CoSForums Archive - M-15 - Killing in defense: murder or heroism?

Tane

February 21st, 2004, 9:46 pm

I originally posted most of this in response to another post... but its pretty heavy stuff. And a good question for real life.

killing to defend oneself or friends is not murder. ie: I could have been a cop... except I didn't believe I could shoot someone if it became necessary. However... then I had children. I would kill or die to protect them, and if it were kill.. I would not feel one jot of shame or grief for the slime who dares to threaten my babies.

If I had been Lily... I would have Avada'd Voldemort in a heartbeat (provided I had the power to back it up)... and not ever felt sorry for it.. even in a place like Azkaban.

A cop for example does not have to shoot to kill if there is another way of incapacitating the criminal, for example aiming for a hand that holds a knife or gun.

It is neither murder nor heroism and is still classed as manslaughter in a British court of law if you kill someone while protecting yourself. Manslaughter can actually carry a greater sentence than 1st degree murder and that is something I have never understood properly as manslaughter is not pre-meditated but 1st degree murder is. Correct me if I am wrong on this last point.

Angora

February 21st, 2004, 10:53 pm

Hmmm. I think in Canada self-defense, like accidental homicide is non-culpable (it's not a crime). The culpable ones are murder, manslaughter, and something else I don't remember. But if they decide that the evidence shows it as being non-culpable, they don't charge you, I don't think. Now, if you defended yourself with a firearm that wasn't registered and liscenced properly, or something like that, then it would get sticky. Because there would be something illegal in the way that you went about it.

I think first degree is generally premeditated and intentional, second is just intentional, and manslaughter is neither. I'm sure the distincitons are actually a lot more fine than that, but I'm pretty sure that's the general gist.

Anyway, I wouldn't call self-defence murder or heroism just by virtue of the fact it's self-defense. You know, as long as it really is self-defense, and not you murdering someone who attacked you and then tried to back off. I don't see anything particularily "heroic" about it, but I seem to be a lot more careful about who I call a "hero" than most people are.

lxs234

February 21st, 2004, 11:52 pm

If you did kill someone in self defence, you probably would have to go to jail, but what jury in the world would convict you? If the person who was trying to kill you was threatining your kids and the courts put you in jail, the protest that would follow would be astonishing.

HollywoodBob

February 22nd, 2004, 12:26 am

Police are allowed to kill people when the situation deems fit, but often they are put on suspension, until a full investigation can be made as to the need for them to take the life.

Soldiers take lives, and aside from guilt many of them feel there's rarely any consequences.

Yet when a civilian takes a life in defense of their family or themself, they are tried as murderers. How is that the least bit fair?

When it comes to the defense of your life or the life of your family, you should be able to do whatever it takes to protect yourself.

-HollywoodBob

Cat

February 22nd, 2004, 12:34 am

Anyway, I wouldn't call self-defence murder or heroism just by virtue of the fact it's self-defense. You know, as long as it really is self-defense, and not you murdering someone who attacked you and then tried to back off. I don't see anything particularily "heroic" about it, but I seem to be a lot more careful about who I call a "hero" than most people are.

I agree with you. I don't think the act of killing is ever heroic. However necessary it might be in the circumstance, it's always a dirty job. I'm not saying that people should be riddled with shame if they've ever been faced with the harsh necessity, but I hope I would never feel noble for doing it. Perhaps just the satisfaction of a job done.

So that's what I think they are. Ordinary people who faced the messy reality and did what they had to do. The act of trying not to die doesn't make you a hero. You might as well scold the dead for not trying hard enough.

Oh, and by necessary I mean an 'It's you or me' situation. Shooting somebody for trespassing on your garden doesn't count.

hesdead-dealwithit

February 22nd, 2004, 12:50 am

I agree with you. I don't think the act of killing is ever heroic. However necessary it might be in the circumstance, it's always a dirty job. I'm not saying that people should be riddled with shame if they've ever been faced with the harsh necessity, but I hope I would never feel noble for doing it. Perhaps just the satisfaction of a job done.

Hmmm, it's an interesting question. I heard a story about someone who was going to kill Hitler as he got out of a plane (he was in one of those lines of people that receive dignitaries, as ironic as that is and as imprecise as I'm being) in the late 30s, but Hitler didn't land there as an everyday precaution, switching landing places. Would that person have been a hero? He definitely would have saved 10 million from the Holocaust and probably 50 million from WWII, but would he have been a hero? The thing is, I have a feeling that the type of person who would kill someone like that, in a partially pre-emptive but undoubtedly necessary way, would be the type of person who would expect to be considered a hero. I don't know if you get my drift, but the type of person, IMO, who would do the dirty job that needs to be done, is the type of person who would feel noble doing it. In other words, we need the people who feel noble doing something like that, even as we can't imagine ourselves feeling noble. They're people to be respected, but not idolized. I guess.

Cat

February 22nd, 2004, 12:59 am

Hmmm, it's an interesting question. I heard a story about someone who was going to kill Hitler as he got out of a plane (he was in one of those lines of people that receive dignitaries, as ironic as that is and as imprecise as I'm being) in the late 30s, but Hitler didn't land there as an everyday precaution, switching landing places. Would that person have been a hero? He definitely would have saved 10 million from the Holocaust and probably 50 million from WWII, but would he have been a hero? The thing is, I have a feeling that the type of person who would kill someone like that, in a partially pre-emptive but undoubtedly necessary way, would be the type of person who would expect to be considered a hero. I don't know if you get my drift, but the type of person, IMO, who would do the dirty job that needs to be done, is the type of person who would feel noble doing it. In other words, we need the people who feel noble doing something like that, even as we can't imagine ourselves feeling noble. They're people to be respected, but not idolized. I guess.

Charles Manson felt smug and righteous for what he did, but that didn't make him a hero.

Anybody who feels happy about death has a problem. People might celebrate when a tyrant dies, but what they're celebrating is the end of an era, not the death of a man. Sometimes you need people who will take themselves outside human emotion for a moment in order to extract a thing from existence. They would need a clinical mind of steel. Never give somebody who actually feels happy about death a gun.

JofpGallagher

February 22nd, 2004, 3:07 pm

Killing is not a heroic act IMO. I can't predict what I would do under difficult situation where my own life or the lives of belove ones are threaten. The only thing I can think of is that I will do my best not killing anyone, but that's mainly because my religion where to kill is never justifiable. I think it will be very hard for me to bear a murder in my back.

MotherBear1975

February 22nd, 2004, 6:47 pm

lxs234

February 22nd, 2004, 7:05 pm

When I said heroic, I ment in defense of others, not self defense. Self defense is just that. For example, you walk into a store thats being held up. One person is already down... you pull your gun and shoot the guy in the mask threatening others. Or bean him from behind and he accidently dies. Whatever. People consider you a hero. But the persons family, now, they're gonna think you a murderer, no matter what the circumstances. So, who is right?

So by saying "heroic" you meant that it is ok, right? That was how I enterpreted it. I mean, if someone was going to kill someone else, and you stopped them, then you would be a hero. If someone was trying to kill you, and you stopped them, you wouldn't get an award or parade in your honor. It isn't wrong, but it isn't heroic.

Doggy

February 22nd, 2004, 7:10 pm

triki1988

February 23rd, 2004, 2:13 am

Killing is not a heroic act IMO.

Unless we're talking Chavez, right?

I only agree with murder in self-defense. I know it's a hard thing to prove, but I think I could still live with the thought, "I killed someone" running around my head if that were to happen to me.

Or so I believe. I hope I don't have to prove it.

Kaonashi

February 23rd, 2004, 2:18 am

Depends. I don't think that any sort of killing is heroic, but if I was defending my family and I killed someone I doubt I would lose a moment's sleep over it. I wouldn't look at myself as being a hero though...I would just look at it as defending my family.

There was this old woman a few years back who was wheelchair bound, and one night some thugs broke into her house, looking for money. They even plopped her in her wheelchair and wheeleed her into different rooms to look for money. She had them wheel her into the bedroom, where she reached underneath her mattress, pulled out a gun and shot one dead and the other one in the rib and called the police. It turned out that the two kids both had records for horrible things, and one of the newsperson's called her a "hero." She replied that she wasn't a hero, she was just defending herself. The interviewer said "Well, they weren't angels" and the women replied "so what if they weren't angels? That was somebody's child that I had to kill. Someone birthed that child, loved him, and I ended up killing him. Do you have any idea how that makes me feel?" She really felt awful about it.

It's one of those circumstances that you hope that you are never in to even find out what you might do, or how you would react afterwards.

MotherBear1975

February 23rd, 2004, 1:33 pm

I hope I'll never kill someone. Whatever the reason, I would never be able to forgive myself for doing it. Taking someone's life is never fully justible.

However, there are times when you really are in a bad position, for instance if some person is threatening (really threatening) you or your friends/family, where killing that person may be the lesser of two evils. However, it really has to be defence against someone who's completely capable of killing, not just someone 20 m away waving a breadknife.

But heroic? No.

Strange thing is... in *self* defense, I'd probably tear myself up for the rest of my life... knowin I'd killed. But if it were to save my babies.. I would never have a second thought about it. I know I could kill to protect them.

swishandflick

February 24th, 2004, 3:54 am

I don't think its possible to judge what one will or won't due when faced with life and death. It's easy to sit at home in front of my computer screen and say "I would rather shoot myself than hurt someone else." However, if someone actually came up to me with a knife or threatened to kill someone I loved, I doubt I would be so passive. I am fortunate (and sometimes unfortunate) enough to have a simple life and its unlikely for me to ever be placed in that situation.

Hypothetically, if I did kill someone, even if it was in an accident, I don't think I would be able to even look at myself in the mirror. I feel guilty just lying to my parents, I couldn't imagine the sense of taking a life.

ginnybatbogeysyou

February 26th, 2004, 6:07 pm

It totally depends on the circumstances. I know a man, who owns a juwellery-shop. His shop got robbed at least once per two months and the congregation doesn't allow him to take safety measures outside his premises.
One afternoon, another robber came in and threatened somebody of the staff with a gun. The owner ran upstairs, grabbed his gun and fired the gun in direction of the man. Another member of the staff had called the police and they took the robber away.
The robber was wearing a loose downjacket. The bullet shot by the owner had hit him in the stomach, but the cops didn't see that. The owner didn't mention that he might have hit the robber a) because he was in shock and b) because he didn't even know that he had hit the man.
The robber died in a police cell as a result of his bullet wounds. The hospital stated that he could have been saved if he was transported to hospital.

In this case, the owner of the shop shot a man, but acted on behalf of his life and the lives of his staff. The robber died due to neglection of the cops. I don't think the owner really killed the man. He shot, wounded the man, who died becasue the police didn't take a good look at him.

What I find terrible is when the roles are turned around: when the villain suddenly is made a victim. There are stories in the Dutch papers all the time, about robberies where the real victims shot the robbers out of self-defence. When the robber dies, the person that is robbed gets charged, even though that person didn't choose to be robbed or to shoot somebody.

rotsiepots

February 28th, 2004, 7:58 am

Unless we're talking Chavez, right?

Was this necessary? :huh:

Anyway, killing someone in self defense is still murder, it's just murder with different motivations. I don't think killing someone for the sake of self preservation is anywhere near as morally reprehensible as killing "for the sake of it".

Angora

February 29th, 2004, 8:47 pm

I still wouldn't class self-defense as murder... but that's another conversation right there.

There are stories in the Dutch papers all the time, about robberies where the real victims shot the robbers out of self-defence. When the robber dies, the person that is robbed gets charged, even though that person didn't choose to be robbed or to shoot somebody.

I think that sort of depends on the situation. I mean, if you're killing the robber just to stop him from robbing you, that's not really right. If the robber threatens/attacks you with a weapon or so that you feel your life is in jeapordy, that's another situation.

For example, you walk into a store thats being held up. One person is already down... you pull your gun and shoot the guy in the mask threatening others. Or bean him from behind and he accidently dies. Whatever. People consider you a hero. But the persons family, now, they're gonna think you a murderer, no matter what the circumstances. So, who is right?

Again, it would depend on the exact specifics of the sitation. Being me, I would wonder a little bit why you were carrying a gun in the first place... but besides that, if there was imminent danger of another person being shot so that you had to act rather than calling the police, it might not be murder. But it's not really heroism either, and let me get to why in just a minute...

I heard a story about someone who was going to kill Hitler as he got out of a plane ... in the late 30s, but Hitler didn't land there as an everyday precaution, switching landing places. Would that person have been a hero?

No. And here's why. To me, the big thing that really pushes you into heroism is if you stand to bennefit, or at least not lose out by doing nothing, and you stand to lose out or at least not bennefit by doing something - but you do something anway (and something appropriate). In the situation in the store hold-up, you're not wilfully placing yourself in harm's way by taking the guy out from behind when he doesn't know you're there. I'm not saying that's necessarily the wrong thing to do, I'm just saying there's not a lot of risk involved in doing it.

In the situation with Hitler, it would depend on the guy's standing in the Nazi party, I guess, whether or not he stood to lose out by getting rid of Hitler. Whether he was Jewish, whether he was gay, whether he was from a country that would potentially be attacked by Germany if Hitler was allowed to gain power... whatever. I don't know the specifics of who the guy was, but he probably wasn't going against his interests (interests in the external sense, not the moral sense) by doing it.

Because to me, that's really the only big heroic thing - placing your moral interests above your external interests. If your external interests (preserving your life, the lives of your loved ones, gaining status, gaining wealth, etc, etc) coincide with your moral interests, then there wasn't really a decision there. What are you going to decide? No, I think I'll do nothing and ruin my life? So, if I would call anything heroic, I guess I would call it acting against your external interests for no other reason than that it's the moral thing to do. Not that it always has to be a life and death situation in order for you to do that, either.

In other words, we need the people who feel noble doing something like that, even as we can't imagine ourselves feeling noble. They're people to be respected, but not idolized. I guess.

I don't really think that's something to be respected. Actually doing it, maybe, when you don't want to but it's the moral thing to do (if it's the moral thing to do), can be respected. But people who go around asassinating people and feeling good about it don't really have much in their character that demands respect. In fact, my impression is that the people who would do that kind of thing and feel noble about it are the people who are doing it for entirely the wrong reason. And we all know that with me, it's always about the reasons. :) Aside from that, if you're doing it for the wrong reason, then you're probably also willing to do it other times for the wrong reason, when there is no moral justification for it.

Never give somebody who actually feels happy about death a gun.

Yeah, exactly. What she said.

lanifiel

March 4th, 2004, 7:48 pm

In the defense of those we love the killing of another person who is intent on harming you and yours is often seen as morally justifiable. Personally, there are many times that an act would be ok in defense of another, not just in the protection of loved ones, but of anyone. I think that there will always be debate over what constitues self defense and what is murder but I know I would protect certain people to any extent, regardless of the law...

hesdead-dealwithit

March 4th, 2004, 11:56 pm

I think any action - murder, rape, plunder - is morally justifiable if it saves more lives than it kills.

Angora

March 5th, 2004, 12:42 am

I think any action - murder, rape, plunder - is morally justifiable if it saves more lives than it kills.

Yeah... I don't. I'm not a utilitarian. Big surprise, right? :D I don't believe in relying on outcomes to determine whether or not an action is moral because the actor can't possibly know the outcome when he acts. And, really with the butterfly effect and everything (the actual one, not the movie) it's impossible to know the outcome of his action after he acts. So it doesn't tell you anything except a veuge estimate of how "useful" the action was... in retrospect. In past tense. As a way of judging and not as a way of acting, and, in my mind, morality is all about acting, so utilitarianism is pretty useless for that.

It's a tangent, but it's a nice one. :)

Magi

March 5th, 2004, 3:16 am

The universal answer to all things: "it depends".

In the case of killing in self defense, I'd say it is neither murder or heroism. It is just self defense.

On the other hand, if you were to place yourself in extreme danger to prevent someone/people from killing or grievously harming others, I'd say it is qualified heroism.

hesdead-dealwithit

March 5th, 2004, 1:44 pm

The actor can't possibly know the outcome when he acts.
True, but definitely it's a handy way to judge an action after it was committed. And before the act, if you go with your best reasonable knowledge, then that's what you go with. I'm talking more about larger actions such as wars than individual, split second decisions (those you can only really go by your instincts), so you simply judge your intelligence. And if as a country you can't trust your intelligence, then you might as well throw your hands up and let yourself die.

With the butterfly effect and everything (the actual one, not the movie) it's impossible to know the outcome of his action after he acts.
That's true, but you can't be coralled by the butterfly effect. Say you have a choice between stabbing somebody and condemning five other people to death. It's simply unreasonable to assume that the stabbing motion is going to cause a storm in Malaysia that will cause the deaths of 10,000 people - you simply cannot live if that's the way you go about life. I admit that I don't know much about the butterfly effect, but you have to always judge every one of your actions by the definite here and now. Perhaps your action will cause a bad storm in Malaysia, but maybe it will cause a much needed shower in India. Anything that you can't possibly know you shouldn't worry about.

Angora

March 5th, 2004, 3:52 pm

True, but definitely it's a handy way to judge an action after it was committed.

But that's the thing. I'm not big into judging. I think there are a lot of instances where it's impossible to know if someone acted morally or not and really it's nobody's business. You can judge if they acted legally (most times) but it's very hard to know what they were thinking when they did something, or what their intentions were. I mean, I wouldn't say it's moral to accidentally save someone and I wouldn't say it's immoral to accidentally kill someone, because it wasn't something intended. So, from my perspective there's more to it than just looking at the outcome and saying, "Well, that turned out okay, so it must have been morally correct to do that."

I'm talking more about larger actions such as wars than individual, split second decisions (those you can only really go by your instincts), so you simply judge your intelligence. And if as a country you can't trust your intelligence, then you might as well throw your hands up and let yourself die.

I agree that at certain points in a war it's appropriate to kill someone, and that you won't always have all the information when you do that, and as long as you've made an attempt to get as much information as you can, then you can be forgiven for being ignorant of some things. On the other hand, I don't think it's really appropriate to look at people as numbers and say, "Well, it's okay for these people to die because in my best guess it will prevent these other people from dying" especially when there's such a high degree of uncertainty where you can't ever know that that's the result you're going to get, or that you wouldn't have gotten a better result in the long run if you'd done it the other way around.

And that's the thing that bothers me about utilitarianism - it's a very arbitrary, imprecise way of measuring consequences, and it's a system where everything depends on the measurement of consequences.

Say you have a choice between stabbing somebody and condemning five other people to death.

When would you have that choice?

It's simply unreasonable to assume that the stabbing motion is going to cause a storm in Malaysia that will cause the deaths of 10,000 people - you simply cannot live if that's the way you go about life. I admit that I don't know much about the butterfly effect, but you have to always judge every one of your actions by the definite here and now. Perhaps your action will cause a bad storm in Malaysia, but maybe it will cause a much needed shower in India. Anything that you can't possibly know you shouldn't worry about.

Aye, but you can't possibly know what the outcome of your own actions will be at all, not just in the long run. If you throw something up in the air, you can't possibly know that it's going to come down again, if you do A you can't possibly know that B will follow. If you see B, you can't always know that it was caused by A... or, if you do, you need to acknowledge that A was caused by Z and Z by Y, etc, etc, and then there were a whole host of other factors invovled too. If you went about it that way, you could say probably make a case that Hitler did the right thing morally because the far reaching consequences changed the way that people thought about blah blah blah and that in turn led to blah blah blah fifty years later. I wouldn't make that argument, but under utilitarianism, you could.

So, if you can't know that B will follow A, expecting B shouldn't be your primary motivation, morally, for preforming A.

hesdead-dealwithit

March 5th, 2004, 10:34 pm

On the other hand, I don't think it's really appropriate to look at people as numbers and say, "Well, it's okay for these people to die because in my best guess it will prevent these other people from dying."
The thing is, sometimes you must make a choice. You can't say, "I don't know exactly what's going to happen, so I'll play it safe and do nothing." Doing nothing is not playing it safe. So you must act. And how do you decide in which way to act? IMO, you must use the information you have and choose the one which by probability will save the the most lives.

When would you have that choice?
Probably, never. It's totally hypothetical. You could potentially fit some sort of hostage situation into this, but it doesn't really matter. It's all for the sake of example.

So, if you can't know that B will follow A, expecting B shouldn't be your primary motivation, morally, for preforming A.
But let's say you must do something. You must act. I think, you must say, If I do A, my best guess is B will happen, and if I do C, my best guess is D will happen. Then you choose between B and D. You must make a decision on what you know.

Let's make an example. A fascist psycho dictator named Z explodes an ICBM nuclear missile in central Montana, as a warning. Some are killed, and he threatens to shoot the next one at New York if X does not happen. (It doesn't matter what X is - say, remove all troops from region, give him the plans to a fusion bomb, remove all international employees from region, give up oil wells, etc., etc.) Somehow, you must act. Do you invade? Do you bomb? Do you besiege? In some way, you have to make a decision. You call how I would go about it utilitarianism. I never thought of it as some grand philosophy. I think it's just common sense. How would you go abou deciding what to do?

Angora

March 5th, 2004, 11:02 pm

The thing is, sometimes you must make a choice. You can't say, "I don't know exactly what's going to happen, so I'll play it safe and do nothing." Doing nothing is not playing it safe. So you must act. And how do you decide in which way to act? IMO, you must use the information you have and choose the one which by probability will save the the most lives.

But, there's often more than one choice. And I agree wholeheartedly that you have to make a choice, but I don't agree that your choice should be based on utilitarian principles (saying "I predict that this will bennefit more people").

And the one little caveat I would put on that is that the promotion of justice bennefits everyone (more on being just to follow), but that's not the kind of bennefit that utilitarians are generally considering.

Probably, never. It's totally hypothetical. You could potentially fit some sort of hostage situation into this, but it doesn't really matter. It's all for the sake of example.

Okay, and that's the thing. If it was purely hypothetical and you could have everything be really definite and free of other variables - if it could take place in the "psysics universe" where there isn't any wind resistence when you're calculating velocity - then, sure, utilitarianism would often be a great way to figure things out.

However, once you have a good theory in theory you have to see if it can be applied practically to real situations. And the problem here is that in a real situation, you can't know the things you need to know in order to effectively operate by those principles.

Let's make an example. A fascist psycho dictator named Z explodes an ICBM nuclear missile in central Montana, as a warning. Some are killed, and he threatens to shoot the next one at New York if X does not happen. (It doesn't matter what X is - say, remove all troops from region, give him the plans to a fusion bomb, remove all international employees from region, give up oil wells, etc., etc.) Somehow, you must act. Do you invade? Do you bomb? Do you besiege? In some way, you have to make a decision. You call how I would go about it utilitarianism. I never thought of it as some grand philosophy. I think it's just common sense. How would you go abou deciding what to do?

How would I decide what to do? I would ask myself, given the information I have, is my aciton just? Because that is the only consideration. And I don't base that on what I expect my action to bring about. Is it just of me not to do action X in the first place? If my troops are in a certain territory, is it just that they should be there? Would it be unjust to remove them? Would it be unjust to give him plans to a fusion bomb? Do I hold the oil wells justly, and would it be unjust to hand them over?

In that situation, assuming that I wasn't opressing his people to begin with or witholding his property from him or something I would probably retalliate against him in some way, but without being in the exact, specific real situation with all of it's unique properties, I can't say what would be appropriate to do.

But I guarantee you that determining a just course of action would never be as simple as saying, "Well, I predict that 30,000 people will die if I do this, and 20,000 people will die if I do that. Whew. Glad I had a calculator, here we go."

hesdead-dealwithit

March 5th, 2004, 11:25 pm

In that situation, assuming that I wasn't opressing his people to begin with or witholding his property from him or something I would probably retalliate against him in some way, but without being in the exact, specific real situation with all of it's unique properties, I can't say what would be appropriate to do.
Well, let's say the troops were in a place unjustly, the oil wells were owned unjustly, etc., but you didn't give him a fusion bomb. Then X blows up New York and kills millions. What do you do next?

Ultimately, I think simply deciding what is just and what is not is not the best way to go about real life situations - simply because what is just varies to an extent from person to person, and, more importantly, what is truly right is not what is easy and obvious. Morals cannot universally translate to real life, because you cannot be fixated on the small picture. You must, I believe, work for the greater good even if that includes smaller evil. The ends do justify the means.

Another example. Let's say a man has broken into a nuclear facility and starts working with the instruments - not just fiddling. (Let's say this is the Cold War, and the missiles are aimed at Russia, not the Atlantic Ocean.) You are the guard. Would you shoot him?

The man could be insane. He could have no idea how to set off the missile. He could be the Russian Ambassador's teenage son on a dare, and shooting him will set off an international incident and possible nuclear warfare.

But I think, however, that you have to go with what you have. You have to assume that he can start a nuclear war, right there and then. You cannot get caught up in the fact that you are shooting an unarmed man. You must, at the very least, disable him.

Masterfroggy

March 6th, 2004, 12:37 am

First off why is everyone fantasising about what ifs, and maybes, the questions is a simple one, yes that’s right a simple one.

Is it right to kill in self defence, or is it right to allow others to die because you are unwilling to make a choice.
To kill another person is not a simple thing to do, both morally or physically,

As for police men shooting the weapon from someone’s hand, it’s impossible. Try to understand, a hand is 4-5 % of the size of a persons body (torso) now take the average police man with the average amount of training put him on the range (no excitement not running not trying to dodge other people or bullets that are being directed at him, ) this average police man should have the ability to hit a paper target as a set distance in good light, the target is the outline of a persons torso, with me so far,
The average police man is expected to hit the target five times, placing his shots in a group of about 5 inches, Now my hand is not small but when I make a fist around a knife the thickest part of my hand is 4 inches, so your average calm police man would not be expected to hit that small a target (even in good light, calm and not excited) with more than one shot, the rest would either miss my weapon all together and hit me in the mid chest or just miss. Add in to the equation darkness, movement, excitement, anger, tiredness, and even a SWAT trained marksman would miss.

Morally the question is not whether killing in self defence is right, but is not killing in self defence wrong, (careful now big step coming). Some how we have missed the most important lesson, painfully learnt from history of the human kind.

Inaction kills more people than action, be it not leaving your car at home on a Friday night drinking session with your mates, to not getting you brakes fixed to not buying a smoke alarm, and not doing the right thing at the right time.

If the British had not allowed Hitler to take over half of Europe before standing up to him, If more governments had gone to help in Iran before the Shar had been kicked out, If governments had stood up to Saddam Hussan 28 years ago if more people stood up for their rights and not allowed their neighbourhood to be taken over drug gangs, If people stood up for themselves, and did not allow the schools to be taken over by gangs.

Because of a lack of morals we have the society we deserve, where a person defending his children can be charged and sued by the person endangering them in the first place.

That is because no one will stand up and say look the laws is corrupt, we want the law makers to change the stupid laws, or we want new lawmakers
My problem with this is, to do this, you have to be properly educated, but that takes hard work, but people don’t like hard work, they want to have an easy life, so they get lazy, and fail at school, but then they complain that they are not given the best jobs because they haven’t got a degree, so we make degrees easer to get, and here’s the rub, stupid people have the same rights to vote as people who read more than the cartoons in the Sunday papers, and stupid people are just the sort of people who politicians love, because once they have voted that’s the last interest the voters take in their government, leaving the Morally suspect politicians to strip the heart from society, leaving it open to rather confused “nice people” who think that everyone should have rights, but no one has any responsibilities.

Next time you let some snot nosed kid push in front of you in the dinner hall, without saying something to him, you are teaching him a lesson, that he has more rights than you and you are willing to let him get away with it,

Killing in self defence of a human life is a no-brainer, killing to stop someone who is trying to steal you TV is also a No-brainer, one is good and one is evil and only you can decide
I know I have all ready worked it out for myself

Notes to the Mods feel free to delete this post, I feel that the whole issue cannot be taken in isolation, and have included some off topic stuff as I feel it is relevant

Angora

March 6th, 2004, 3:29 am

Is it right to kill in self defence, or is it right to allow others to die because you are unwilling to make a choice.

I completely agree with that. I think self-defense is a perfectly just reason to kill someone, if there's no other way to defend yourself (like, obviously if a six year old kid came at you with a knife, the first thing you would do wouldn't be to go for the kill)...

If the British had not allowed Hitler to take over half of Europe before standing up to him, If more governments had gone to help in Iran before the Shar had been kicked out, If governments had stood up to Saddam Hussan 28 years ago

And I agree with that too. Although I'm more in the camp that people failed in their moral duty to stop Hitler and Hussein from abusing their own people, rather than as a self-defense thing... but, yeah, I'll go along with that.

Well, let's say the troops were in a place unjustly, the oil wells were owned unjustly, etc., but you didn't give him a fusion bomb. Then X blows up New York and kills millions. What do you do next?

I don't know. Probably attack him back. It still depends.

Ultimately, I think simply deciding what is just and what is not is not the best way to go about real life situations - simply because what is just varies to an extent from person to person, and, more importantly, what is truly right is not what is easy and obvious.

Well that's where we differ on things. I don't believe that what is just varries from person to person. I believe that you can arrive at a conclusive answer through reasoning, and that if everyone did that we would all eventually arrive at the same answer. And, no it isn't immediately obvious, but that's why you need to think about it a little, ideally ahead of time.

Morals cannot universally translate to real life, because you cannot be fixated on the small picture. You must, I believe, work for the greater good even if that includes smaller evil. The ends do justify the means.

I don't see it as the small picture. I see immediate outcomes (what I believe you've been advocating) as the small picture. I see the big picture as whether or not your own actions are reflective of the ideals you're trying to stand up for - which means you shouldn't do something wrong, because, in the big picture, all you've done is add more "wrongness" to the world.

So, the ends do not justify the means. In part because, as I've already tried to say, you don't own the ends. You can't control them and you can't predict them. But you do own your own actions. You can control that, and to a certain extent you can predict that. And at the end of the day, that's all you have to measure yourself and your conduct by - so you'd better try to do the right thing. And that means not doing an action that you consider morally reprehensible, no matter what you expect it to bring about.

As I've said, I don't consider self-defense morally reprehensible. I don't claim to have total enlightenment, but I feel pretty satisfied with my reasoning behind that (which is a whole different tangent that nobody's interested in). I do consider murder morally reprehensible (and I feel pretty comfortable with my reasoning on that one too), so no matter if it "turns out well" there's no honour or goodness or rightness in doing that, as far as I'm concerned.

Another example. Let's say a man has broken into a nuclear facility and starts working with the instruments - not just fiddling. (Let's say this is the Cold War, and the missiles are aimed at Russia, not the Atlantic Ocean.) You are the guard. Would you shoot him?

If he's unarmed, I don't see why you would have to shoot him. That seems like a bit of an over-reaction if you could just pull him away from the controls or something. Or, you know, tell him to stop first and see if he does. Maybe a little "What are you doing here? Step away from the controls or I'll shoot" before you sneak up on him and pull the trigger? Maybe call for back-up in the meantime? And as a guard, you would presumably have some training in how to handle such a situation properly with a minimal body count, right?

LewsTherin

March 6th, 2004, 5:58 am

I think self-defense is just that - self defense. In the heat of the moment, you're not going to be able to selectively choose a specific target, like a hand (especially with no training). You can try and run, or warn your attacker, but the situation may arise where you need to fight, and where it's either your life or his/hers. In that situation, you're only thinking about stopping this person, and the best way to do that is to stop them permanently. There's no heroism involved; it's kill or be killed.

The only way that would not be classed as murder, is if you allow yourself to be injured, then return fire. Obviously, that's tricky, as that injury might well kill you, but it will make it a lot harder for the courts to convict you.

Tane

March 15th, 2004, 7:59 pm

If you take a life it is murder and as simple as that. Whether you are protecting yourself or not, it is still premeditative as you had to use something or act in a specific way to stop someone who may or may not actually kill you. How can anyone predict what the other person is going to do and therefore justify killing someone because they might have tried to harm you?

Angora

March 16th, 2004, 12:00 am

If you take a life it is murder and as simple as that. Whether you are protecting yourself or not, it is still premeditative as you had to use something or act in a specific way to stop someone who may or may not actually kill you.

Premeditation (a component of first degree murder) usually requires that you plan it out ahead of time and seek the person out in order to kill them. Murders where you suddenly enter into a confrontation with someone whom you were not previously intending to harm and then kill them in the midst of the confrontation are not generally considered premeditated.

How can anyone predict what the other person is going to do and therefore justify killing someone because they might have tried to harm you?

If someone twice your size comes at you after you tell them not to and try to fend them off, you can reasonably assume that they intend to harm you, and while it's unfortunate if the only way to get them off you is to kill them, it might be that that's the case. If your only other option is to say "Aw, shucks. I guess I'll let you do whatever you're gonna do and hope it doesn't kill me" I would say you're perfectly justified in killing them, if that's what you need to do.