h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a question I'm trying to sort out in my mind because I'm noticing some internal inconsistencies and I guess it's time for cohesiveness.

I made a statement that it's not ok to kill people, ever. And then it dawned on me that I was being a hypocrite because I actually DO think that sometimes it's ok. And I'm stuck in this mental middle ground because I feel as if both of my opinions are right. I hate it when I do that. So, y'all, I'd appreciate any discussion that could help me to clarify my position on the subject.

Initially when I said no killing I was thinking about situations like the One Which May Not Be Discussed. Then I realized... there's the matter of self defense on a personal level. In that case you've gotta do what you've gotta do, right? On a personal level that makes perfect sense, but the principle is the same in groups. That's where it gets fuzzy. So maybe it would be better to say it's not ok to initiate violence.

But there's another part of me that's totally in favor of capital punisment, and actually I think it would be acceptable to exterminate repeat felons (say people who've been convicted five or ten times and continue to go out and invade other people's rights.) I happen to believe that if death were the punishment, fast and sure, that it would be a deterrent. Either way it would free up more tax dollars for something productive rather than 'wasting' them on supporting people who are determined to be malicious. Pretty cold, eh? I know. But it's how I feel about it. Anyway, the problem with that is that it would break my rule about not initiating violence.

Any ideas that'll help me form a clear and comprehensive moral stance?

Self-defense.


That's all.

How far does self defense reach? Does it go as far as killing strangers to protect national security, which baselines at personal security? Would you consider it to be self defense to execute felons who won't change their ways? I do.

Hello,

Good question, succinctly phrased, I hope my opinion is worthy.

I believe that life is a gift, and it should be preserved, however, this cannot be preservation at any price.

In order to maintain the greater good, there will be times when, killing is the only way forward. The removal from society of "repeat felons" to quote your good self, is to my mind, entirely acceptible.

On the subject of That Which May Not Be Discussed, I feel that I must point you toward Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama Series", in the fourth of these books there is an alien species who have a singular way of conducting themselves in this regard. More I cannot say, for fear of The Moderators

I hope I have been at least some help.

The

All opinions are worthy, except maybe those which tell me it's 'this' way based on a higher authority. I don't have much faith in higher authorities. They aren't responsible for my life. I am.

I haven't read the Rama Series, no reason that shouldn't be next on my list. Thank you. Does it give a solution that doesn't involve weapons?

I guess the heart of my dilemma is somewhere in the idea that killing is the only way forward, sometimes. Where exactly does the line lie? Removing felons doesn't require KILLING them, it's just damned expensive and in my opinion, not worth the cost, sometimes.

I agree with post 2. Killing is only justified in self defense or in directly defending your family. At no other time is it justified. And no, this doesn't extend to national security.

Ok. Defending self and family. What about your best friend? Or your neighbor? Or some little kid who's a total stranger? Not them?

In principle, I stand by my statement and do not wish to alter it. Perhaps if peope didn't want to kill 'felons' in the first place, there would not be the sorts of attacks you are describing. Violence breeds violence.

Although, if I was to witness such an attack, I don't know what I'd do.

I believe there are times when killing is necessary. In personal defense, in defense of family, loved ones, or other innocents.

If someone were going to kill my neighbor, even though that neighbor is not related to me, and the only way I could stop it was to kill that person, I would do so. I could not stand by and let someone else get killed when I could have stopped it. It's just not in me.

Putting repeat offenders to death is, in my opinion, not instigating violence. The offender instigated the violence, and the authorities are putting a stop to his/her/it's repeated offenses.

Sadly, the "Rama" solution does not dispense with weapons, however, the nature of the post-hostility society ensures that conflict is absolutely the last resort, and not simply a means to an end.

As for crime and punishment, I'm wholly behind the idea of "An eye for an eye." So, when i said "remove from society," I meant it as a Total Removal, the money not spent feeding, and housing the criminals, could be spent on educating the young and caring for the old, and the infirm.

I believe that killing in self defence is justifiable only as an extreme last resort, when you yourself or people who depend on you are in mortal danger, and never on any pre-emptive basis, as in for instance "We've had a fight and I reckon you might come back with some of your mates later on so I'm gonna put you out of the picture... and maybe your mates too just in case." Most if not all oriental martial arts teach how to defend yourself without killing your opponent, although you will also learn how to do that, so there is almost always a way to do it without killing.

I don't think that repeat offenders should ever forfeit their life - that takes away all humanity and hope from the penal system. There is *always* the chance that someone may go straight.

If you saw the triumphant punching of the air, and the glee and joy in the faces of the people outside the jail when Timothy McVey (Oklahoma City bomb) was executed, you'd never feel the same way about capital punishment. That was sickening.

But how are the authorities to decide who lives and who dies? To me, that seems like an absurd power for any authority to have.

See, Flake, I too believe that violence breeds violence. I believe that dialogue is the best way, and probably the only way to productively resolve differences. And I know that there are people who won't even consider dialogue, or not getting what they want at any cost to others. I'm not being a smartass here (for once), I'm genuinely trying to figure out something, an underlying principle. And it's questions like the last one I asked you that make it difficult for me to do that. Because principles apply to big pictures, not just individual circumstances.

All I can say is that I do not believe that violence solves violence. Ever. To be honest, I don't think there's much more I can add to this thread.

>I don't think that repeat offenders should ever forfeit their life - that takes away all humanity and hope from the penal system. There is *always* the chance that someone may go straight.<

You're right, about there being a chance. But I wonder.... in a system where people KNEW that after a designated number of infractions the game would be OVER.... I wonder how much real chance there would be that they'd go straight if they'd pushed the limits that far. I think most of 'em would decide it was worth it to go straight before hitting the edge.

"I think most of 'em would decide it was worth it to go straight before hitting the edge."

But this brings to mind people like Bundy, Gacey, and Dahmer, what about people like them, people who will not stop, and how do we decide if there is any real difference between them and people like Dr. Crippen, who only kill once.

They are still killers.

Yeah. They're still killers.

What's scary about my position is that I feel like it should apply to felons, not just killers. All of 'em. Funny way for an optimistic pacifist to view solving a problem, eh?

Oh great a curve ball!

I suppose anyone who deprives someone else of their right to Life, Liberty, or anything else they hold dear, "kills" something in that person.

But, I was using killers as an example, to demonstrate that while there were differences in magnitude, a crime is still a crime, and the punishment should be fitting.

Is it fitting to execute 'em, or just an expedient means that would probably be very, very effective on a number of levels?

The 'death penalty as a deterrent' argument is a very difficult one to defend or go against. On the one hand it clearly isn't and throughout history never has been a complete deterrent - someone is put to death by the state almost every week here in Texas (something I'll never get used to ), but on the other you never know how many people it *has* deterred because they don't figure in the record books.

Same goes for prison - remember Michael Howard's famous last words "Prison works"? Going to prison has been as much a deterrent against breaking the law for me as have the standards of behaviour I was taught as a child (don't steal, don't hit people, don't kill people, do as you would be done by, etc).