Would you kill someone if...?

[Terra]

Aug 16, 2011 20:09:26 GMT -5 Joker said:

And my mom once told me that the families of murdered people really didn't feel better after the murderer was executed.

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.

I think the main difference there is that the patient with the minor injury isn't directly responsible for the organ failures of the other people. In the hypothetical situation that Dju brought up, the person would be more directly responsible for the deaths of many people.

Another difference is that there are usually other ways of getting organs, like donations from people who are already dead. And what if the random person with a minor injury isn't an organ match for all of them?

Though in a hypothetical situation in which the person with the minor injury happened to be a match for all those patients, and they also happened to be the last people on Earth and responsible for repopulating the planet (and therefore there was nowhere to get other organs from), and the patients had a good chance of surviving with the new organs...then yes, I'd say to kill the one guy with the minor injury. XD; Maybe I'm cruel.

[Stal]

Sae, your argument boils down to a fundamental difference in how people view personal responsibility. Your posts pretty much state that someone isn't fully responsible for their actions because of circumstances outside their control. Others pretty much view it as no matter what has happened to you, you are always responsible for your actions.

Personally, I fall into the latter camp. I don't feel anyone's "origin story" forgives the actions they've taken personally. And those actions will have consequences and need to be answered for. The power of love and hope of rehabilitation is wonderful on paper. Reality is very different.

Many dictators and despots and warlords are purely only interested in power and wealth and personal gain. Once you're on that road and taking it ruthlessly and becoming notorious for it... There's really no coming back.

Do I think I could take a life of someone if I had to and the decision was in my hands? Yes. No doubts, no hesitation, I'd do it. Does that mean I'd seek it out? No. But if there was no other way out of a situation or circumstance, I believe I could take a life.

However, as any soldier on the battlefield will tell you.... Taking a life has a profound impact on you. I imagine I'd carry that scar for life and find a way to atone for the action somehow.

[Yoyti]

I am a practical person. I would kill the person responsible for all this, if, and only if, he would cause more damage should he live. I would never kill for revenge, unless revenge happened to be a by-product of a more productive killing. I would only kill if it resulted in a distinct gain to society at large, and the odds that the gain would occur were high.

If the man in question were being forced to wreak evil, or was otherwise involved in circumstances beyond his control, or had a wretched childhood, I would still kill him. If he had caused such drastic things to occur, even though against his will, I do believe that to anyone who could distinct between right and wrong, death would be preferable. A point which I believe is implied or mentioned several times in Harry Potter.

And if we are alluding to Harry Potter, I do not think that killing rips the soul apart, nor to I believe in a soul distinctly separate from the mind (I'd go on about that, but that's really more of an afterlife discussion). Remember, Snape killed Dumbledore as a coup de grace. Such an act was not damaging to his soul. You should note that the same is true when Harry kills Voldemort. Only in killing, and knowing that killing is wrong, do I think you are damaging yourself.

EDIT:

I should also like to mention Ruddigore. The baronets of Ruddigore (including Sir Despard and Sir Ruthvyn) while king, must commit a crime daily, or die horribly. Despard thwarted the curse by committing his crime early in the day, and then doing good. Upon reforming, and handing his office to his elder brother, Sir Ruthvyn, Sir Despard marries Mad Margaret. They then go to confront Ruthvyn, who, with no heirs, should be the last baronet of Ruddigore, thus ending the curse. They persuade Ruthvyn to forgo his own life to break the curse. (Although everyone gets out of the opera practically alive and reasonably well. Yes, even the ghosts.)

SPOILER: Click to show

[Avery]

I think others have pretty much said my opinions on this matter-- and I do believe Stal hit the nail on the head in a certain regard. Sae, you seem to believe that poor circumstance (ie: at one point being a victim of something) absolves a person of their actions later on, and that people aren't responsible for their own fates. I don't feel this way. Yes, some people are dealt a bad hand in life, but at a certain point, you either reach the point of no return, or you don't. And similarly, not every bad person is evil because something bad happened to them. Not every person in this world is good deep down.

Some people cannot be fixed, nor can help be foisted upon someone who does not want it. So if it came between killing a person out of necessity-- a person who, say, would go on to murder a village of women and children a few hours later-- then yeah, I would do it. It would probably not be easy, but I don't think it would "split my soul in half" or anything like that. As someone earlier stated, there is a difference between killing and murder.

And truly, if someone has the opportunity to say... kill the dictator singularly in charge of genocide; or kill the man who has been stealing the food meant for starving refuges... I don't understand how it would be morally better to let that person go-- try and reform him, probably in vain-- and thus condemn many innocents to death, as opposed to just killing the guilty party outright and saving those who have done nothing wrong. I also find the scenario of the organ donor flawed, because as Terra said, the person with the minor injury is not responsible for the organ failure in the other patients. Thus, this person is also innocent. So it's either killing one innocent, or ten innocents; whereas the scenario originally presented at the start of this thread is killing one guilty person, or not doing so and thus causing the deaths of innocent people. Completely different ballpark, as far as I'm concerned.

This thread reminds me of some morally ambiguous scenarios I read about a while back, which were super interesting. They're not entirely related, but if anyone's interested, they are on the same topic-- kind of in the same boat as the organ donor thing, I think. These aren't directly transcribed but basically just what I remember. XD

SPOILER: Click to show

1. It is war-time. You are in a cellar with a group of people, hiding from enemy soldiers. If they find you, they will kill you. There is a baby in the cellar, and he starts to cry. You try to comfort him, but he is inconsolable. The enemy soldiers are drawing near, and if they hear the baby, your hiding place will be revealed, and you and the others in the cellar will be killed. You have a blanket with which you could smother the baby, thus guaranteeing the safety of the rest of the people in the cellar.

Could you kill the infant? What if it was your child? What if it belonged to a stranger?

2. You have been shipwrecked, and you are with several survivors on a life-raft. However, there is too much weight, and unless someone gets off the raft, the entire thing will sink. Anyone who leaves the raft, however, will certainly drown. Onboard the raft is an elderly man who is in poor shape. He refuses to jump off.

Could you push him off? What if he was likely going to die anyway? What if there was help nearby and a small possibility he could be saved (assuming someone else-- someone healthy-- voluntarily left the raft)?

[Stal]

That first scenario was actually used in the series finale of MASH. I believe it was the finale anyway. But it was used.

In both cases, I view the choices presented as false dichotomies, led to believe it is one choice or the other. The first one is narrower, certainly. But I would choose to leave my hiding place and give the others a chance while attempting to distract the soldiers before they got to the hiding place. It may not work, but it'd be my choice.

Second option is more obvious for me. I'd take myself out of the equation and remove myself instead. Besides, if one elderly man's weight can make a difference, then surely mine can as well.

[Avery]

Aug 16, 2011 23:43:18 GMT -5 Stal said:

That first scenario was actually used in the series finale of MASH. I believe it was the finale anyway. But it was used.

In both cases, I view the choices presented as false dichotomies, led to believe it is one choice or the other. The first one is narrower, certainly. But I would choose to leave my hiding place and give the others a chance while attempting to distract the soldiers before they got to the hiding place. It may not work, but it'd be my choice.

Second option is more obvious for me. I'd take myself out of the equation and remove myself instead. Besides, if one elderly man's weight can make a difference, then surely mine can as well.

And that, of course, is true; there could always be other options. I think the spirit of the questions, though, is if those were the only options-- if it was black and white, either A or B-- could you pull the proverbial trigger? If for some reason you couldn't leave the cellar; or if something made you unable to jump off that boat; would you be able to carry out the controversial deed, or not?

(Personally, I don't think I'd be able to kill the baby. I just... don't. It seems so purposeful, the act of actually murdering it. On the other hand, I'm not so sure when it comes to pushing the old man on the raft. If it was the heat of the moment, and all it came down to was one sharp push, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do it. Would it probably haunt me? Yes. But all the same, I think I have the potential to do it.)

[Deleted]

Well, you know what? You won't change my mind. I believe in love. If I didn't, I would die. End of. [/blunt]

Anyway, my question way back was a what if question regarding people who began innocent and sweet and were tortured for no reason. I couldn't really say since I've never gone through such a thing, but I think I would want revenge. Wouldn't you?

My question is: which is better, leaving them to die in the evil abyss they were forcibly pushed into, or pull them out and and return them to the life they originally deserved, free from nightmares?

EDIT: In response to the moral scenarios, no, I would not kill the baby. It would tear my soul in two. And I myself would jump off the raft.

Also, Yoyti, this more falls into the fantasy category, but suppose a mass murderer wasn't really the murderer at all - they were possessed and had no control over their actions? I would try to un-possess them, because it's really not their fault, they're just being cruelly used like a puppet.

[Deleted]

Anyway, my question way back was a what if question regarding people who began innocent and sweet and were tortured for no reason. I couldn't really say since I've never gone through such a thing, but I think I would want revenge. Wouldn't you?

I might, but I wouldn't act on it. I'd lack the nerve. In this hypothetical situation, I would probably become a timid, miserable shut-in afraid to enter any situation for fear of running into something tragic. Alternatively, I would become petulant and short-tempered, projecting my rage onto innocent people, which is hardly acceptable. People react differently to trauma.

My question is: which is better, leaving them to die in the evil abyss they were forcibly pushed into, or pull them out and and return them to the life they originally deserved, free from nightmares?

The latter is preferable, yeah, but sometimes it's just impossible.

[Yoyti]

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Also, Yoyti, this more falls into the fantasy category, but suppose a mass murderer wasn't really the murderer at all - they were possessed and had no control over their actions? I would try to un-possess them, because it's really not their fault, they're just being cruelly used like a puppet.

I would try to get at the source of the matter if I possibly could. Indeed, I would try to get rid of whatever was possessing them.

Now Sae, I ask you a question. Would you kill someone as a coup de grace?

[Deleted]

I always say that if anyone harms my daughter, then I will hunt them down and end their misery.

Though, I do not belive I am cabable of taking a life. But if my girl is harmed on purpose, then I doubt I will sit back and do nothing.

I don't belive in 'a life for a life' but I am also aware of how emotions can drive humans to do things in the name of personal justice - even if revenge seldom solves the issue. Especially when it comes to homicide; even if you kill the killer, it will not bring back the dead.

[Tiger]

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Well, you know what? You won't change my mind. I believe in love. If I didn't, I would die. End of. [/blunt]

I just want to point out, being willing to kill someone to save innocent lives doesn't mean we don't believe in love.

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Anyway, my question way back was a what if question regarding people who began innocent and sweet and were tortured for no reason. I couldn't really say since I've never gone through such a thing, but I think I would want revenge. Wouldn't you?

Sure - but against innocent people? There comes a point where everyone has to realize that they're hurting people who don't deserve to be hurt. There's a point when people acting out on their trauma just continue the cycle. How about that original torturer? Does s/he deserve to live even though they've turned an "innocent and sweet" person into a murderer?

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

My question is: which is better, leaving them to die in the evil abyss they were forcibly pushed into, or pull them out and and return them to the life they originally deserved, free from nightmares?

I think a lot of people have answered this already. You seem to just be re-asking the question over and over, just changing the way you phrase it to make the former sound worse and worse, until those who have said, to quote Breakingchains, "Kill the weasel!" agree with you.

[Dju]

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Well, you know what? You won't change my mind. I believe in love. If I didn't, I would die. End of. [/blunt]

Anyway, my question way back was a what if question regarding people who began innocent and sweet and were tortured for no reason. I couldn't really say since I've never gone through such a thing, but I think I would want revenge. Wouldn't you?

My question is: which is better, leaving them to die in the evil abyss they were forcibly pushed into, or pull them out and and return them to the life they originally deserved, free from nightmares?

EDIT: In response to the moral scenarios, no, I would not kill the baby. It would tear my soul in two. And I myself would jump off the raft.

Also, Yoyti, this more falls into the fantasy category, but suppose a mass murderer wasn't really the murderer at all - they were possessed and had no control over their actions? I would try to un-possess them, because it's really not their fault, they're just being cruelly used like a puppet.

But your asking the same things over and over again, don't change the subject like that...please. ^-^; And why are you asking obvious questions? Of course we'd pull them out of the abyss since they are innocent, anyone with their mind in the right place would do that. >.< That's another universal truth.

Look Sae, what if...let's say, Harry Potter died for good and VOldemort lost his wand, he is right in front of you, you have a wand in hand. Would you kill him? No one else can do it, if you don't than BAM, world is doomed. Or maybe, Katriana is in front of you, ready to kill Xandra and you have the chance to kill her, would you do it? That's what we're discussing, about your attitude towards a situation like that...get it? ^-^;

[Avery]

Aug 17, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Well, you know what? You won't change my mind. I believe in love. If I didn't, I would die. End of. [/blunt]

Anyway, my question way back was a what if question regarding people who began innocent and sweet and were tortured for no reason. I couldn't really say since I've never gone through such a thing, but I think I would want revenge. Wouldn't you?

My question is: which is better, leaving them to die in the evil abyss they were forcibly pushed into, or pull them out and and return them to the life they originally deserved, free from nightmares?

EDIT: In response to the moral scenarios, no, I would not kill the baby. It would tear my soul in two. And I myself would jump off the raft.

Also, Yoyti, this more falls into the fantasy category, but suppose a mass murderer wasn't really the murderer at all - they were possessed and had no control over their actions? I would try to un-possess them, because it's really not their fault, they're just being cruelly used like a puppet.

I don't quite understand how someone being willing to kill a person for the "greater good" so to speak equates that person not knowing or believing in love. That simply doesn't correlate.

Additionally, I still find it flawed that you're assuming these people who commit atrocities were somehow victimized into it, and thus not responsible for their actions. Even if this were true-- which, in most cases, I'd venture to say it isn't-- I still do not feel this makes them not accountable for their actions. Horrible things happening to you does not give you the excuse to in turn do horrible things. Not to mention, if someone truly has been so terribly scarred, if their moral compass has been so extremely broken, it's not going to be a simple matter of "bringing them out from the abyss". I just genuinely don't understand the logic that trauma absolves people of their actions, or that everyone can be helped-- or, more accurately, that everyone wants to be help. Because if someone doesn't want that help, well... good luck trying to force help on a sociopath or someone who has completely lost knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.

As for the moral scenarios, remember, we're assuming jumping off the raft is not an option. xD;

Again with the possession-- albeit you admit it's mostly a fantasy hypothetical-- we're treading into the "no one is responsible for their actions" category. Of course, if someone was being used as a puppet, it's probably best to try and help them. But since I doubt that even has the potential to ever happen... well, yeah.

[Avery]

Sae, hon, you need to calm down, okay? The fact that people feel differently about something than you doesn't make them bad people. Not to mention the fact that this is all hypothetical. No one here-- as far as I know-- has ever killed anybody, nor will they ever likely be in the situation where they have to. If this debate is too difficult for you, then stop reading it, stop posting on this thread. Nobody will blame you. But no one has an obligation to change their opinions simply because you don't like those opinions, and as a friend to everyone here, you need to be able to accept that not everyone will feel the way you do.

[Dju]

Aug 17, 2011 12:23:16 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Dju, in response, 1. I would do a memory charm and Voldemort and 2. I would grab Xandra and run away. I. CANNOT. Take. A. Life. Because it will tear me apart. It may not do that to you, but it will do it to.

Also, I feel like...*sob* this is going to be very hard...but you're not the people I used to know anymore. As the Doctor has often said, you're not any better than a killer if you them. I think you're better. I want you to be better. I want you to be you again. I want you to be the people I knew, not this. It's like the ties I have to you are being painfully severed, one by one. I'm seriously on the verge of tears as I type this. I don't want to be disconnected anymore. Come back, everyone! Be good and sweet and funny like you were. It's almost as if you've turned into the people we're arguing about. I don't mean to be mean, but it's just what I feel. Come back! Please! *sobs more*

And I don't care if jumping off the raft myself is not an option. It's either that or nothing for me.

*headdesk*

Sae, dear. Just because we don't agree in some things it doesn't means we're enemies forever and ever and that we hate each other. This is just a friendly discussion, not a fight. >.< And honestly, you are turning this into one. (One of the reasons why I'm considering asking someone to lock this thing, but I can't hold my tongue)

And it is very offensive, it feels as if we DID murder someone innocent when it's just an hypothetical , pure evil villain whose death will save humanity. You're overreacting, this is going too far and you're taking conclusions out of words, not everyone agrees with you. I've seen so many good points of view here, some of I've never thought of, and that's the point of discussions! Taking your own conclusions out of facts, not fiction. This is kind of one of those games "You pick that or that, and why?", there are only two options. Killing or not.


Sae, don't cry like that. People have different opinions, different points of view, different religions. It's life. No one has became a mass murderer here, no one hates you, no one thinks exactly like you. You must be more careful with your interpretation, you're hurting yourself for no reason and that's just...well, painful