Killing People

[Vuk]

There is something that has always really puzzled me. People seem to freak out if someone believes that someone deserves to die. Don't some people though? (Just to clarify, I am not talking about murder or breaking the law. I am talking about war, and legal punishment for crime.)
Is war always dark and horrible, or are there times you just have to go and kill some people for the good of yourself or others?
Say Random Country 1 (1), with the nearly unanimous support of their population and military started attacking Random Country 2 (2) because they did not like their religion, and started massacring the populace without provocation. Would there really be anything wrong with going over there and defeating them? Would it be wrong to want to kill them because of what they did and because of how they think? Where do you draw the line? If most of the population believes in exterminating their neighbors because of their race or religion, are you justified in exterminating their populace, or does that make you a genocidal crazy just like them? If you don't and a few decades down the road they go at it again, are you responsible for that genocide because you did not do what could have stopped it?

Also with crime, is it wrong to put a murderer or rapist to death? If they were convicted falsely, you are a murderer. If they were not, and you don't kill them, and they kill someone else, are you not just as much of a murderer? If you know for a fact that someone murdered someone (many eye witnesses, confession, etc.), is it wrong to want to kill them for what they did? For the type of person they are? Are you just vindictive?

I know it is a sensitive issue, which is exactly why I wanted to talk about it. Basically it gets down to do you think that some people just need killing? Personally, I think that some people do (which is not to say you can just kill whoever you want, there needs to be law and due process), but I am not sure where I stand on many of the intricacies of the subject.
What is your opinion?

[Montmorency]

If everyone were Hitler, would I be justified in murdering my neighbors and claiming their homes?

[Vuk]

If everyone were Hitler, would I be justified in murdering my neighbors and claiming their homes?

You wouldn't have the chance, because you would end up in a gas chamber.

EDIT: Seriously though Montmorency, you know I said within the confines of law and obviously assumed within the confines of reality. Let's go with that though. Say your neighbor is Hitler and he abducts your five children and your wife, rapes them, tortures them, and then gases them all to death. The police arrest him for what he did, and have videos he took of him committing the crime as proof. Do you think that the government should sentence him to death? Or is even a person capable of that immune to the death penalty in your book?

[Montmorency]

But everyone knows Hitlers don't get their hands dirty, so I would have free reign.

[Vuk]

But everyone knows Hitlers don't get their hands dirty, so I would have free reign.

Yes, funny, haha. How about answering the above post seriously though?

[gaelic cowboy]

Your question should be "Is it sensible to want a society that thinks Death is enough of a solution to x and an end in itself"

Yes sometimes war can be a solution but really I cannot think of any society that actually was completely made up so many loopers it needed to be exterminated.

Germans eventually saw the awful thing they had done in the end, is it not better that they to grew up rather than the allies repeat the mistake by exterminating them.

Yes we have wars of liberation but it's always a table they sit at in the end of it all so it kinda says something about how we view killing.

I cannot agree we should kill prisoners no matter how vile the crime or cast iron the guilt, we all know the stories of the falsely accused etc etc the saving of just one of those is worth it.

[Montmorency]

I don't have a (discursive) moral stance on killing.

[Hax]

Say Random Country 1 (1), with the nearly unanimous support of their population and military started attacking Random Country 2 (2) because they did not like their religion, and started massacring the populace without provocation. Would there really be anything wrong with going over there and defeating them?

Like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war?

If most of the population believes in exterminating their neighbors because of their race or religion, are you justified in exterminating their populace, or does that make you a genocidal crazy just like them?

When does this ever happen?

Also with crime, is it wrong to put a murderer or rapist to death? If they were convicted falsely, you are a murderer. If they were not, and you don't kill them, and they kill someone else, are you not just as much of a murderer? If you know for a fact that someone murdered someone (many eye witnesses, confession, etc.), is it wrong to want to kill them for what they did?

Well, I think so, but not everyone shares my opinion. In any case, I dislike the death penalty especially for the reason just specified: most of the times, we can't know for sure. Furthermore, I'd say that there is always the possibility that the criminal feels remorse. I don't know, I don't think we should judge about life and death.


Vuk, nothing personal, but I think you seriously have to overthink things. Reading your posts, I get the feeling that you have a very one-sided world view. By using vague hypothetical situations (without even pretending to refer to real situations) you completely skirt over any kind of subtleties. It's a bit worrying, in my opinion.

[Vuk]

Your question should be "Is it sensible to want a society that thinks Death is enough of a solution to x"
The wording was a deliberate choice. It was the uproar concerning General James Mattis's comments that got me thinking about this.

Yes sometimes war can be a solution but really I cannot think of any society that actually was completely made up so many loopers it needed to be exterminated. Germans eventually saw the awful thing they had done is it not better they were allowed to grow up as it ather than for the allies to repeat there mistake.

While I agree with you (at least in the context of the modern world, though I can think of some ancient societies that the world would have been better off with...I am looking at you Rome), I wanted to put the most extreme of both sides on the table for discussion.

I cannot agree we should kill prisoners no matter how vile the crime or cast iron the guilt, we all know the stories of the falsely accused etc etc the saving of just one of those is worth it.

And what about all those you could save by not allowing offenders to repeat their crimes?

[Vuk]

Like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war?



When does this ever happen?

I didn't say that it did. I am discussing principles here, and not real situations. What I am asking is how far people are willing to take their principles. I personally don't think something like that is ever ok in the modern world, but I stated the extremes of both positions anyway.



Well, I think so, but not everyone shares my opinion. In any case, I dislike the death penalty especially for the reason just specified: most of the times, we can't know for sure. Furthermore, I'd say that there is always the possibility that the criminal feels remorse. I don't know, I don't think we should judge about life and death.


Vuk, nothing personal, but I think you seriously have to overthink things. Reading your posts, I get the feeling that you have a very one-sided world view. By using vague hypothetical situations (without even pretending to refer to real situations) you completely skirt over any kind of subtleties. It's a bit worrying, in my opinion.

Who cares if a criminal feels remorse? Does that make the person they killed come alive? You can often never know 100% whether or not a suspect committed a crime, but you can never know for sure whether or not they feel remorse. If you guess wrong, more people could die because of it. Is that not a problem?

Also, nothing personal, but I don't think you understand my post. Do I think a murderer deserves to die? Absolutely. I don't think there is any grey area there. There can be grey area in determining whether or not someone is a murderer, but if they, it is my opinion that they deserve death. I make no pretense there.
And aren't you just as one-sided in your view that people should not be put to death? Or by one sided did you mean not holding your view?

[gaelic cowboy]

And what about all those you could save by not allowing offenders to repeat their crimes?

Explain and expand on this statement Vuk

Stating we must kill people because other innocent people might be later killed on release makes no sense.

We cannot prove any such crimes will occur but we can be 100% sure not everyone executed worldwide is guilty.

[Vuk]

Explain and expand on this statement Vuk

Stating we must kill people because other innocent people might be later killed on release makes no sense.

We cannot prove any such crimes will occur but we can be 100% sure not everyone executed worldwide is guilty.

No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.
If I close my eyes and point a loaded gun into a crowd and press the trigger, I don't know for sure if I will kill people, but I do know for sure that my actions will greatly increase the likelihood of someone being killed. Am I not a murderer if someone gets killed?
How so is it any different with someone who lets a confessed and convicted killer out of prison, knowing that it will greatly increase the chance of someone being murdered? Are they not just as much a murder as the one who closes his eyes and shoots toward a crowd?

[gaelic cowboy]

No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.

You would be on more solid ground if your statement had been started this way.

No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder they might kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.

Now it makes more sense but it still does not mean we need capital punishment.

If I close my eyes and point a loaded gun into a crowd and press the trigger, I don't know for sure if I will kill people, but I do know for sure that my actions will greatly increase the likelihood of someone being killed. Am I not a murderer if someone gets killed?

Yes you are a murder and willfully negligent in your actions even if you had not meant to kill anyone, but really Vuk how is this relevant to the present discussion.

How so is it any different with someone who lets a confessed and convicted killer out of prison, knowing that it will greatly increase the chance of someone being murdered? Are they not just as much a murder as the one who closes his eyes and shoots toward a crowd?

No

[Rhyfelwyr]

Vuk I get the mindset you are coming from where everything is very absolute and it's all about harsh justice etc.

But ask yourself. In the examples you are giving, does taking that approach really make the world a better place?

Killers can be reformed. Why not help them change and become contributing members of society? Hatred between different religions or nationalities is more a sort of collective madness than a reflection on the personalities of the individuals involved. Why not remove the hatred and live in peace?

Supporting the death penalty and the right of militaries to kill in self-defence are very mainstream opinions, but you are using extreme and pretty bizarre arguments to take those principles and apply them in a very hardline, impractical and chaotic way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I kept trying to remove all the nuance from my world view.....but it's just not working. Sorry Vuk, looks like I am still seeing shades of gray.

[Centurion1]

This topic has merit as grounds for a backroom debate let's actually try to keep this one going and not just dismiss it out of hand.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one except the religious should have a reason to tolerate the death penalty under any sorts.

A. Left minded people will reach this conclusion from the view point of prisoner's rights/human rights.
B. Right minded people should come to this conclusion from the view point of not legalizing the practice of government killing its own citizens. There really should never be any sort of situation where government is "allowed" to murder a citizen. Pretending otherwise is just as silly as pretending that we really will never need the 2nd Amendment.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A. Left minded people will.
B. Right minded people should.

Cool, and open minded people debate the topic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cool, and open minded people debate the topic.

If some one who identifies himself as right wing wants to take a shot at why government should be able to kill its citizens and try not to be a hypocrite, go right ahead.

[Papewaio]

If you cannot be 100% certain that a criminal committed a crime the punishment should have the same level of certainty.

The death penalty is 100% certain once carried out. Surely killing an innocent person is wrong, bad for an individual to do, terrifying for a terrorist to commit, chilling for a government to be allowed to do.

Consider the amount of times they can get simple things wrong and then giving the government the ability to administer the death penalty. Sounds like expecting too much from a government.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Death sentence for murders should be allowed. You can't "reform" them. How could you "reform" a serial killer? Or why should other people pay for him having a good life in prison? I mean free food, roof over their head, all these different ways to educate themselves? Some prisoners have much better life than people living outside. Shouldn't the government take care of the people who haven't committed crimes first? Terrorists, serial killers, psychopaths etc deserve to get killed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is essentially self defense--you're taking someone who has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to be a civilized individual (murder, rape, ect.) and protecting your society from them.

Keeping them in jail forever achieves the same goal.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Keeping them in jail forever achieves the same goal.

I guy kills your family. He is sent to prison. And then they ask you to pay for his food and for all other expenses needed to keep him there. Are you really willing to pay all that money so that a guy who killed your family could live quite good life in the prison?

Don't you want him to die for his crime?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guy kills your family. He is sent to prison. And then they ask you to pay for his food and for all other expenses needed to keep him there. Are you really willing to pay all that money so that a guy who killed your family could live quite good life in the prison?

Don't you want him to die for his crime?

No. Society is better than its most disturbed members. Government should not have the power to legally kill its citizens. Granting the government that power out of bloodlust is barbaric. Granting the government that power out of "economics" reeks of the same kind of logic that has propelled failed liberal experiments.

[Tuuvi]

Death sentence for murders should be allowed. You can't "reform" them. How could you "reform" a serial killer? Or why should other people pay for him having a good life in prison? I mean free food, roof over their head, all these different ways to educate themselves? Some prisoners have much better life than people living outside. Shouldn't the government take care of the people who haven't committed crimes first? Terrorists, serial killers, psychopaths etc deserve to get killed.

We can always reform the prison system so it isn't "the good life" anymore, we don't have to resort to the death penalty.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

You can't change murderers. No matter how much you want. You could compare them with tigers/lions. Once a man-eater, always a man-eater.

Changes in the prison system doesn't change anything. We shouldn't work with the consequences but with the source of this problem.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No. Society is better than its most disturbed members. Government should not have the power to legally kill its citizens. Granting the government that power out of bloodlust is barbaric. Granting the government that power out of "economics" reeks of the same kind of logic that has propelled failed liberal experiments.

JS mill argued that life in prison was the barbaric option, iirc.

Don't see the point in talking about "bloodlust" and the gov't "murdering its citizens".

You also have to consider that in some cases people are not content with prison and will take justice into their own hands.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We shouldn't work with the consequences but with the source of this problem.

That's disingenuous, you can't stop murderers from being born.

[Montmorency]

That's disingenuous, you can't stop murderers from being born.

Soon...

[a completely inoffensive name]

JS mill argued that life in prison was the barbaric option, iirc.

Mill was a smart man. But like Kant, his philosophy leaves much to be desired.

Don't see the point in talking about "bloodlust" and the gov't "murdering its citizens".

When you blatantly ask, "Don't you want to see him dead?" Are you asking that from a position of justice or a position of anger? Think carefully about how most people are.

The murdering it's citizens logic is similar to the 2nd amendment. We have the 2nd amendment just in case. We should deny legalized murder just in case.

You also have to consider that in some cases people are not content with prison and will take justice into their own hands.

I cannot speak towards what individuals should or should not do, only what government can or cannot do.