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

Minor Trivia point:

Much of the phone sales/phone work and phoning for charities is done by Federal prisoners in the US.

A few prisons have;Dog training for helpers dogs & On the Job training of pet groomers.

My brother learned landscaping in prison. He's since started his own business.

good for him Blathers...

i am just gonna fly into this debate as i am feeling all debateable. i have skim read the blog but apologise if i repeat anyone:

when is it justifiable to kill someone?

never. to kill someone is to take a life. it doesn't matter what that life is i.e murderer, rapist, genocidal maniac etc, life is always in a point of potentiality. in other words, you execute a rapist today when tomorrow he could become an honest priest. to kill someone under capital punishment is to instantly take away the choice and God given right of repenting and changing. i know there are some who are unlikely to change, but that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away.
to kill someone in self defense is unfortunate. if you are FORCED to do it i grieve for you, but it still does not make it right. marshy ground this one i know, and hard to put in words. for example, if someone attacked me with the intent of killing me and i was FORCED to kill them first, i would still feel i would need to repent in some way.
to kill someone in war is a terrible thing and i hope no-one has to do it. unfortunately it will happen and it is such a waste.

creachy

But there is such thing as a just war is there not? Or do you disagree Creachy?

Ste

i don't think any war can be called just. first you have to distinguish 'just'. and with so many different beliefs that is impossible. and quite frankly the soldiers on the ground dying don't get a say in what is 'just' to them.

It's an incredibly rare war where both sides don't feel that theirs is the just cause. There's really no such thing as justice, either.

As for the potentiality thing... why kill in self-defense, then? After all, the aggressor's life is somewhere on the potentiality scale between serial murderer and the man who cures cancer. But which one is he closer to along that scale?

I say you kill that person because their life is so close to the mass-murderer end of the potentiality scale (or already upon it), and their next victim might be the one to cure cancer.

To start off, I'd like to say that there are not only times when it's acceptable to use deadly force, it's admirable to do so. If a person is threatening the life of another, a person who kills the assailant to stop the threat is a hero. The person that defends another should not be made to feel bad. He should be congratulated.

When do I think it's okay to kill? Basically, when the law allows it. My exceptions to 'Thou shall not kill' are all legalistic. They're based on our law, but I'm pretty happy with them (Of course, I'm LN):

Combat: it's okay to kill enemy combatants. Collateral damage is likely, but as long as you're not trying to kill non-combatants, you're conscience should be clear.
Self-Defense: You have a right to stop anyone from harming you, assuming you're not committing a crime at the time.
Defense of others: It's every person's duty to protect other people. If a person is committing a violent felony, then it's justified to intervene. If you have to kill the offender, then so be it.
Defense of habitation: When a person enters my home in a violent and tumultuous manner. (MoG, you wouldn't have had any problems if you shot him where I live.)
Execution of Sentence: When a court determines that a convict should not be suffered to live. I don't really feel like discussing the death penalty though.
My state law also allows for shooting convicted felons while they're trying to escape. I don't have a big problem with that either.

Suicide/Euthanasia: I don't have a problem with people who want to kill themselves. It's their lives. Although aiding a suicide is a crime in my state, I don't see any moral problem with it. The problem comes in when you confirm that it's the person's desire to euthanize themselves. I think you should give them the gun or the switch and let them do it on their own. I have a problem with any other person throwing the switch.

These exceptions don't necessarily mean your aim is to kill. These are more the times when I feel that deadly force is justified. You have to be psychologically prepared to kill in these circumstance, although your goal may only be to stop the threat.

Shooting to wound is pretty silly. You shoot to stop the threat. If you have enough time to pick a place to shoot to wound, you're a sniper or you're not really in fear for your life or the life of another.

As for burglars, most of them are cowards. They don't want confrontations with people. If it's not a home invasion, most will probably run if confronted. However, people can do strange things when they're startled.

Calling the police is a good idea, but it's going to take time for them to respond. Probably a lot of time. You're responsible for your own safety. Cops almost always get there when it's over. Cops know it, and what's worse, criminals know it.

Bound over, means it's been sent on to the next court to handle. For instance, if a magistrate thinks there's probable cause that a crime was committed and the accused probably committed that crime, then the case would be bound over to the grand jury for indictment and eventually trial.

>My response is that I'd rather be in jail than in hospital or in a morgue,

In American law enforcement, out version of this is: Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I've never killed anyone, but the willingness to use deadly force has been a requirement of the jobs I've had through most of my adult life. I doubt I'd feel bad if I killed someone lawfully. I didn't make the choice for that person to whatever it was that made me kill him or her. I don't think I've ever spoken to a cop who has killed that felt bad after killing some mope.

I think violence is inherent in life kind. I'm not too worried about violence breeding violence. It's going to be there anyway. Besides, the other side of that coin is that if a the murdering scum didn't start the violence, then the state wouldn't be violent and execute him. Maybe violence does breed violence.



I don't believe how long I spent reading this thread. I had a sandwich, a beer, and two Diet Pepsis.

"never. to kill someone is to take a life. it doesn't matter what that life is i.e murderer, rapist, genocidal maniac etc, life is always in a point of potentiality. in other words, you execute a rapist today when tomorrow he could become an honest priest. to kill someone under capital punishment is to instantly take away the choice and God given right of repenting and changing. i know there are some who are unlikely to change, but that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away."

The question arises, of course, of moral responsibility. If I see a violent person attack a passive person and refuse to intervene (because "violence is immoral") then why am I not responsible for the resultant injury or even death of the passive person?

Well put.
For what it's worth I agree with all but 2 main areas.

(1)Shooting to wound as a possible option Never been in law enforcement though, respectfully,that's a huge qualifier for an opinion on the topic!

(2)the death penalty; If our system was primarily about truth,yes. I do not believe in it, the way our "truth & justice" & representation works now.

I do not want to debate them either~~Already have!
There are a few very good threads around on them.

'Self'-defence when applied to acting to prevent an attack on another individual isn't always black-and-white morally.

Depending on things like the number and ferocity of the (apparent) attackers, if you thought the risk of getting injured yourself by intervening was too great, or the chance of making a difference too small, I think it could be acceptable to choose to preserve your own life at the expense of somebody else.

I suppose things get rather more morally dubious in the case where numerous bystanders each decide not to stop an attack in the case of a violent, but apparently unarmed, attacker when they could pretty safely stop the attack if they worked together.

You should do somethign about it. If you're unarmed, and you witness someone being beaten, stabbed, raped, etc, you can at least raise the hue and cry and call the police. You should at least do something.

I carry a gun, so if I come across a person commmitting a violent felony, I would summon help and try to intervene. If I was a victim of a violent crime, I'd hope for aide from someone.

Come to think of it, I have been the victim of violent attacks in my professional capacity. Someone has always come to my aide.

You know what, I'm probably going to come out of this sounding like some itchy-trigger-finger-gun-happy psycho, but I'm gonna tell you what I believe. I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong, in fact I may very well be, but this is my reckoning of it:

Self-defense - no question. If I felt like my life was in danger, I would feel justified in killing an agressor...not too sure if I would in real life though - I have this terrible guilt complex as it is

Defense of Others - if there was a situation where somebody was being seriously set upon, in a circumstance where either their lives or "selves" (in that I mean their psychological and emotion well-being) were in serious danger, and I had the power to stop it, I would. I would try to avoid killing a person, and rather leave it in the hands of justice, but if they died in the process, so be it.

Defense of Others (after the fact) - this one I would probably have no problems with - but only if it was personal. If someone had really seriously hurt (physically or emotionally) a loved one, and it was clear that the law could not help I would do it. For example, if anyone ever raped my sisters or brothers, I would hunt them down and kill them. And I'd hand myself in to the police as well. I respect the law, but what I will not accept is people messing with my folks.

I know a lot of people will find it all a little extreme, but that's the way I feel.

you all seem yo be putting the question into segments. there are some good points in them, they all made sense and required some thought.

but when you think about it hard, really contemplate the consequences of taking a life....the picture changes.

it is all fine and well saying that capital punishment is fine if the convict is further up the unreedemable scale, but then you don't flick the switch. what if you did, your opinion would change then i am sure.

one quote from a researcher that sums this point up:

"Self-defense - no question. If I felt like my life was in danger, I would feel justified in killing an agressor...not too sure if I would in real life though"

the only time i could imagine WISHING someone dead is if they killed my parents or a loved one first, but even then i would be in doubt.

and as for becoming a hero for killing someone in the defence of another, plurgh! for starters you don't know why the aggressor was attacking, it may have been provoked. stop them, yes. if you have to kill them before they kill the defender then thats just goddamn bad luck, but you should NEVER become a hero for it. i am not saying they should be made to feel bad for what they had to do, just that they should not feel proud or be made to feel special for it.

I think people have a moral obligation to do what they reasonably can to protect others, but 'resonable' can be a very vague term.
If, for example, you had many dependents, you might consider even a small risk of your being injured in an intervention to be too great whatever your own gut instinct was.

I'm certainly not suggesting that people who choose not to intervene physically should just walk or run away and make no attempt to call the police or take other less risky action to try and stop things. (That said, I *suppose* there may be places in society where being known to have called the authorities could put you in danger in the future.)


A slight aside - if you knew two people who were fighting had both consented to fight until one was unconscious (or dead), would you have any moral duty to intervene, and if so, how much force would be reasonable?
How much difference would it make if you thought they weren't in their right minds when they agreed to fight?

say, for instance, a boxing match?

They may not have explicitly consented to being punched unconcious, but they know it's a possibility.

This is an interesting point, about consent... if somebody, of sound mind, took part in an activity that could invariably lead to their death, should you prevent it?

I say no. Otherwise, most sports known to humanity would have to be banned... If participants are fully aware of the risks and no harm could come to others, then let them go ahead...

For those who justify killing to defend a vicitm.

What about this scenario - you come across person A apparently beating up person B. Your assume Person B needs saving, so you attack person A & kill them.
You then discover that actually Person B was the original aggressor & person A was retaliating & had got the upper hand.

Is the death of Person A justified?

obviously not... which is why it is probably better to call the police... or attempt to restrain if they don't look to scary...

If both seem of the criminal type, I'd probably leave them to it (after calling the police that is)

from reading most of this thread, my conclusion is you cannot make a sweeping statement/generalisation as to when it is okay/justifiable to kill as each situation/circumstance is different... all you can do is assess each situation as it arises...

Contiually adding what ifs to the debate only goes to prove this...

Any justification is what you do when you find you've killed someone & need to rationalise what you've done.