Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[Belz...]

Because humans like to label other humans as sub-human so they can treat them in ways humans have always treated other humans, but not consider themselves as base as other humans.

Well said.

 

[newyorkguy]

In the example presented -- and I've seen this example many times -- killing the 9/11 hijackers on 9/10. It's a fantasy not a rational example. First who would've killed them? Under what authority? For what reason? As of Sept. 10th they were primarily guilty of conspiracy.

There have been countries where the governments had secret death squads who summarily executed persons deemed 'enemies of the state.' There probably still are. They're usually not very nice places. News reports indicate political prisoners are being executed without trial right now in places like Iran and North Korea.

IMO either you believe in the Bill of Rights or you don't, there's no in between. Either governments shouldn't have the right to execute people without trial or they should. It's a slippery slope. You can't cherry pick, once you let the demon out of the box you can't get him back in.

 

[MontagK505]

Indeed, but given how many humans acted that way in history, I find it odd to call such a behaviour sub-human or inhuman, even when one strongly disagrees with it. It's an emotional reaction, not a rational one.

Are you suggesting that the majority of humans have acted that way through out history? A long view of history would suggest that the majority of people are peons ruled by thugs. Does that mean it's wrong to regard thuggery as wrong, or to use an "emotional" response, as sub-human?

 

[MontagK505]

I have never said that violence is always wrong. What I did say is that killing other humans is always a bad option.

A less bad option is not a good option. Sometimes it is among the only options available to stop a worse option, but it is never a good option and should always be associated with regret and dissatisfaction.

Choosing a less bad option is better than going with worse options, but that still does not make the less bad option a good option. Likewise, one should still regret bad options otherwise they tend to confuse "good" and "less bad" choices in the future.

If it is a bad option to kill a person who was about to burn down a orphanage to collect the insurance money, then what is a "good-option"? Keep in mind, it is meaningless to talk about an "option" that is impossible.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If it is a bad option to kill a person who was about to burn down a orphanage to collect the insurance money, then what is a "good-option"?

Take away his zippo and place him in custody. May be good to get the kids out of the orphanage, too, if that hasn't already happened.

Keep in mind, it is meaningless to talk about an "option" that is impossible.

I can vouch that zippo's may be confiscated. Their magic is of a limited nature.

 

[MontagK505]

In the example presented -- and I've seen this example many times -- killing the 9/11 hijackers on 9/10. It's a fantasy not a rational example. First who would've killed them? Under what authority? For what reason? As of Sept. 10th they were primarily guilty of conspiracy.

There have been countries where the governments had secret death squads who summarily executed persons deemed 'enemies of the state.' There probably still are. They're usually not very nice places. News reports indicate political prisoners are being executed without trial right now in places like Iran and North Korea.

IMO either you believe in the Bill of Rights or you don't, there's no in between. Either governments shouldn't have the right to execute people without trial or they should. It's a slippery slope. You can't cherry pick, once you let the demon out of the box you can't get him back in.

True, but it does raise an interesting moral question, if in the future we develop a machine like the fictional Voight-Kampff device that can detect psychotics before they commit their crimes, do we have to wait until they commit a gruesome crime to act? There are some highly intelligent people who are borderline sociopaths. If curing them destroys their effectiveness in ways that might benefit society is that moral? Or do we enslave them?

We may actually develop technology's in the near future that could do these things.

 

[MontagK505]

Take away his zippo and place him in custody. May be good to get the kids out of the orphanage, too, if that hasn't already happened.



I can vouch that zippo's may be confiscated. Their magic is of a limited nature.

If he's locked the doors on the orphanage and he's about to pull the pin on a phosphors grenade, confiscating his zippo might not be effective.

Seriously, if killing someone is the only option to prevent the death of several hundred orphans, is it still a bad-option? Or, there are several options, but they have various risks of not working.
Least likely - gently try to talk him out of doing his nefarious deed.
Most likely - use deadly force immediately. (remember those helpless orphans are depending on YOU ! )
So what do you do? Construct a finely branched moral decision tree? Or do you pull the trigger?

 

[Dr. Keith]

True, but it does raise an interesting moral question, if in the future we develop a machine like the fictional . . .

Then we can use fictional means of dealing with them, right?

Like a fictional implant that would prevent homicidal ideation in those predisposed to such thoughts.

Or a fictional monitoring system that would notify Tom Cruise prior to homicidal actions.

Or a fictional Tom Cruise that wasn't so short. And had some range as an actor.

We may actually develop technology's in the near future that could do these things.

We may, but there are so many unanswered questions about the brain that I'm still waiting for the technology to determine when is the best time to ask my wife if I want to go play golf. Once we solve that, I 'll start worrying about pre-criminals.

 

[MontagK505]

Then we can use fictional means of dealing with them, right?

Like a fictional implant that would prevent homicidal ideation in those predisposed to such thoughts.

Or a fictional monitoring system that would notify Tom Cruise prior to homicidal actions.

Or a fictional Tom Cruise that wasn't so short. And had some range as an actor.



We may, but there are so many unanswered questions about the brain that I'm still waiting for the technology to determine when is the best time to ask my wife if I want to go play golf. Once we solve that, I 'll start worrying about pre-criminals.

Cute response.
Although using Tom Cruse as an example is an unfair argument.

Personally I would prefer a means of knowing when my girlfriend is in the mood for sex. Of course this could backfire, I might discover she's always been faking it, and was never in the mood.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because humans like to label other humans as sub-human so they can treat them in ways humans have always treated other humans, but not consider themselves as base as other humans.

Which is the irony here. The rapes and murders are an inevitable result of the caste system. The perpetrators saw the victims as being sub human.

This is the rape and murder that made our onto our Western news system. There are far more similar events than this.

Which is the problem the Indian government has. To make a meaningful crackdown on the caste system it is going to have to alienate a large part of the country and lose votes.

 

[Trakar]

If it is a bad option to kill a person who was about to burn down a orphanage to collect the insurance money, then what is a "good-option"? Keep in mind, it is meaningless to talk about an "option" that is impossible.

Killing someone, regardless of the reason and rationale, is a bad act.
A good act option does not include killing anyone.
Circumstances do not always allow for good act options.
Choosing a less bad action should be accompanied by regret,
not justification that "less bad" is "good."

 

[Trakar]

Which is the irony here. The rapes and murders are an inevitable result of the caste system. The perpetrators saw the victims as being sub human.

This is the rape and murder that made our onto our Western news system. There are far more similar events than this.

Which is the problem the Indian government has. To make a meaningful crackdown on the caste system it is going to have to alienate a large part of the country and lose votes.

We face a somewhat similar problem here in the U.S.

 

[rwguinn]

Killing someone, regardless of the reason and rationale, is a bad act.
A good act option does not include killing anyone.
Circumstances do not always allow for good act options.
Choosing a less bad action should be accompanied by regret,
not justification that "less bad" is "good."

Fortunately, most of us live in a world without an unobtainium rigid definition of "good"...

 

[MontagK505]

Killing someone, regardless of the reason and rationale, is a bad act.
A good act option does not include killing anyone.
Circumstances do not always allow for good act options.
Choosing a less bad action should be accompanied by regret,
not justification that "less bad" is "good."

Would it be a good option (not kill anybody) to allow the innocent to be killed by someone else, given that killing is the only option to defend them?

 

[newyorkguy]

Would it be a good option (not kill anybody) to allow the innocent to be killed by someone else, given that killing is the only option to defend them?

Can you explain why killing is the only option? If you're saying in a situation -- like a hostage standoff gone bad -- where say a police sniper only has a second to fire before the attacker slices the victim's throat...then it would certainly be justifiable.

Now answer me a question. Why do you keep using the word "good" to define killing?

 

[MontagK505]

If a person uses deadly force to prevent the gang-rape or worse of innocent girls and the girls parents are so happy to see their daughters returned unharmed that they throw a big celebration for the person who saved them, is it wrong for:

1 the parents to celebrate. (Don't forget their daughters are alive as the result of someone being made dead)
2 for the person to feel good about saving the girls. (Don't forget he did kill someone to save them)

In this example it's given that killing was the only alternative to letting the girls be raped and possibility murdered.

 

[rwguinn]

Can you explain why killing is the only option? If you're saying in a situation -- like a hostage standoff gone bad -- where say a police sniper only has a second to fire before the attacker slices the victim's throat...then it would certainly be justifiable.

Now answer me a question. Why do you keep using the word "good" to define killing?

For the same reason that some individuals use the word "bad" to define 'n' innocents living because a monster was killed...

 

[MontagK505]

Can you explain why killing is the only option? If you're saying in a situation -- like a hostage standoff gone bad -- where say a police sniper only has a second to fire before the attacker slices the victim's throat...then it would certainly be justifiable.

Now answer me a question. Why do you keep using the word "good" to define killing?

Why do some define any killing as bad? (I know, I'm answering a question with a question.) But your last sentence left out the word "some". And yes I do regard some killing as a good act because it may result in saving the innocent. (Like your sniper example above, in this case the sniper made a good decision.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why do some define any killing as bad? (I know, I'm answering a question with a question.) But your last sentence left out the word "some". And yes I do regard some killing as a good act because it may result in saving the innocent. (Like your sniper example above, in this case the sniper made a good decision.)

You might want to ask that of various LEOs. They have mental health counseling because that's one of the foundations of our morality. Killing is bad. You're saying that a "necessary" killing is "good". Officers who've been involved in righteous shootings may not all agree with you. In John Wayne terms, killing is bad, but sometimes it's the only option available.

Saying that in a certain situation (the sniper example, war-time, self defense) killing may have been the only option does not yet equal "killing (even "some") is good". And in all three of those parenthetical examples, by the way, incapacitating the bad guy would have the same effect. Cops don't actually draw their weapon and think "kill him". I believe they're thinking "stop him", but they've been taught to go for center mass, and that can quite often wind up in death. Necessary? Maybe. Good? Not so much.

 

[MontagK505]

You might want to ask that of various LEOs. They have mental health counseling because that's one of the foundations of our morality. Killing is bad. You're saying that a "necessary" killing is "good". Officers who've been involved in righteous shootings may not all agree with you. In John Wayne terms, killing is bad, but sometimes it's the only option available.

Saying that in a certain situation (the sniper example, war-time, self defense) killing may have been the only option does not yet equal "killing (even "some") is good". And in all three of those parenthetical examples, by the way, incapacitating the bad guy would have the same effect. Cops don't actually draw their weapon and think "kill him". I believe they're thinking "stop him", but they've been taught to go for center mass, and that can quite often wind up in death. Necessary? Maybe. Good? Not so much.

Just to clarify, I don't suggest "good" means that the sniper has a drunken celebration afterward or that they might wish they had a different option.
There still remains the question if all killing is "bad" (which some posters have stated) then would it have been "good" for the sniper to hold fire and allow the victim to be killed?