The "Right" Times to Kill

[SuSa]

Quick Pre-Read that's pretty on topic and relatively close to what I'm going after: (just read the comments and such on the page)
http://current.com/items/90225797_killing-in-war.htm

A recent post about defending your country being "okay to kill another" made me think of this.

What exactly makes it "okay" to kill another human being? Should killing another in war be "okay"? Should defending your nation be an ample reason for killing?

Pretty short and simple.

As of now, I'll try and argue on a neutral level, although I'll probably go to against the killing. We'll see.

 

[pacmansays]

I just have a simple response to this:

killing is only justifiable when no other options are available

 

[SuSa]

And what do you mean by when there are no other options? I truthfully cannot think of a reason where killing is ever the only option. It's just the easy way out because people are too close-minded.

 

[pacmansays]

And what do you mean by when there are no other options? I truthfully cannot think of a reason where killing is ever the only option. It's just the easy way out because people are too close-minded.

Um, in certain hostage situations where the kidnapper has a knife to the hostage's throat or a gun to their head generally a sniper will be used if the person can't be talked out of it otherwise the kidnapper could kill them with one movement of the finger so they kill with a headshot to ensure the the hostage lives...but as mentioned, even then they attempt talking the person down before resorting to killing them.

I agree though, probably the only time killing is an only option is extremely rare and generally all other options must be explored first until killing is left as the only one

 

[Purple]

It's hard to say a situation absolutely requires killing, there's always the chance of a change of heart. Where let's say in your situation, the hostage won't talk, the person who's meant to kill him has a change of heart and can't do it. This is extremely unlikely yes, and thinking that that will happen will almost everytime result in a hostage's death.

In hostage or war situations it's usually kill or be killed. No one changes their mind about it just because of the fact that the opponent might still kill them. But does that mean that you should kill them? Not exactly..

 

[SuSa]

It's hard to say a situation absolutely requires killing, there's always the chance of a change of heart. Where let's say in your situation, the hostage won't talk, the person who's meant to kill him has a change of heart and can't do it. This is extremely unlikely yes, and thinking that that will happen will almost everytime result in a hostage's death.

In hostage or war situations it's usually kill or be killed. No one changes their mind about it just because of the fact that the opponent might still kill them. But does that mean that you should kill them? Not exactly..

This. The other person does not have to kill you but does. Should it be punishable? (I'm speaking war, not hostage situations really. But I guess your example of killing one "bad" person to save a hostage has the same 'rules' applied.)

If I'm a sniper and I'm told to kill a target. Do I know the target? Chances are no. Do I know the hostage past perhaps their name and their situation? Chances are I don't. What gives me the right to kill the kidnapper? I have no right to do so.

 

[.Marik]

As Winston Churchill once said: "The objective of war is to not die for your country, but to make the other b@stard die for his".

That's the objective of war. You either kill, or you'll be the one shot in the head. Harsh reality, but that's life.

Now, in terms of hostage situations, as ^ other people have mentioned, it should be the last resort, when all negotiation attempts have failed.

SuSa, you're talking about snipers? To put it quite bluntly, they really don't give a d@mn about the target involved and their personality and who they are as a person. It's a job. They get paid, or they do it to protect their motherland. Better safe than sorry.

 

[SuSa]

As Winston Churchill once said: "The objective of war is to not die for your country, but to make the other b@stard die for his".

That's the objective of war. You either kill, or you'll be the one shot in the head. Harsh reality, but that's life.

Now, in terms of hostage situations, as ^ other people have mentioned, it should be the last resort, when all negotiation attempts have failed.

SuSa, you're talking about snipers? To put it quite bluntly, they really don't give a d@mn about the target involved and their personality and who they are as a person. It's a job. They get paid, or they do it to protect their motherland. Better safe than sorry.

I stated neutral stance as much as I could. For the longest time I did want to grow up to be a sniper, especially if the draft is ever used again and I have the option to be trained to be a sniper.

However sniper's are human, and as said there is an almost small but undeniable fact that they will refuse to take the shot.

Also I am familiar with what Churchill said; but when has killing in a war ever been truly needed? Sometimes people kill just to get a problem in front of the UN so that they can fix it. Many times simply threatening by having a place occupied can severely limit the number of casualties without actually killing anyone. For war, I am speaking of both countries involved.

Did the first really have to kill to get a point across? Or kill at all for any reason? No. Yet "the sad truth is that they do" is not entirely a direct argument. Yes, they do. But is it right? Most people would answer no I feel to that. Was it their first option? Doubtful. Did they do it anyways? Yes. Hence getting to the problem at hand.

The inability to exercise other options in a manner that works without killing.

 

[.Marik]

However sniper's are human, and as said there is an almost small but undeniable fact that they will refuse to take the shot.

True, but keep in mind humans are also flawed, and the killing may be unevitable.

Also I am familiar with what Churchill said; but when has killing in a war ever been truly needed? Sometimes people kill just to get a problem in front of the UN so that they can fix it. Many times simply threatening by having a place occupied can severely limit the number of casualties without actually killing anyone. For war, I am speaking of both countries involved.

But once again, humans are flawed, and let personal greedy desires disrupt the common good of mankind. Wars are always going to exist. Until all issues have been resolved and everyone has learned to co-operate, this will always be an issue.

Did the first really have to kill to get a point across? Or kill at all for any reason? No. Yet "the sad truth is that they do" is not entirely a direct argument. Yes, they do. But is it right? Most people would answer no I feel to that. Was it their first option? Doubtful. Did they do it anyways? Yes. Hence getting to the problem at hand.

So, let us say an army barges into your country and occupies it. Even though they didn't kill, they are ****** your women, pillaging your land, and oppressing your people. Are you going to stand there?

No. Although this is a tad irrelevant, sometimes power and money changes a person. Sometimes... they need to be stopped. Also keep in mind different cultures may have varying differences in what they deem "right" and "wrong". What if they inertly believe you're inferior because of a social or religious factor? This will cause problems, and someone needs to stop it from consuming the entire nation.

So, are you going to kill 80 soldiers, or attempt to be peaceful when they arrived to destroy and wipe you out of existance, and they then murder 80,000 of your people systematically?

The sad thing is, soldiers usually only obey commands, and may or may not feel the same way about a particular issue, but they have no choice, or they don't know better. Often, fear and anger make people commit irrational decisions. Was it needed? No. But are people fighting for their lives going to cooly sit down with their enemies and discuss this over a session of crumpets and tea? No. I wish people never did these atrocious actions, there's always going to be unfortunate occurances when someone is murdered by a radical individual out on a kamikaze mission.

The inability to exercise other options in a manner that works without killing.

It may or may not be necessary. Sometimes, attackers need to be stopped, and most of these suicide bombers, soldiers, go out knowing they're not coming back. So, they either die and complete the mission, or they die in vain. But the only difference now is that an innocent civilian died because you were too much of a wuss to pull the trigger, even though you were instructed to do so.

Yes, it should be a last measure. But sometimes, it must be done.

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

A soldier killing his enemies is sort of borderline. He has to kill that person not to kill that person but to fight for his alignment's objective in the war. People go to war for many reasons, so if you want to know if it is "right" to kill for that war, you have to look at why your country is at war to begin with. That's sort of hard to determine in a blanket statement.

Killing for self-defense is obviously justified. When its you or them, and they attacked you, you don't have to worry about whether its right or not - it is right and you live, or it is wrong and you die.

It's also right to kill to stop someone from future violence or to save future lives.

Another way this thread could spin and develop is whether or not it is right to kill someone who has committed a heinous crime - the death penalty. When you already have someone in jail, and they have been given a life sentence, is it "right" to kill them?

 

[pacmansays]

Another way this thread could spin and develop is whether or not it is right to kill someone who has committed a heinous crime - the death penalty. When you already have someone in jail, and they have been given a life sentence, is it "right" to kill them?

Aaaah, don't!!!

The issue that gets me most worked up about things is the death penalty: most of my friends (except one who is religious) agree with the death penalty however I do not. They always put forward similar arguments and none really justify their claim.

It costs us money to keep criminals alive in prison (well firstly, a death penalty trial costs about 7 times the amount in the US than a trial for a life sentence and my main objection is you will let someone die because it costs you money?)

Eye for an eye...(Most of my friends don't realise this is a biblical statement that Jesus later said was false but still somehow people believe that if you kill someone who has killed then you have restored some karmic balance and fairness to the world but you haven't: now two people are dead. And why do we only bring eye for an eye when it comes to the death penalty...how about shoplifting? If someone shoplifts then surely then they must be shoplifted themselves? Or if someone ***** then they must be ***** too? It doesn't seem to work there so why do we somehow put a limit on it where we want?)

Good deterrent...(Again, this has shown not really to be true. Prison already acts as a deterrent and in places where the death penalty is in place the amount of serious crimes is no different. Those who generally will commit crimes deemed worthy of the death penalty will not really be bothered about a deterrent.)

Stops them from committing the crime again (And a life sentence won't? Yes, I agree life should mean life but it essentially does the same thing as a death penalty but with no death involved: if you kill them then you rule out the possibility of rehabilitation)

For the family and friends of the victim (Some people say its justifiable as it helps the family and friends of the victims as they feel justice has been done but surely this is promoting some kind of blood lust among people? What about the family and friends of the criminal? Surely, his death by the state will cause them untold grief and unhappiness too? Family and friends stick by people despite their actions)

Those are just some responses to the arguments I always here there are so many other issues with it: possibility of an innocent person being charged, abuse of the system (most people on death row in America have committed black on white crime), issues with the term justice itself, what kind of the person is the executioner then?

But my personal main objection is that its still murder: just because the state orchastrates it doesn't change what it is: a murderer will kill someone because thats what they deem as right in their mind and may even see their victim as below them. Yet the government does the same thing and they're apparently correct? Like governments haven't made huge mistakes before...

 

[Riddle]

I believe that everything possible should be done to prevent the loss of human life. However, humans are flawed so this is often not realistic. Expecting the whole world to work out their problems peacefully is unrealistic to the point of being ludicrous.

I think I have to take a utilitarianist's stance on this problem and say that if killing someone will reduce the number of people killed in the longrun then do it. So I disagree with the death penalty, but killing in war is justifiable in most situations.

 

[|RK|]

There are plenty of right times to kill. When did the Japanese surrender in WWII? After we KILLED a lot of their people. People can kill to protect others, and of course it shouldn't be considered wrong in war (ok, ok, depending). If somebody aims their gun at you and you aim at them, then it's right to kill. What other solution do you have? I do agree that often times the ability to kill is misused. A quote by H.L. Menchken, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

Oftentimes killing is an impulse. But that doesn't cause there to be any less right times to kill.

 

[pacmansays]

There are plenty of right times to kill. When did the Japanese surrender in WWII? After we KILLED a lot of their people. People can kill to protect others, and of course it shouldn't be considered wrong in war (ok, ok, depending).

See here I wouldn't agree with you: that America's dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. I'd rather have forces on either side to keep on fighting and this is explained in this famous thought experiment.

You are on some train tracks and you are at a fork where the tracks divide into two paths: on one path are 5 people and on the other is one person. Suddenly, you see a train come hurtling down these tracks and is heading towards the five people. However, you have a lever and so can divert the train onto the track with one person. Would it be permissible (not right, right's a term fraught with errors) for you to do that? Most people would say yes, probably from a ultilitarianist viewpoint that you let one die to save the five people.

Now, here's a second scenario: you are an amazing surgeon at a hospital but five of your patients are dying of different problems with different organs that are all dying and happen to share an incredibily rare blood type meaning its nigh impossible you could find a donor for any of them which would save them. However, a man walks in the hospital downstairs with a broken wrist which is simply treated, however he happens to share the same rare blood types as all your patients. So you knock the man out, kill him and then harvest his organs allowing all five patients to live. Is this permissible? Most people would say no but from a utilitarianist viewpoint apparently we would allow it.

This relates to your point about killing their people, their civilian population. They are like the broken wristed man being killed so you could save the lives of more of your own troops. However, if we were fighting their army it would more resemble the first situation.

 

[Riddle]

There are plenty of right times to kill. When did the Japanese surrender in WWII? After we KILLED a lot of their people. People can kill to protect others, and of course it shouldn't be considered wrong in war (ok, ok, depending). If somebody aims their gun at you and you aim at them, then it's right to kill. What other solution do you have? I do agree that often times the ability to kill is misused. A quote by H.L. Menchken, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

Oftentimes killing is an impulse. But that doesn't cause there to be any less right times to kill.

The dropping of the atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasake (sp?) was NOT neccessary, and killed innocent civilians that need not have been killed. A continuation of the regular war or a naval blockade or some other solution could have easily ended the war, saving an untold number of lives. Furthermore, once the decision to drop an atomic bomb was reached, why the second? The first bomb should have been more than enough to cause a surrender.

Your example is an example os self-defense, and is one of the reasons I believe it can, but is not always, be right to kill.

 

[Shadow13]

See here I wouldn't agree with you: that America's dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. I'd rather have forces on either side to keep on fighting and this is explained in this famous thought experiment.

You are on some train tracks and you are at a fork where the tracks divide into two paths: on one path are 5 people and on the other is one person. Suddenly, you see a train come hurtling down these tracks and is heading towards the five people. However, you have a lever and so can divert the train onto the track with one person. Would it be permissible (not right, right's a term fraught with errors) for you to do that? Most people would say yes, probably from a ultilitarianist viewpoint that you let one die to save the five people.

Now, here's a second scenario: you are an amazing surgeon at a hospital but five of your patients are dying of different problems with different organs that are all dying and happen to share an incredibily rare blood type meaning its nigh impossible you could find a donor for any of them which would save them. However, a man walks in the hospital downstairs with a broken wrist which is simply treated, however he happens to share the same rare blood types as all your patients. So you knock the man out, kill him and then harvest his organs allowing all five patients to live. Is this permissible? Most people would say no but from a utilitarianist viewpoint apparently we would allow it.

This relates to your point about killing their people, their civilian population. They are like the broken wristed man being killed so you could save the lives of more of your own troops. However, if we were fighting their army it would more resemble the first situation.

I wouldn't say the atomic bombs were justified, but going to war with Geramany was needed. That is an example of when a leader is so evil that you aren't going to be able to just talk him out of it. As stated, self defense is a time when killing is OK because you have a right to life.
The two scenarios interested me a bit. I would have to say the one person should by the train because no matter what he or the other five would die, but you wouldn't be killing him in the sense that it would be leading the train away from the others as opposed to taking from the one for the others. For the second situation, have the one person live because he wasn't going to die, why misuse you power as a surgeon?

 

[pacmansays]

I wouldn't say the atomic bombs were justified, but going to war with Geramany was needed. That is an example of when a leader is so evil that you aren't going to be able to just talk him out of it. As stated, self defense is a time when killing is OK because you have a right to life.
The two scenarios interested me a bit. I would have to say the one person should by the train because no matter what he or the other five would die, but you wouldn't be killing him in the sense that it would be leading the train away from the others as opposed to taking from the one for the others. For the second situation, have the one person live because he wasn't going to die, why misuse you power as a surgeon?

I agree with you that war on Germany was justified as diplomacy would not stop Hitler's campaign...He wanted war, he'd spent his time as fuhrer preparing for war..

Also, in both situations you still have an either or decision: if you don't pull the lever the five will die or the one will live and with the surgeon one either you kill this man or the patients will die. But I think you're onto a point how about one may technically not be murder but the other is.....

The train track scenario you don't willingly have the intent to kill someone, choosing who you let die. While in the second you have a choice between letting people die or murder. However, even this viewpoint can be challenged...its a tough thought experiment

 

[CStick]

Morality and ethics aside, probably the only truly undeniable right time to kill is to ensure survival of yourself and others with you who were not doing anything wrong, minding their own business, etc.

But from a legal perspective, there are legally justified reasons for killing someone. These are usually self-defense laws that are in effect if one uses deadly force in order to prevent being killed, grievously injured, or to come to the aid of someone who may be facing the same thing. In some places, protection of property or in order to stop a felony are also justifiable reasons.

Now, is it right? Is it moral or ethical? That's where the saying "morals are relative" comes into play. But personally, I'd feel a lot better if I had to aim a shotgun at someone with the intent to do bad things and kill them than I would have felt being the morally superior **** victim or corpse with the chalk-line drawn around me.

The scenario with war works more or less the same way (at least from one side of it), but without any rule of law that looks over it. But, war is also another whole can of worms and moral ambiguity on all fronts, since politics takes up a huge part of how and why wars are fought. It sort of affects war the same way morals effect the live-and-let-die scenarios, even though war in order to defend most of Europe and killing an unassuming man to save five other people for no reason other than because it 'seems right' from an on-paper, utilitarian (or should we just say hive-minded in this case?) perspective.

 

[pacmansays]

Morality and ethics aside, probably the only truly undeniable right time to kill is to ensure survival of yourself and others with you who were not doing anything wrong, minding their own business, etc.

Morality and ethics aside??? If you say that then you're completely missing the point of the question which is whether there is time when its 'right' to kill...an ethical question in itself (well two, also depends as you said on whether morality is subjective or absolute)

Also, your claim is a form of morality in itself....people not doing anything 'wrong' as to allow the situation is a moral judgement which you then need to justify.

 

[CStick]

True. I guess I'll re-phrase it a bit: maybe it is right when it instinctually feels right i.e. self-preservation.

But even from what you said, there is still acknowledgment that there can be an ethically and morally acceptable point to where killing someone would be deemed 'right', despite the relativity of morals. At least - and as said before - there is the fact that there are times when it is legally right. Given that laws are usually made to the benefit of the public, would that count as an example of when it may be right: when you are within your legal rights to do so?

 

[pacmansays]

True. I guess I'll re-phrase it a bit: maybe it is right when it instinctually feels right i.e. self-preservation.

But even from what you said, there is still acknowledgment that there can be an ethically and morally acceptable point to where killing someone would be deemed 'right', despite the relativity of morals. At least - and as said before - there is the fact that there are times when it is legally right. Given that laws are usually made to the benefit of the public, would that count as an example of when it may be right: when you are within your legal rights to do so?

I think generally when you're defending yourself and you kill an ethical thing doesn't tell you what is right or wrong just what you need to do...perhaps thats why its okay then

But the thing is that laws on killing are not completely universal: in some countries the death penalty is allowed where in others it is not, in some assisted suicide is okay while in others it is not. In some countries, crimes of passion are a justifiable excuse for murder...

 

[Wizzerd]

Even if it's objectively possible to accomplish something without the loss of life, it's extremely difficult to accomplish anything without the loss of life. It is always possible to accomplish a goal in war without the loss of life, but will anybody be able to find that way? Humans are typically too flawed to resolve conflicts without war. It isn't the absolute preferable situation, but it's difficult to find any other way.

Also, the quandrary of the train tracks and the hospital intrigues me... I have a strong instinct that it would be good to kill the one to save the five in the first situation, but not in the second. From a purely objective stance it's the same thing, but not from my instincts. I have to find that logic > instincts. Interesting to think about.

 

[CStick]

Even if it's objectively possible to accomplish something without the loss of life, it's extremely difficult to accomplish anything without the loss of life. It is always possible to accomplish a goal in war without the loss of life, but will anybody be able to find that way? Humans are typically too flawed to resolve conflicts without war. It isn't the absolute preferable situation, but it's difficult to find any other way.

the point of war is kind of that it costs many lives, money, propert, etc. to the state. If war worked like middle-school dodgeball, then it wouldn't have the same effect and solve anything for more than five minutes.

 

[CRASHiC]

When two boxers meet in a ring, any hit they throw is part of the match.
If a boxer gets angry after the bell has rung, and the victor decided, and decides to hit the contender out of anger, he is arrested for battery.
This same logic can be applied to soldiers.

 

[pacmansays]

When two boxers meet in a ring, any hit they throw is part of the match.
If a boxer gets angry after the bell has rung, and the victor decided, and decides to hit the contender out of anger, he is arrested for battery.
This same logic can be applied to soldiers.

Well you could say that both boxers in the ring have given consent for what may occur

But if this is what justifies it then assisted suicide is justified and drafted soldiers in the war is not...

 

[CRASHiC]

That is in large part the reason why the draft is unpopular. Its not because war is unpopular, its because they are putting their lives on the line without consent too.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

I personally believe there is never a reason to kill:
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Even if you are being threatened:
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Matthew 5:39

 

[CRASHiC]

I personally believe there is never a reason to kill:
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Even if you are being threatened:
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Matthew 5:39

Though I agree with both of these quotes, I personally do not like to simply post biblical quotes, as I feel it limits my discussion field to much, and I am only reaching a potential market of people who believe that the bible is a book to be followed, only about 30 percent of the world.

Instead, I find it more effective to list the quote, and then give reasoning to why the quote is valid.

My most used quote is a man's body is his church, and I had once used this to settle a long lasting dispute between an atheist transvestite and a conservative Christian man, simply over weather or not to refer to the transvestite as a man.

While it isn't exactly bigotry to not agree with someone's belief, I'd say its pretty offensive not to try to compromise to those beliefs. Say for instance, a jewish man walks with Renton to his catholic church, The man views wearing of hats as holy devotion. However, since he is dealing with the catholic church, he should show respect for their beliefs and remove his hat. The Bible says "a man's body is his church." To me, this means that when interacting with this person, you should respect their beliefs, their customs, and their way of life.

I think if you do this, and expand your argument, you can use your biblical knowledge to its fullest advantage.

 

[Riddle]

I personally believe there is never a reason to kill:
Even if you are being threatened:
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Matthew 5:39

[font="Century Gothic]Thats all very well if somebody is striking you on the cheek, but one if someone is trying to kill you? What are you going to do then? Are you going to let them kill you? I think that in that situation that my life and health is worth more than the killers, and I would injure him or possibly kill him if I had to to defend myself.[/font]

 

[Hooblah2u2]

I think if you do this, and expand your argument, you can use your biblical knowledge to its fullest advantage.

Cool thanks for the advice.

Thats all very well if somebody is striking you on the cheek, but one if someone is trying to kill you?

It still applies. The verse is not talking about someone slapping you on the cheek, but someone attacking you at all. It's hard to understand, I know, but we should lower ourselves completely.

 

[Shadow13]

[font="Century Gothic]Thats all very well if somebody is striking you on the cheek, but one if someone is trying to kill you? What are you going to do then? Are you going to let them kill you? I think that in that situation that my life and health is worth more than the killers, and I would injure him or possibly kill him if I had to to defend myself.[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

[quote="Hooblah2u2, post: 7927966"]
It still applies. The verse is not talking about someone slapping you on the cheek, but someone attacking you at all. It's hard to understand, I know, but we should lower ourselves completely.

I would not think that if somebody was trying to kill me I should lower myself. I'd have to agree with Riddle, if it was something as simple as a slap on the cheek, or just one hit, then not the sort of thing to kill somebody over, but for protecting yourself against death you should do whatever is necessary. So basically I am saying that they verse can be right if it isn't something that would harm you or others in a serious way, but if whoever is attacking you would cause injury or death, then I wouldn't feel it as the right thing to do.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

I'd have to agree with Riddle, if it was something as simple as a slap on the cheek, or just one hit, then not the sort of thing to kill somebody over, but for protecting yourself against death you should do whatever is necessary.

Is it really all that better to kill them instead of letting them kill you? They have tried out of anger, but you have killed them because of selfishness, because you think your life is more valuable.

Is it really all that better?

but if whoever is attacking you would cause injury or death, then I wouldn't feel it as the right thing to do.

The right thing (in your opinion): Kill them so that I may live.
Nice.

 

[Alus]

Are you saying that you don't have the right to your own life?

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Are you saying that you don't have the right to your own life?

Are you saying you have the right to kill someone else because you think you deserve to live?

 

[F1ZZ]

First off I think it is wrong to kill an other human being for no reason but it is a different story when your life is on the line. If someone was going to harm you or your family I am 100% sure you would stand up to the person and fight back even if it meant you took their life. Though I think this is wrong, you have to protect yourself and your family first. If you feel you have no choice but to kill the person to protect yourself than you should but if you think there is an other scenario possible, it should be your first priority. Sadly the outside world is a dog eat dog world and you have protect yourself first before others.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Sadly the outside world is a dog eat dog world and you have protect yourself first before others.

I'm gonna do my best to put others first. It is a tough situation to be in, I know, but I think I would try pull a Jesus.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Hooblah, I'm Catholic. I believe it is wrong to kill unjustifiedly. Unjustifiedly. Frankly, if you kill someone for no good reason, you're going to hell. But say your life is on the line. There is no "right" choice to that. There is only "a" choice. It all depends on how you view the situation. You could think, "Oh, they want to kill me. But if I kill them, I'm going to hell." In that perspective, you would most likely let them kill you, believing you would ascend to heaven, and when their time comes, they would burn up.

Or, you could view it as so: "They want to kill me. God wouldn't want that. I have God's 'permission' to defend my life." In that scenario, you would prolly kill them, believing they would go to hell, but you would have the opportunity to repent.


My point being, there is no "right" time to kill. It all boils down to your ethics and morals, or religion and how religious you are. Those are the deciding, if not most influential factors in these kind of scenarios.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Or, you could view it as so: "They want to kill me. God wouldn't want that. I have God's 'permission' to defend my life."

Now why would God want you to defend yourself?

http://home.att.net/~leon_v.smith/lessons/enemies.htm

It all boils down to your ethics and morals, or religion and how religious you are.

And whether or not you are willing to follow God's example.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Now why would God want you to defend yourself?

http://home.att.net/~leon_v.smith/lessons/enemies.htm


And whether or not you are willing to follow God's example.

Please don't proselytize! Honestly, we get the fact that your a Christian, want a cookie?

In addition, this assertion makes it that the question Susa asked can be answered by looking to the word of God. While that may be true in your case, the mores of killing people--especially in an American government standpoint--cannot rest on religion. As a good number of us in the PG are American (knock on wood ), be honest of this fact when stating your case if as if it is absolute fact as opposed to opinion.

IMO, I am really torn between when killing is ever any good. For example, if the death penalty gives solace to the victims of the criminals, what if the criminals are taking solace in the fact that they are dying, viz they are ready to die?

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Now why would God want you to defend yourself?

http://home.att.net/~leon_v.smith/lessons/enemies.htm

There's a reason he put us on this planet, and I don't see anywhere in the Bible that it was so we could be slaughtered by other people. And because God loves us. You would want your children to defend themselves, wouldn't you? That, of course, is an example on a smaller scale. Little kids don't usually go after each other's lives. And, as F1zz said, it is a DED world out there. That's the cold truth.

And whether or not you are willing to follow God's example.

Yes, God doesn't want us to kill, but we can't follow His example if we are dead.

Really, what I said seems true. How religious you are. Obviously, you are a deeply religious person. Maybe more so than everyone here, or if not, me. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it's clear to everyone that it's a dominant/influential factor in your decision. I share the same faith with you, but I'm pretty sure God wants me alive over someone who might kill many more people.

*gets ready for a o so u thnk ur life is moar valuble debate*