Go back
Not A Death Penalty Thread

Not A Death Penalty Thread

Spirituality

a
Not actually a cat

The Flat Earth

Joined
09 Apr 10
Moves
14988
Clock
10 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?

JS357

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
Clock
10 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
If someone is actively attempting to kill me, I'd say the situation is morally neutral as to which one of us dies.

divegeester
watching in dismay

STARMERGEDDON

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
120597
Clock
10 Jan 14
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

*"is there any other kind?"

S
Caninus Interruptus

2014.05.01

Joined
11 Apr 07
Moves
92274
Clock
10 Jan 14

Originally posted by JS357
If someone is actively attempting to kill me, I'd say the situation is morally neutral as to which one of us dies.
I'd say it is morally awesome if he dies, and morally screwed up if my attacker kills me.

S
Caninus Interruptus

2014.05.01

Joined
11 Apr 07
Moves
92274
Clock
10 Jan 14
1 edit

Originally posted by divegeester
If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

*"is there any other kind?"
There's the danger of being bitten by an ant vs. a tarantula. One is grave; the other, not so much.

divegeester
watching in dismay

STARMERGEDDON

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
120597
Clock
10 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There's the danger of being bitten by an ant vs. a tarantula. One is grave; the other, not so much.
Take it to Colonel Nathan R. Jessup spanky.


...or the Lord our God.

Rajk999
Kali

PenTesting

Joined
04 Apr 04
Moves
260881
Clock
10 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by divegeester
If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

*"is there any other kind?"
Classic.

googlefudge

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
Clock
10 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
Yes. Why do you ask?

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
11 Jan 14
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by divegeester
Colonel Nathan R. Jessup.
Psssst... (I'm frankly shocked that I know what you're talking about here, although I've never seen the movie.

Is it as drenched in testosterone as I've heard? Meaning I may not have a snowball's chance of understanding it?

Much like another Cruise movie, Top Gun. Hated it.)

a
Not actually a cat

The Flat Earth

Joined
09 Apr 10
Moves
14988
Clock
11 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. Why do you ask?
It related to a discussion I was having elsewhere. I was surprised at how many people were able to justify taking a human life depending on circumstances and wondered if that was a general tendency. Looks like it might be.

googlefudge

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
Clock
11 Jan 14
1 edit

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It related to a discussion I was having elsewhere. I was surprised at how many people were able to justify taking a human life depending on circumstances and wondered if that was a general tendency. Looks like it might be.
Hmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.


I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.

First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid doing
it.

However, where circumstances lead to a situation where not killing a human or humans
would lead to greater harm than not killing them then I would contend that the best
moral choice in that circumstance is to choose the lesser evil and kill the person/s.

And the example/argument I give goes like this.


In the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics Surface to Air Missiles [SAM] were deployed around
London as a defence against people flying planes into the Olympic stadiums during the games.

For it to be morally correct that it is never ok to kill another human being in any circumstances
then it would have to be the case, that if there was a terrorist hijacked plane heading in towards
the Olympic main stadium during the opening ceremony when it was full to brimming with
50,000 people,
[and for our purposes here you know beyond reasonable doubt that the plane is hijacked and being flown at the stadium]
that the morally best choice is to allow the plane to fly into the stadium
and not to shoot it down. Now lets say that this plane is a cargo plane, and has nobody
[alive] on-board who isn't a terrorist.

So to come to the moral conclusion that you can't shoot down the plane...
You have to conclude that it's as bad, or more likely worse, to kill the [lets say] 5 people
on the plane than it is to allow the plane to hit the stadium and kill tens of thousands.

I don't think it's possible to justify not shooting down the plane in the above circumstance.
It cannot be the case that it's better to allow thousands of people to die at the hands of a few
simply to avoid killing the few.

Once you then accept that there are extreme circumstances where it is morally right to kill, then
the discussion is not IF it's sometimes ok to kill but WHEN.

That's a much more complicated question, on which there is much disagreement.

If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.

a
Not actually a cat

The Flat Earth

Joined
09 Apr 10
Moves
14988
Clock
11 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.


I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.

First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid ...[text shortened]... is much disagreement.

If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.
Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.

Ro

Joined
11 Oct 04
Moves
5344
Clock
11 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
Why? I could understand it if it would trouble you if there were some hostages on the plane.

And I would prefer not to have to kill the terrorists.

But why would the conclusion that it was the right thing to do trouble you?

googlefudge

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
Clock
11 Jan 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
It could be argued that that's a good thing, that the sign of being one of the
'good guys' is that even when your enemy is trying to kill you and those that
you love and care about you still don't WANT to kill them.

If I was faced with the situation I outlined I would shoot the plane down.
I would feel really bad about it, and really pissed that the terrorists had put me
in a position where the only morally correct option open to me was to kill them.

And I would be really keen to make sure that neither I nor anyone else was put
in that situation again.


And as it turns out, part of the reason it was so widely advertised that we were
deploying so much anti aircraft fire-power, with SAM sites and Interceptor fighters
on ready alert, and aerial exclusion zones ect.. Is that by making it so hard to pull
off an attack by air, we made it much less likely that any terrorists would try.

Another variant of the "If you want peace then prepare for war" adage.



Lets look at the issue another way.

Lets say you are in your home at night, with kids upstairs, and someone breaks into
your house and attacks you with a knife. They're bigger than you, and are armed.

To say that it's never ok to kill someone is to say that if you defend yourself and
end up killing your attacker doing so then you would be morally/legally at fault for doing so.
That you are either just supposed to let them kill you, or to try to stop them without doing
anything that might lead to them dying and thus massively increasing the chances they
get past you to your kids upstairs.

We should go to great lengths not to kill people, we should feel that it's wrong and
constantly be on the lookout for alternatives.

But I don't think it's possible to morally justify never killing anyone in any circumstance.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
12 Jan 14

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
Sure, but only if Obama says so.

However, if "W" or another Republican says so, they are murderous thugs.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.