Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[Foolmewunz]

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?

You ought to re-read that last paragraph. Obviously it would not be "good" to allow someone to be killed if killing is "bad". I think you're using "good" in the place of "acceptable" or "unavoidable".

 

[ehcks]

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?

No, it would not. That was quite clearly stated in the post. It would be a "less bad" option than letting them die, but that does not make it "good."

 

[ehcks]

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?

Not all decisions are between "good" and "bad." For one because there are always other options.

The two most obvious decisions can be simultaneously bad, but still different enough that one is preferable.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

It's tough to make a decent joke in a rape thread, but I still try.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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?

I think you are the only one with that question.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think you are the only one with that question.

I agree. And also...left is right and fire is cold.

 

[Trakar]

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?

Not at all, that is why I stated that sometimes there is no good option.
Killing the person determined to kill is a bad option, but it may, depending upon the circumstances, be a less bad option than allowing the person to commit the act of killing another person (allowing another to kill, when you could prevent the death can be a worse situation than killing the killer - depending upon the circumstances). Committing a bad act (or lessor bad act) in a situation like this should cause regret and emotional distress, this is part of what builds and helps maintain the general societal taboo regarding killing. When we learn to justify bad acts as good acts depending upon relative framing and consideration, we are teaching ourselves how to think like sociopaths. Not all sociopaths are criminals but most criminals suffer from varying degrees of sociopathy.

 

[MontagK505]

You ought to re-read that last paragraph. Obviously it would not be "good" to allow someone to be killed if killing is "bad". I think you're using "good" in the place of "acceptable" or "unavoidable".

So in this context I have to kill someone because killing is bad?

In the situation described the police sniper kills someone to prevent the death of a hostage. The decision to shoot is a good one. The hostage is saved, a good result. This doesn't mean that "good" should result in the sniper doing a victory dance on the grave of the person he killed. It simply means that the outcome was good. An innocent hostage is alive, which is a good thing.

 

[Trakar]

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.

(1) the parent's celebration for the safety of their daughters is detached from the killing (which they did not participate in). Being thankful and joyous at the safety of their daughters is not bad, but being joyous about the killing of anyone would be wrong.

(2) There is nothing wrong with feeling good about saving lives, but not feeling regret and emotional distress at killing another human being is wrong and inappropriate regardless of why you decided to kill them.

 

[MontagK505]

Not at all, that is why I stated that sometimes there is no good option.
Killing the person determined to kill is a bad option, but it may, depending upon the circumstances, be a less bad option than allowing the person to commit the act of killing another person (allowing another to kill, when you could prevent the death can be a worse situation than killing the killer - depending upon the circumstances). Committing a bad act (or lessor bad act) in a situation like this should cause regret and emotional distress, this is part of what builds and helps maintain the general societal taboo regarding killing. When we learn to justify bad acts as good acts depending upon relative framing and consideration, we are teaching ourselves how to think like sociopaths. Not all sociopaths are criminals but most criminals suffer from varying degrees of sociopathy.

So saving the hostage is not a good outcome merely an acceptable one and someone who suggests it is a good outcome is thinking like a sociopath. Got it.

 

[newyorkguy]

(There is nothing wrong with feeling good about saving lives, but not feeling regret and emotional distress at killing another human being is wrong and inappropriate regardless of why you decided to kill them.

Meanwhile in the real world:

Have you ever jumped up in bed in the middle of the night in a cold sweat? Have you ever sat alone in a room and begun to cry over something insignificant? I have. Why have I had these problems? Because I am a police officer, and on June 9, 1975, another officer and I were forced to shoot and kill an armed felon who was trying to kill the other officer and me. At that point I became not a hero as the department proclaimed, but a victim; a victim of Post Shooting Trauma. Many people think there is nothing wrong with killing someone who is trying to kill you. In fact, some are even envious.

Legally they are correct. There is nothing wrong with killing someone who is attempting to murder you...This type of mentality is very common on the part of the general public, as well as the police hierarchy. Everything is black and white, right and wrong. If the shooting is justified, there are no problems...Killing someone preys on your subconscious. Killing someone conflicts with every moral belief you have been indoctrinated with by significant others. Thou shalt not kill. All civilized societies consider life as being sacred and precious. After the Gun Goes Off

About ten years ago three cops -- friends of friends -- were involved in a deadly shooting of a seventeen-year-old kid. The boy was armed with a handgun and had been threatening neighbors. He fired shots at responding police who fired back. Two of the officers later resigned. I was surprised to hear one of them had said, very bitterly, "I didn't take this job to kill people for the City of New York. I'm done." Other cops I knew said it wasn't that unusual a reaction, that there's often a big emotional impact on an officer who has had to kill someone. One cop told me, "When you hear officers say, 'Thanks to God I have never had to shoot anyone,' they're not just saying words."

 

[MontagK505]

(1) the parent's celebration for the safety of their daughters is detached from the killing (which they did not participate in). Being thankful and joyous at the safety of their daughters is not bad, but being joyous about the killing of anyone would be wrong.
(2) There is nothing wrong with feeling good about saving lives, but not feeling regret and emotional distress at killing another human being is wrong and inappropriate regardless of why you decided to kill them.

But there daughters are safe because someone else was killed. The two events are linked. You can't have any celebration without realizing this.

I disagree. Feelings are never right or wrong only actions are right or wrong. I don't attach judgement as to whether regret or satisfaction was felt. Telling people what they should feel is highly judgmental behavior. A lot of bad religious ideology stems from this kind of thinking.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So in this context I have to kill someone because killing is bad?

In the situation described the police sniper kills someone to prevent the death of a hostage. The decision to shoot is a good one. The hostage is saved, a good result. This doesn't mean that "good" should result in the sniper doing a victory dance on the grave of the person he killed. It simply means that the outcome was good. An innocent hostage is alive, which is a good thing.

This is devolving into how many snipers can dance on the head of a pin. I avoid Philosophy threads for a reason.

 

[Trakar]

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.

I never would have made the John Wayne connection, but this is very sympatico with my considerations.

I want my heroes and white hat guys to feel the weight and value of all human life when deciding upon a course of action, and to feel bad about ending such lives even when those lives have been filled with horribly destructive bad decisions and actions, and this should even be so when considering any potential coinciding benefits that might be connected to that death. Killing another human being is an irreversible act and should exact a toll on the psyche of those that commit such an act.

 

[Trakar]

So saving the hostage is not a good outcome merely an acceptable one and someone who suggests it is a good outcome is thinking like a sociopath. Got it.

Not even close. But I am not sure that I can make more clear explanations that you cannot improperly twist into some disconnected parody.

 

[Trakar]

Meanwhile in the real world:




About ten years ago three cops -- friends of friends -- were involved in a deadly shooting of a seventeen-year-old kid. The boy was armed with a handgun and had been threatening neighbors. He fired shots at responding police who fired back. Two of the officers later resigned. I was surprised to hear one of them had said, very bitterly, "I didn't take this job to kill people for the City of New York. I'm done." Other cops I knew said it wasn't that unusual a reaction, that there's often a big emotional impact on an officer who has had to kill someone. One cop told me, "When you hear officers say, 'Thanks to God I have never had to shoot anyone,' they're not just saying words."

That is the strongest and most compelling evidence of morally good reactions I have heard with regards to the New York Police force in a while, and very similar to most of the reactions I encounter in most U.S. combat veterans. Some might be surprised at how many soldiers in fire fights fire over the heads of enemy combatants because even in situations where their lives and the lives of the comrades are at stake, taking another's life can (and should) be a rather difficult decision. Even those who do make the choice to kill often carry the regretful memories of those faces and target pictures with them for the rest of their lives. This regret and emotional disconcertion is a good reaction to a bad event.

 

[Trakar]

But there daughters are safe because someone else was killed. The two events are linked. You can't have any celebration without realizing this.

I disagree. Feelings are never right or wrong only actions are right or wrong. I don't attach judgement as to whether regret or satisfaction was felt. Telling people what they should feel is highly judgmental behavior. A lot of bad religious ideology stems from this kind of thinking.

A lot of bad religious ideology stems from the incongruous position that you can morally justify some killings as good (when it serves one subjective position) and some as bad (when it is counter to a given subjective positions).

Being consistent eliminates the need for justification between disparate subjective positions and is a more rigorous moral perspective.

 

[MontagK505]

That is the strongest and most compelling evidence of morally good reactions I have heard with regards to the New York Police force in a while, and very similar to most of the reactions I encounter in most U.S. combat veterans. Some might be surprised at how many soldiers in fire fights fire over the heads of enemy combatants because even in situations where their lives and the lives of the comrades are at stake, taking another's life can (and should) be a rather difficult decision. Even those who do make the choice to kill often carry the regretful memories of those faces and target pictures with them for the rest of their lives. This regret and emotional disconcertion is a good reaction to a bad event.

If one doesn't doesn't feel bad are they a sociopath?

 

[trustbutverify]

About ten years ago three cops -- friends of friends -- were involved in a deadly shooting of a seventeen-year-old kid. The boy was armed with a handgun and had been threatening neighbors. He fired shots at responding police who fired back. Two of the officers later resigned. I was surprised to hear one of them had said, very bitterly, "I didn't take this job to kill people for the City of New York. I'm done." Other cops I knew said it wasn't that unusual a reaction, that there's often a big emotional impact on an officer who has had to kill someone. One cop told me, "When you hear officers say, 'Thanks to God I have never had to shoot anyone,' they're not just saying words."

Sounds like an interesting case. I'd like to read more about it. What year did this take place in? What borough? What was the victims name?

 

[Trakar]

If one doesn't doesn't feel bad are they a sociopath?

There are ten general symptoms but it isn't a matter of occasionally having some degree of one or another of these symptoms that determine sociopathy, and such a diagnosis can only be performed by trained and licensed doctors. That said, yes, not feeling bad about taking a human life could definitely be considered a possible sociopathic response.

There are ten general sociopathic symptoms. Most sociopaths do not exhibit all the symptoms, and non-sociopathic people may exhibit one or more of these symptoms to varying degrees without being a sociopath:

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility for their own actions
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
lack of emotional development
lack of guilt
self-centeredness