|
Post by Nimras on Aug 16, 2011 19:38:29 GMT -5
Just a quick pop in here, everyone. Please remember to stick to the play nice and to not invest yourself emotionally and start fighting. This is a friendly debate. People aren't going to agree with you, and that's a good thing because it means they're thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. This is all hypothetical, no one here is going to actually go around and start killing people as a way to save the world. I know that. I was just a bit upset because Dju wasn't really responding to my argument when she quoted it. She was starting a new one. No offense meant to ANYONE, but if you want to bring something new up quote something that is related or just don't quote at all. I can see it as being related to your post, and just reading it in a different way. Not everyone thinks in exactly the same way, but I can see the logic of quoting your post and the response given. It kind of falls under that, "people will think differently and that's good because they're thinking for themselves" category. A conversation is an organic thing, it's going to grow and change shapes a bit, and that's a good thing. Now, let's return to the topic on hand.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 16, 2011 19:44:25 GMT -5
They can feel vengeance, but it's their choice if they want to slaughter complete strangers. And OK, yes, it's not fair for someone to just die (but hey, everyone dies in the end), but it's also not fair to let them live if that guarantees that others will go through true horrors and just die in the end. ^^; Not in my opinion, at least. If they're killing others and the only way to stop the slaughter is to kill them, you'd best kill them to save innocents. Example time! How do you force Colonel Gaddaffi to get help? He's in a position of power and he's convinced he's right. I wasn't really talking about him, I was talking about people who were tortured into madness. Wait wait, you never distinguished between people who are mentally ill and people like Gaddaffi. You said everyone can be helped, that it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter if they're responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of death or not. Nat was trying to figure out what you would do if confronted with Gaddaffi. You can't really pull out of the question just because he wasn't tortured into madness =P I don't know if you understand how hard it would be to rehabilitate these people, if it were possible at all. Some of them are sociopathic - they literally do not have a conscience. It's not something that really can be rehabilitated (yes, psychologists/psychiatrists have tried). As Nat said, they're also convinced they're right. Or they may be power-mad. Or ruthless. Or they're so obsessed with making themselves feel comfortable/wealthy that they don't care what happens to other people. Not everyone can be rehabilitated.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Aug 16, 2011 19:46:35 GMT -5
I wasn't really talking about him, I was talking about people who were tortured into madness. Wait wait, you never distinguished between people who are mentally ill and people like Gaddaffi. You said everyone can be helped, that it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter if they're responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of death or not. I don't know if you understand how hard it would be to rehabilitate these people. Some of them are sociopathic - they literally do not have a conscience. It's not something that really can be rehabilitated (yes, psychologists/psychiatrists have tried). As Nat said, they're also convinced they're right. Or they may be power-mad. Or ruthless. Or they're so obsessed with making themselves feel comfortable/wealthy that they don't care what happens to other people. Not everyone can be rehabilitated. I agree with Tiger, honestly death sounds the best. It'd be in peace, and not killing everyone in it's way. :/
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2011 19:47:01 GMT -5
I wasn't really talking about him, I was talking about people who were tortured into madness. Wait wait, you never distinguished between people who are mentally ill and people like Gaddaffi. You said everyone can be helped, that it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter if they're responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of death or not. I don't know if you understand how hard it would be to rehabilitate these people. Some of them are sociopathic - they literally do not have a conscience. It's not something that really can be rehabilitated (yes, psychologists/psychiatrists have tried). As Nat said, they're also convinced they're right. Or they may be power-mad. Or ruthless. Or they're so obsessed with making themselves feel comfortable/wealthy that they don't care what happens to other people. Not everyone can be rehabilitated. I thought I did. I said "tortured" and "traumatized" many times. The post I would really like a response to is the one about the pit of darkness; I think it puts my point across well. And keep in mind that I'm talking about people who have really been hurt when they were innocent, and that's who I want to talk about right now.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Aug 16, 2011 19:49:42 GMT -5
Wait wait, you never distinguished between people who are mentally ill and people like Gaddaffi. You said everyone can be helped, that it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter if they're responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of death or not. I don't know if you understand how hard it would be to rehabilitate these people. Some of them are sociopathic - they literally do not have a conscience. It's not something that really can be rehabilitated (yes, psychologists/psychiatrists have tried). As Nat said, they're also convinced they're right. Or they may be power-mad. Or ruthless. Or they're so obsessed with making themselves feel comfortable/wealthy that they don't care what happens to other people. Not everyone can be rehabilitated. I thought I did. I said "tortured" and "traumatized" many times. The post I would really like a response to is the one about the pit of darkness; I think it puts my point across well. And keep in mind that I'm talking about people who have really been hurt when they were innocent, and that's who I want to talk about right now. But we're talking about killing someone, and why you'd do it or not. *points at title* ^_^;
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 16, 2011 19:50:09 GMT -5
Wait wait, you never distinguished between people who are mentally ill and people like Gaddaffi. You said everyone can be helped, that it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter if they're responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of death or not. I don't know if you understand how hard it would be to rehabilitate these people. Some of them are sociopathic - they literally do not have a conscience. It's not something that really can be rehabilitated (yes, psychologists/psychiatrists have tried). As Nat said, they're also convinced they're right. Or they may be power-mad. Or ruthless. Or they're so obsessed with making themselves feel comfortable/wealthy that they don't care what happens to other people. Not everyone can be rehabilitated. I thought I did. I said "tortured" and "traumatized" many times. The post I would really like a response to is the one about the pit of darkness; I think it puts my point across well. And keep in mind that I'm talking about people who have really been hurt when they were innocent, and that's who I want to talk about right now. Looking back, I see where you shifted to talking about traumatized people, but you also say this: I personally could never kill anybody, no matter how horrible they are. Because 1. I believe that it's not the person who's bad, it's their actions. All people are good people but sometimes good people make mistakes, some of them very huge. I'm not really sure where you stand at this point. EDIT: As for a response to your pit of darkness post; please see the second paragraph of my last post, and replace "rehabilitate" with "pull out of pit of darkness".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2011 19:55:09 GMT -5
Speaking from a purely psychological standpoint, here, there are things which you simply can't come back from. Regardless of how the problem started, if you're that deep into it that you might be assassinated, chances are there is and will never be any healing for them, whether because they don't want it, don't feel they deserve it or just plain don't have any qualms about the blood on their hands. Sometimes you can go back, sometimes there is redemption for people, but not often.
Two stories.
Story one begins with the fall of Nazi Germany and the trials of Nazi officials that followed. Forgive me for not remembering the story, but one man involved with the trials (I think he was a lawyer) was a Christian, and he was simply at a loss for what to do with these horrible men who were, in all likelihood, destined for the death penalty for crimes against humanity. He asked someone (I think it was a close friend or possibly his wife) what he should do, and they replied "tell them about Jesus". Well, he did. Some of them just laughed at him, some got angry, others simply stayed silent, but about two or three among them listened, believed and gave themselves up to full repentance right then and there. Most of the time you can't go back, but sometimes, just sometimes, someone else can bring you back.
Second story is part of my own, which a lot of you already know. I'm using it because you can't really know what you'll do or how you'll react until you're put into that situation. I always figured I'd be a pretty meek person because I'm always scared to hurt anyone, and it was surprising to me that, when I was backed into the corner with danger all around, my only instinct was "use whatever means you can to get the hell out of here". I left the guy on the ground and he was just stirring when I jumped over him and ran. I had the chance (and good reason) to further disable him, but once I had my hands free that was it, I was outta there..
What I did after then was stupid, I let him walk away. What I should have done was to call the police, or get someone else who was close by to do it for me. I should have tied him up, put him under citizen's arrest and made him face the justice he rightly deserved. But the immediate danger was past and I was meek old me again, so I let it slide.
And that's exactly my point. Death, for these people, is not a punishment. It's an escape from taking responsibility for their actions. To me, it's the easy way out. If someone is in immediate danger, I would act, I would use whatever I could to disable the source of danger, but beyond that it is not my place to deal justice (or vengeance) to another human being. Capture them, turn them in to some authority whose job it is to deal justice, but if you take their life, what makes you better than them? A life is a life, no matter how dirty, and we've no right to play God.
Edit: On the topic of Caligula's daughter, by the time you're 4 a lot of your behaviors have already been formed and are extremely difficult to change. It certainly wasn't right for them to just assume she would turn out like her old man, but it wasn't an unfounded assumption, either. ^^;
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2011 19:55:32 GMT -5
I thought I did. I said "tortured" and "traumatized" many times. The post I would really like a response to is the one about the pit of darkness; I think it puts my point across well. And keep in mind that I'm talking about people who have really been hurt when they were innocent, and that's who I want to talk about right now. Looking back, I see where you shifted to talking about traumatized people, but you also say this: I personally could never kill anybody, no matter how horrible they are. Because 1. I believe that it's not the person who's bad, it's their actions. All people are good people but sometimes good people make mistakes, some of them very huge. I'm not really sure where you stand at this point. EDIT: As for a response to your pit of darkness post; please see the second paragraph of my last post, and replace "rehabilitate" with "pull out of pit of darkness". I really don't understand how someone who didn't plan on becoming trapped like that could lose their conscience. I think it would still be there, trying to break free. Sorry about the other thing, I guess I didn't get the shift across enough. EDIT: Sarn, I agree with your "a life is a life" thing. Which is why I'm against the death penalty. By sentencing them to death you're becoming just like them. Making the same mistakes. And my mom once told me that the families of murdered people really didn't feel better after the murderer was executed. I think it's driven from the false standpoint that taking their life will restore the life of the victim, which it won't. If I were murdered and the person who murdered me was given a death sentence, my soul would be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by Poldon on Aug 16, 2011 20:01:13 GMT -5
A life is a life, no matter how dirty, and we've no right to play God. This. Exactly this.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 16, 2011 20:03:24 GMT -5
Looking back, I see where you shifted to talking about traumatized people, but you also say this: I'm not really sure where you stand at this point. EDIT: As for a response to your pit of darkness post; please see the second paragraph of my last post, and replace "rehabilitate" with "pull out of pit of darkness". I really don't understand how someone who didn't plan on becoming trapped like that could lose their conscience. I think it would still be there, trying to break free. Sorry about the other thing, I guess I didn't get the shift across enough. A conscience isn't something you're born with, it's something you develop. Sociopathy isn't just an abnormal mix of brain chemicals, there are social factors heavily involved in the disorder as well. Or think of spoiled children, or adults who believe the world revolves around them. They don't have a disorder, but they never developed an appropriate conscience. They have a voice that tells them to do what's best for them, to look out for number one all the time, at all costs. Sure, sometimes you can open these people's eyes to what they've done wrong. But most people with a "bad" conscience, or no conscience at all, have already made the decision that they don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Aug 16, 2011 20:05:32 GMT -5
If killing a person would prevent him from going on to kill many more people, I would absolutely kill him.
I think it'd be great if we could address every person's individual feelings, but the most important thing is making sure that innocent people don't get killed. If a mass murderer has personal issues that drove him to kill, then if it was possible to capture him and get him some amazing psychiatric therapy, then that'd be fantastic - but I don't see that as being possible in most real-life situations. I mean, if a powerful dictator was suddenly captured by enemy forces and plunked down in front of a psychiatrist, I don't think he'd really be in the mood to talk about daddy issues or something. XD; Not to mention how difficult it'd be to capture him, and that sometimes you really don't have the choice to bring him in alive.
Ultimately, for me, what it comes down to is whether I'd rather spare the killer's life and allow many other people to die, or kill the killer and allow many others to live. For me, it wouldn't really be a matter of whether the killer deserves it or not - it'd just be a matter of preventing lots of senseless deaths. It's not pleasant, but if that's the only way of resolving the matter - well, then, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Aug 16, 2011 20:09:26 GMT -5
Even assuming that your mother has experienced the murder of a family member, I don't really see how she could say that about all the families of murdered people. From what I understand, there are plenty of cases in which the families of murdered people very much want the death penalty. Unfortunately I don't happen to think that's a sufficient reason to execute criminals - I would like to hope it has a bit more to do with justice, and a little less to do with the feelings of other people involved.
On the original subject...I don't know. I can't see myself killing for a vast moral reason like that. It would have to be more personal to me than "he's killing thousands of people," selfish as that may sound - now if someone killed my family, maybe I'd go all Punisher on them, I don't know.
The problem to me with the greater good argument is this famous philosophical scenario (I may not have it quite right but I think the essential points are there:
A person comes into the hospital for something minor, all organs functioning. In the neighboring rooms are 10 patients, each of them with one major organ about to fail. Should the doctor treat the person with the minor injury - or chop him up and give one of his organs to each of the other patients, thereby saving 10 people instead of one?
Now, I know the people we're talking about are "bad," unlike the presumably innocent patient with a minor injury. But I don't know that I can take it upon myself to determine "good" or "bad," so until then I don't think I'd feel justified in taking an individual's life for the sake of many others.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2011 20:09:51 GMT -5
I really don't understand how someone who didn't plan on becoming trapped like that could lose their conscience. I think it would still be there, trying to break free. Sorry about the other thing, I guess I didn't get the shift across enough. A conscience isn't something you're born with, it's something you develop. Sociopathy isn't just an abnormal mix of brain chemicals, there are social factors heavily involved in the disorder as well. Or think of spoiled children, or adults who believe the world revolves around them. They don't have a disorder, but they never developed an appropriate conscience. They have a voice that tells them to do what's best for them, to look out for number one all the time, at all costs. Sure, sometimes you can open these people's eyes to what they've done wrong. But most people with a "bad" conscience, or no conscience at all, have already made the decision that they don't care. But what if you already have a "good" conscience, and then some maniac kills your whole family, captures you, and tortures you until you manage to escape? If someone became a killer out of that, then I think the goodness is still in there trying to climb out the pit - it just needs to be helped out.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 16, 2011 20:16:06 GMT -5
A conscience isn't something you're born with, it's something you develop. Sociopathy isn't just an abnormal mix of brain chemicals, there are social factors heavily involved in the disorder as well. Or think of spoiled children, or adults who believe the world revolves around them. They don't have a disorder, but they never developed an appropriate conscience. They have a voice that tells them to do what's best for them, to look out for number one all the time, at all costs. Sure, sometimes you can open these people's eyes to what they've done wrong. But most people with a "bad" conscience, or no conscience at all, have already made the decision that they don't care. But what if you already have a "good" conscience, and then some maniac kills your whole family, captures you, and tortures you until you manage to escape? If someone became a killer out of that, then I think the goodness is still in there trying to climb out the pit - it just needs to be helped out. And as far as I'm concerned, a person who came out of that situation a killer probably wouldn't rise to the position where they could affect the lives of hundreds/thousands of people. Mental trauma doesn't go hide in a closet under the stress of rising to become a person who can affect that many lives. If they were a serial killer running loose on the streets, I think it would be fantastic if they could be caught, placed in a mental facility, and rehabilitated. I have no moral qualms, however, about the person being killed if it's the only or best way to save an innocent life. It's sad. I would pity the person. But I don't think innocent people should pay the price.
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Aug 16, 2011 20:40:27 GMT -5
Just to clarify, Dju, what you're referring to is the current black market situation in Somalia? I.E., the folks stealing donated food to sell so they can fund the current war and/or turn a profit? I have to be honest: it might hurt, I might feel terrible, but I'd probably have the guts to pull the trigger. If someone is so black-hearted that they are willing to let people starve for something like that, then getting them out of the picture quickly so you can save others is a lot more important than that one person's well-being. I value thousands of innocents more than I value one person who chose to do something terrible. In terms of getting them help instead: I don't think it's gonna happen. For someone to get help, they first have to admit they need help. You can have the world's best psychiatrists talking at them all day long, but if that desire to change isn't there, change won't ever happen. And if someone's cold enough to know there are people dying around them, and to know that they're stealing food that was donated to others in good faith, and they take the cash from it and use it to add to their own wealth, that person is probably too far gone, too mind-blowingly self-centered and narcissistic, to ever admit that their actions were questionable. As Tiger says, sociopathy has literally never been cured. Now, I will grant that in some cases the moral high ground would probably be to try. But it would depend on a lot of circumstances. Could you get that person out without putting those sent to capture him in mortal danger, possibly forfeiting several lives for the sake of one? Would you be able to keep him so absolutely isolated during his capture that he had no way to keep running things from the inside? Would he pretty much be doomed to get the death penalty anyway, making attempts to capture him unnecessarily risky for little benefit? All those things would affect, I think, whether one should just fire away or not. Ultimately, though, I think a lot of us simply can't predict what we'd do in that situation. Really, the instinct not to kill other human beings, in those of us with consciences, is pretty strong. Even those of us whose first reply is "KILL THE LITTLE WEASEL!" on a forum might well freeze up if asked to pull the trigger ourselves. And since I'm assuming none of us are headed to Somalia this week, let's try not to take the question more seriously than is necessary.
|
|