immediate consequences if it is to be considered moral. If it is not a net benefit to all involved and casually connected (and remember, death means an infinite negative thrown into the equation), then it is an best amoral -- not moral. Not necessarily immoral. Just not moral.

I'm actually fine with amoral action. One of my highest virtues is optimization (greatest effect with least waste and least cost). Amoral action is not fully optimized (Full optimization may be flatly impossible, as that would take nothing but improvement, with no harm and no effort. But I'm okay with an unreachable goal. Means there's room for improvement.), but it may be most optimal (i.e., the act closest to [a sort of Platonic, to be fair] optimal). A most optimal choice is best choice (and thus the one that should be sought), if not a genuinely good or beneficial one. Sometimes you just have to do what you can to keep things from being worse than they could be. But I don't count making a bad situation not as bad as good. Just... least bad. Or less bad. Which is, well. Better than the alternative.

[Criptfeind]

Suicide is a victimless crime like prostitution and drugs. Not exactly like maybe, but I still find it disturbing how society controls such deeply personal acts.

if it's not a net good for society

Your actions could be, the situations are is fucked but your actions are not. Sorry if I was unclear.

You are absolutely right about the whole thing being a net negative, I am just trying to get accost what I mean when I say killing is a net positive.

[lemon10]

I wasn't suggesting we SHOULD execute them. Only that they would deserve it if they were executed. Killing someone that was attempting to rape would prevent the act, which is a net good, but there is almost always a better way.

It... wouldn't be a net good. It would be less of a loss, yes (and very much so), but it's hard to actually justify dehumanizing someone like that (by saying that the potential value of their life afterwards is worth less than the value of preventing the rape). Unfortunately. If that was actually true, it'd make a lot of morality a lot more simple. Mind you, I'd attempt to kill the person, too, but I make no qualms about it being immoral to do so. If it has turned to violence, someone has already fucked up beyond the point of redemption, from a moral standpoint. Everything after that's just damage control.

More generally, no situation in which someone is killed is a net gain. Period. At best, it breaks even. More likely, it prevents a greater wrong. Often, it just makes the situation worse than it would have been. The only way to make a net gain in that kind of situation is to prevent the attempt from ever happening, in such a way that, at the very least, does not harm the one who would make the attempt. Ideally, the situation of everyone involved is improved. More likely, someone's life gets worse, but a greater harm is prevented.

That's my $0.02, anyway. People keep spouting some kind of vague bullshit about the value of human life being inestimable or infinite or priceless or something or other. Then they squirm or start trying to justify going against that precept when you actually hold 'em to it, yeah.

'Course, as I often see it, the path that is least wrong is ultimately most preferable. That doesn't always mean the most preferable path is moral, or right. Just least wrong.

Its a net good if it turns out better then the other options.
While I will agree that against a baseline of "nothing bad happens, no one dies, and no crimes are committed", killing someone is never a net good. But if option is "kill the person and prevent a greater evil" or "Not killing them, and letting whatever they are going to do happen due to a lack of any other options" then killing them would be more moral then doing nothing.
I will agree that in the vast majority of cases killing them isn't the *most* moral choice or option available to you, but there are still quite a few cases where it is the only realistic option available.

Obviously utilitarianism (which is what this is called) has some real problems when the options and effects are diverse and hard to predict and determine the utility of, and doesn't really work for this purpose for the most part. However, in simple circumstances (eg. 1 dead is better then 10 dead), its pretty obvious what is the more moral choice, even when it is murder.

FAKEEDIT: Sigh, 8 new replies. Obviously some of the stuff I have written now might be outdatted. Oh well.
FAKEEDIT2: And another new reply. Damn you ninjas.