Is there ever any good to killing someone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spring-Loaded

Member
This IS NOT about whether killing is ever justifiable, it's about whether killing someone is ever for the greater good if there are other options.

I was just thinking about the whole gun-law issue in the U.S. going on now and I wondered whether if every gun owner who has a gun for protection would be fine with an equally effective, yet non-lethal way of incapacitating an attacker. That was, if someone were the target of an attempted mugging, the attacker would still be alive to be accountable for their crime. Or, if there's a misunderstanding, then the person getting incapacitated would still be alive.

Then I started thinking about killing people in general; as corporal punishment, is it really a worse punishment than life in prison? In the aforementioned mugging scenario, would anyone who isn't a serial killer want to kill the person attacking them? Even if the victim wanted their attacker to pay dearly, would it be preferable that they are alive for their punishment?

Again, we don't live in an ideal world, so non-lethality isn't always a viable option, but when we have the chance to deliberate/use other means, why should death ever be the option? And that's not a rhetorical question.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
This isn't really about whether killing someone in the heat of the moment is justified, it's more about whether killing someone is ever for the greater good.

I was just thinking about the whole gun-law issue in the U.S. going on now and I wondered whether if every gun owner who has a gun for protection would be fine with an equally effective, yet non-lethal way of incapacitating an attacker. That was, if someone were the target of an attempted mugging, the attacker would still be alive to be accountable for their crime. Or, if there's a misunderstanding, then the person getting incapacitated would still be alive.

Then I started thinking about killing people in general; as corporal punishment, is it really a worse punishment than life in prison? In the aforementioned mugging scenario, would anyone who isn't a serial killer want to kill the person attacking them? Even if the victim wanted their attacker to pay dearly, would it be preferable that they are alive for their punishment?

Again, we don't live in an ideal world, so non-lethality isn't always a viable option, but when we have the chance to deliberate/use other means, why should death ever be the option? And that's not a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

If everyone held to that opinion, then there would be no reason to ever kill anyone.
 
It does take a lot of resources to deal with criminals who are alive..
 
This is not in the punishment sense, but people in hospice care and such if they would like to pass on their own terms I would be alright with assistance in that manner.
 
In a book I read, the characters voted on whether to kill a dude and I voted in my head to kill him. So did they, and he was killed. So in my opinion, yes, such a situation can be constructed.
 
Yep. Any person who willingly impinges on another's freedoms deserves whatever they get and its best to simply remove the habitual offenders than endure more expensive, less effective, means of detention/control.
 
death_note_book_by_hobobroccoli-d5b0tkt.jpg
Click to expand...

I can understand the benefits of having some people no longer exist
 
From a purely teleological standpoint, killing can be justified if the outcome is better than the outcome without killing. The police killing someone in the middle of undertaking a massacre is something nobody has a problem with, because more lives are saved than if you do not kill him. But things are rarely so simple. A suspect apprehended for multiple homicides sentenced to indefinite gaol time satisfies the goal of keeping him or her away from the public where they could cause damage, and so killing them does not make the public any safer. Thus people argue a financial saving makes it worthwhile, which may be true, although there is also the problem of wrongful convictions, wherein a dead person may not be resurrected if later found to be innocent, while a man in gaol may be released and fiscally compensated. There is also the idea of a human life being intrinsically valuable, even that of a murderer or rapist. Killing to save money is totally abhorrent from that perspective.

As far as I am concerned, satisfying the primal, animalistic urges for revenge and/or retribution has absolutely zero value, and should not be a factor in these decisions.
 
It is never right to kill anyone, but sometimes it's the quickest way to get the good ending. But not the perfect ending.

You never have the right to deprive someone else of their life, regardless of what you or anyone else says or does. Working around that truth, and dealing with the reality of life is where it gets interesting.
 
Obviously not a black and white issue. Depends on the circumstances surrounding why someone was killed.

A few years ago in Pittsburgh, a nut job murdered 3 police officers when they responded to a domestic dispute at his home. He literally started shooting when he opened the door. This led to a standoff that lasted hours and the whole time he was still firing out of his windows every chance he had. He gave up several hours later once he was wounded severely, but had he been killed, it would have been justified. not only had he taken the lives of three men that day, he continued to endanger people after the fact and had absolutely no remorse for anything he did.
 
This is an interesting topic for me

I mean i think if killing one person can save thousands of peoples lives... i think it can be justified

Whenever i see a movie hinting this topic i think, why the fuck didnt the guy just get himself killed instead of damning millions of other people


Like in a handful of movies where people have been so content on saving their own skin they do what the baddy says and gets killed anyway! For instance in one of the Batmans
TDKR, where the guy is forced to convert that energy thing into a bomb, he's a nuclear scientist or whatever, he must understand that by doing that he damns the entirety of Gotham City
 
The anime of Trigun asks this question in a very colorful way. In the end, even Vash (a pacifist who took an oath never to kill anyone) realizes that stringently adhering to his philosophy can endanger both himself and the people he cares about.

To never take a life is an ideal we should aspire to, it should never impede common sense. Some people have to die so that others can live.

For a more practical example, I look at the use of the atomic bombs against Japan. Killing hundreds of thousands of people was obviously a terrible thing, but it may have saved potentially millions of lives (on both sides) compared to the invasion of Japan.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
when we have the chance to deliberate/use other means, why should death ever be the option?
Click to expand...

I feel that ending someone's life carries an inherent significance of finality and consequence that can be absent from other forms of punishment. the result is clear and sometimes the finality and certainty of the binary of life and death can be comforting and add to the equilibrium of the natural and perceived world.
 
I want to believe that if death is the only alternative then we aren't trying hard enough or time isn't on our side. Given time and thought, maybe death isn't a solution.
Ironically, given ample time, death seems to be the conclusion.
 
I don't really want to get into this on here, but yeah, I think killing people is okay and positive in some cases. If someone commits serious atrocities and refuses to be accountable or to correct their behavior in the future, then I'm okay with them being killed. This is open to interpretation and context.

Edit : And I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about this within the context of the "criminal justice system". Police, prisons, and the judiciary have no democratic oversight and accountability, and therefore zero legitimacy.
 
GRIP said:
I gave two examples of when I think killing is completely justified. Do you have an opinion on either?
Click to expand...

I took the OP's question to be more about people that have already been apprehended, or where it is some sort of scenario where they are not an immediate threat to everyone around them. I'd have to say if someone presents such a threat as in your two examples, they need to be stopped. That could involve them losing their life.
 
In Japan, the samurai had a special code: "One sword keeps another in its sheath. Sometimes violence can be a deterrent; by taking a life, others may be preserved."

Although I'm against capital punishment as a whole, I believe that there is a time when killing is moral. If the loss of one life means the survival of many, then I say go for it. Looper toys with this idea in its second act, if anyone's interested.
 
thesoapster said:
I took the OP's question to be more about people that have already been apprehended, or where it is some sort of scenario where they are not an immediate threat to everyone around them. I'd have to say if someone presents such a threat as in your two examples, they need to be stopped. That could involve them losing their life.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I assumed he was talking about whether or not there was ever a justification to killing someone.
 
GRIP said:
Fair enough. I assumed he was talking about whether or not there was ever a justification to killing someone.
Click to expand...

No, the first sentence says this isn't about justification for killing; this was meant to be about whether any good ever comes directly from ending someone's life. Sure, it can prevent further killing/suffering in some cases, but does the death itself accomplish anything?
 
Charlize Theron's mom had to kill her husband in self-defense. He was attacking her. If she hadn't killed him, who knows what would have happened. He could have killed her and Charlize.

Edit: There's an episode of The West Wing about this.

Some people say that if it provides some measure of comfort to the victim's family, then capital punishment is okay. On the other hand, too many innocent people end up on Death Row. So if the system cannot be 100 percent accurate in convicting only those who actually committed the crime, then capital punishment cannot exist.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
No, the first sentence says this isn't about justification for killing; this was meant to be about whether any good ever comes directly from ending someone's life. Sure, it can prevent further killing/suffering in some cases, but does the death itself accomplish anything?
Click to expand...

That seems to contradict itself. If killing a criminal that is attempting to kill innocent people isn't a positive outcome then what is? I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

Does anything positive come from killing someone who is jeopardizing the lives of others? Yes, they won't be able to kill innocent people.

The video I posted is a very clear example of when there is some good out of killing someone.
 
Some people are beyond redemption and would be better off neutralized in some fashion.

Killing them isn't necessarily the ideal solution - I'd rather rehabilitate them and redirect their negative aspects somehow - but sometimes killing a destructive person is simply the best solution we've got. Even if you believe all life is precious, you have to respect how much violence and harm you're preventing by removing it's source. I'm the most bleeding-heart person I know and I still feel that way.
 
I'm sick of having to intellectually justify killing someone as being for the "greater good". Is there any good to killing someone if I want it badly enough? Well, it'd sure be good for me.
 
Ecotic said:
I'm sick of having to intellectually justify killing someone as being for the "greater good". Is there any good to killing someone if I want it badly enough? Well, it'd sure be good for me.
Click to expand...

This. Killing is justified even if it's your life versus their's. I'm not so conceited to believe my life is somehow more valuable than someone else's, but the same applies for them. If someone's going to die it may as well be the other guy. I'd rather avoid the whole scenario all together, though.
 
Mihael Mello Keehl said:
No you dont killing people has no benefit at all and is just instant gratfication for us who are alive. Im not saying its bad but there really no real benefit either.
Click to expand...

It all depends on who it benefits. You don't see the benefit in killing a person who is about to or is in the process of killing other innocent people?

Good coming from killing people... that doesn't seem really possible to tell. Long-term consequences and short-term consequences. It's a discussion that sounds like it could spin circles.
 
GRIP said:
That seems to contradict itself. If killing a criminal that is attempting to kill innocent people isn't a positive outcome then what is? I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

Does anything positive come from killing someone who is jeopardizing the lives of others? Yes, they won't be able to kill innocent people.

The video I posted is a very clear example of when there is some good out of killing someone.
Click to expand...

The killing of the robbers in that video was justified because there weren't any other viable options.

However, this thread is not about that. The cops had no choice in that situation.

But what if there was a choice? That's what this thread is about: whether there's some particular good that comes from killing that couldn't be achieved through other non-lethal means. If the cops in your video had a device that was as effective at knocking people unconscious as guns are at killing people, would there be any good reason to choose killing over non-lethally incapacitating?
 
OrlanisWorks said:
It all depends on who it benefits. You don't see the benefit in killing a person who is about to or is in the process of killing other innocent people?

Good coming from killing people... that doesn't seem really possible to tell. Long-term consequences and short-term consequences. It's a discussion that sounds like it could spin circles.
Click to expand...
I know. I dont really see a benefit though. But someone like james holmes? I think he should be dead real talk.
 
Of course! Resources are valuable and maintaining a psychopath takes a lot more resources than it does to just kill them.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
The killing of the robbers in that video was justified because there weren't any other viable options.

However, this thread is not about that. The cops had no choice in that situation.

But what if there was a choice? That's what this thread is about: whether there's some particular good that comes from killing that couldn't be achieved through other non-lethal means. If the cops in your video had a device that was as effective at knocking people unconscious as guns are at killing people, would there be any good reason to choose killing over non-lethally incapacitating?
Click to expand...

Sure, in this magical land where you can set your bullets to "stun", that's what the police would roll with. Then they could arrest him, throw him in jail, and if he's still a problem, keep him in solitary. Different path to the same goal: put a dude in a box so he doesn't hurt anyone else.

But that's just law enforcement.

In war, even with your magical knock-out bullets, you're going to shoot to kill. What else are you going to do? Arrest all of Nazi Germany?

This is all moot anyway since non-lethal is nowhere near as effective or reliable as lethal; it's all sci-fi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

are there any cool places on the internet to discuss movies?
40
967
N0S replied
"Reagan" film: Is it any good?
2
67
5K
rkofan87 replied
Any chill, feel-good shows or anime you guys would recommend?
28
803
PSYGN replied
Is there any cure or good treatment for frontal hair loss?
2
82
5K
Yoda replied
It’s good to be grateful, grateful is good. Happy Thanksgiving 🦃
2
56
2K
Liljagare replied
Top Bottom