Killing: right or wrong?

omnicorp

Is killing someone in self-defense right?

Should someone who kills someone accidentaly while they rob their house be jailed?

Also, should murder be treated so seriously?

chewy

here's one

proposal: sex with....

option A your mother
option B your grandmother

Bottle_of_Smoke

if the only way to stop them killing you is to kill them then yes killing is right
but......

if they're robbing your house they prob didnt need to be killed and you are probably MENTAL, however theres no way they should be able to sue you for falling on your set of kitchen knives left pointing upwards from the floor (ITS MY DAMN HOUSE YOU BROKE IN!)

polls a bit silly with not enough options so im not gonna vote

DadaKopf

Another argument would be: if someone is about to kill you, do nothing because at least you die having not committed an immoral act.

Classic utilitarian argument: do whatever produces the greatest amount of pleasure for yourself and/or the greatest number. The murderer could kill you, and many others, so you should kill him if absolutely necessary to save yourself and any amount of others he/she may potentially kill because killing is the opposite of nice things.

Kantian argument: every moral judgement must be based on asking the question 'What would happen if my act was applied universally?'. In this case, if I were to kill one person, I'd ask myself 'What if I killed everyone?'. Outcome - incoherent, mad, crazy, immoral - Bad. Therefore, cosmically speaking, I'm better off preserving my essential individual goodness by doing nothing.

I didn't vote. I think the question could be 'Is killing good or bad?'

omnicorp

DadaKopf wrote:

Another argument would be: if someone is about to kill you, do nothing because at least you die having not committed an immoral act.

Classic utilitarian argument: do whatever produces the greatest amount of pleasure for yourself and/or the greatest number. The murderer could kill you, and many others, so you should kill him if absolutely necessary to save yourself and any amount of others he/she may potentially kill because killing is the opposite of nice things.

Kantian argument: every moral judgement must be based on asking the question 'What would happen if my act was applied universally?'. In this case, if I were to kill one person, I'd ask myself 'What if I killed everyone?'. Outcome - incoherent, mad, crazy, immoral - Bad. Therefore, cosmically speaking, I'm better off preserving my essential individual goodness by doing nothing.

I didn't vote. I think the question could be 'Is killing good or bad?'

Good point, my poll is a bit bad.

But I think killing is wring.
You could try and knock him out.

Moriarty

I've no problem with people killing in self defence. I'd also lean towards not having a problem with people being killed if they're breaking into your house.

omnicorp

Moriarty wrote:

I've no problem with people killing in self defence. I'd also lean towards not having a problem with people being killed if they're breaking into your house.

And that will lead to not having a problem if they throw a punch at you...
My view is that if they're going to kill you, you have to kill them to save your life.

DadaKopf

But what if you *think* they're going to kill you but they have no intention to do so? What if you misinterpret the level of threat? It's not like most people have a lot of experience dealing with these situations.

luckat

There's usually more than just two choices: kill-dontkill. Most situations offer a lot of choices. This kind of argument fits itself up with false logic.

It's as if Gandhi were to say: "Is it right to kill a lot of British occupiers to get them out of India, or to stay enslaved?" Gandhi found a different choice, and so can we all, in most situations. [/preach]

Moriarty

omnicorp wrote:

And that will lead to not having a problem if they throw a punch at you...
My view is that if they're going to kill you, you have to kill them to save your life.

No, I wouldn't be putting my self in the situation of deserving to be punched/shot in the first place. If I did break into somones house I really don't think I'd complain if they beat the living shít out of me, because I'd have deserved it.

omnicorp

Moriarty wrote:

No, I wouldn't be putting my self in the situation of deserving to be punched/shot in the first place. If I did break into somones house I really don't think I'd complain if they beat the living shít out of me, because I'd have deserved it.

Good point but keeping with Lookat,
[PREACH] "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"[/PREACH]

Moriarty

It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I don't intend to allow people walk all over myself or people I care about.

omnicorp

Moriarty wrote:

It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I don't intend to allow people walk all over myself or people I care about.

well, if we were all like this it wouldn't be a dog eat dog world...

Moriarty

Correct, but I'm more the pragmatist than the idealist. We do, after all, live in the world of the practical, not one of ideals.

omnicorp

Moriarty wrote:

Correct, but I'm more the pragmatist than the idealist. We do, after all, live in the world of the practical, not one of ideals.

well, your probably adding to the problems but as long as your not attacking people for little or no reason...

"Power Corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Moriarty

I can think of no reason I'd attack somone for no reason. I just believe in lethal defence in some situations.

omnicorp

Nor am I saying you would, I am saying SOME people would.

Moriarty

Some people already do.

omnicorp

Moriarty wrote:

Some people already do.

yeah, and it's us that pay.

Xterminator

I've got to say, I think we all have the right to kill in self defense.

It's usually easy enough to judge what reasonable force is.

If your in a fist fight situation, and you use a weapon to kill someone thats unreasonable. Use it to incapacitate, fair enough.

In someone pulls a deadly weapon like a knife or gun (or syringe) on you, then your justified in killing them any way you can.

None of us a psychic, so you must judge someone by their actions

What constutes reasonable force is probably addressed in every self defense class in the country, because isnt that difficult to set out what is unacceptable. Perhaps mandatory self defence in secondary school would help in this regard.

I would like the law changed however, because in our compo culture, it should be crystal clear that the agressor/instigator loses the right to sue for damages, in a situation they brought about. Also in self defense cases where force has been used, the benifit of doubt, as to whether too much force was applied should be given to the defending party.

As for when they are on your property, or in your house etc, i think it would be no harm to have a law that allows reasonble force to be used on trespassers if warranted, eg if you injure a burglar while trying to restrain him.
However killing should only be allowed in life and death situations, so capping soeone running off with your dvd player just cant be accpetable in civilised society.

And its worth mentioning that the weapons you aquire for this purpose are stistically shown to be often used against you. The more guns, the more gun crime, is a lesson our American friends seem to have to learn slowly and painfully.

X

omnicorp

Xterminator wrote:

I've got to say, I think we all have the right to kill in self defense.

It's usually easy enough to judge what reasonable force is.

If your in a fist fight situation, and you use a weapon to kill someone thats unreasonable. Use it to incapacitate, fair enough.

In someone pulls a deadly weapon like a knife or gun (or syringe) on you, then your justified in killing them any way you can.

None of us a psychic, so you must judge someone by their actions

What constutes reasonable force is probably addressed in every self defense class in the country, because isnt that difficult to set out what is unacceptable. Perhaps mandatory self defence in secondary school would help in this regard.

I would like the law changed however, because in our compo culture, it should be crystal clear that the agressor/instigator loses the right to sue for damages, in a situation they brought about. Also in self defense cases where force has been used, the benifit of doubt, as to whether too much force was applied should be given to the defending party.

As for when they are on your property, or in your house etc, i think it would be no harm to have a law that allows reasonble force to be used on trespassers if warranted, eg if you injure a burglar while trying to restrain him.
However killing should only be allowed in life and death situations, so capping soeone running off with your dvd player just cant be accpetable in civilised society.

And its worth mentioning that the weapons you aquire for this purpose are stistically shown to be often used against you. The more guns, the more gun crime, is a lesson our American friends seem to have to learn slowly and painfully.

X

Well, can't we use a non-lethal weapon?