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

It is, I think, acceptable to kill an aggressor to protect their victim(s) from the same.

ooooooh..... Madent... tiptoeing on the edge of That Which Mustn't Be Discussed....
>If you believe that the current action in a particular part of the world is morally justified and right, then you had better be prepared to put your own house in order before the rest of the world decides to do it for you.<

In GENERAL (wouldn't dare to discuss specific situations) but IN GENERAL I think you're dead right about that. I wonder how a hypothetical world should react to an "aggressor to protect their victim(s) from the same."

Principles SHOULD be something that remain static, not vary according to the expediencies of the moment.

So if someone is an evil monster who needs to be destroyed then you wouldn't tolerate him just because he was an evil monster who was fighting your enemy - would you ?

There is an elephant in this room, that noone is talking about.

Anecdote: Starting in January, my heart started fibrillating. Because of this, blood is circulated poorly in my body, and breathing is sometimes a challenge. The smog in LA is now potentially deadly to me.

If it's never OK to kill someone, then, it's never OK to kill someone through omission. Human beings have brains and are perfectly capable of using them to eliminate smog. Since smog here in California is 50% due to private vehicles, then everyone who drives one is complicit in the murder of folks even less able to breathe, every single day.

In light of this, surprisingly few people are taking the bus to work or purchasing electric cars.

Hey McKay! Another ex-hippy? I agree with you. The love and peace thing would have been perfect if it had worked out the way we imagined it could. We were (or I was, at least) too naive (unknowledgeable about the short, nasty, brutishness of real life) to understand that love and harmony could only operate in isolated pockets and only until some inharmonious oaf blundered in with mayhem in mind. It would inevitably all end in tears - if not blood. I guess if any nation/group were to attempt to create paradise on earth, "an elite force who travel the world and shoot the evil people that there are in the world" would be essential - which would rather knock the whole idea of paradise on the head. It's a shame.

What I've noticed reading this thread is that a lot of people have stated that it's wrong to kill and people have a right not to be killed (a sentiment I agree with, by the way) but the "right" seems to be entirely taken for granted. Maybe it would be easier to hit on the principle Mother of God is seeking if the "right to life" and the reason killing is wrong, could be defined. Why is it wrong to kill someone? What is this "right" not to be killed? Has a hungry lion no right to kill a human? Has a human the right to kill a lion only if it looks hungry? If the human has the right to kill the lion but the lion has no right to kill the lion, why? What if the lion were more intelligent, would that make a difference? Is there a difference between killing an human with a high IQ and a human with a low IQ?

Well, this thread makes you think, doesn't it?

*snort*
No, McKay, *I* wouldn't tolerate an evil monster in *my* neighborhood, even if he *did* know how to keep the Boogieman out. But that's just me.

Sea Change, out of curiosity, do you or your family members use a private vehicle?

MoG Your home page kinda suggests you wouldn't - I was thinking of that which must not be mentioned.

I was saying that once we start trying to determine limits on when its acceptable to kill, then they have to be defined indelibly, and not allow them to become matters of political expedience.

I agree 100%, McKay. That's how I read it.

I like your questions, Custard Shark. Off the top of my head I'd say that my idea of right to life is tied up with freedom to pursue happiness, but not at the expense of others. Killing would be wrong because ones own life is the *only* thing a person can really own, so it seems like trying to take that away is in violation of something sacred. (Contradictory thinking there on my part, I know.)

The bit about killing other critters who are weaker, less intelligent, don't look the same as *I* do or speak the same language or live the same way *I* do..... Gads, man, if I travel THAT road....hmmmm... it leads two ways. One we daren't discuss, and the other is that I might have to decide to become a vegetarian! Damn, and I was gonna start the Atkins Diet tomorrow.

The problems I see with the 'Comitting a crime puts the perpetrator beyond any protection of the law' argument are:

a) Since crime is a process, rather than an event, at what point does a particular process cease, and at what point does someone *regain* protection from the law. If you confront someone who has broken into a property, does their burglary become mere trespass the second they try and run away, or if they are running but haven't yet reached the boundary, is it still OK to shoot them in the back. Are they safe the second they reach the street. If getting back to the street is their only way of getting somewhere where they are safe from the threat of death, would it be a smart idea to risk getting between them and their way out?
If it *is* the case that someone can regain protection under the law, is it fair to retaliate against their transgression so suddenly that they are not given a chance to stop doing what they're doing wrong?

b) Some people who state the argument don't seem to follow it through completely as a priciple, since they wouldn't generally approve of all lawbreakers (like traffic violators) losing their rights and becoming (even temporary) outlaws.

c) Once someone has been put into a position where they cannot carry on comitting their crime, (like a burglar having their arm or leg broken, or being temporarily blinded) many suppporters of the general idea would not consider it justifiable to carry on with an attack to the point where death results. Therefore they would apparently agree that there are some fundamental protections that *all* people deserve (like not being killed when they are not a serious threat), and the case becomes one of *how much* a criminal's rights are lessened by their actions, not whether those rights disappear entirely.
Someone who *does* believe that they are entitled to kill someone who is no longer a threat would seem to believe that all (or most) crimes deserve a DIY death penalty.

I can fully understand that some 'principles' can be more like limited guidelines in practical reality, but there is a great risk that they end up being quoted as so fundamental that they could be used to justify or rationalise actions that most people who supported the principle *in principle*' would find at best to be morally dubious.

Interestingly, this has cropped up elsewhere A1017208, with the same issues as we are discussing here.

Yes, Mother of God, I and my family are complicit. (I don't subscribe to the philosophy that it's never OK to kill someone, myself.) You could say I am as sanguine about the matter as just about everyone else in LA who thinks nothing about taking the car to the corner 7-11.

I own a private vehicle. I take the bus preferentially, but it is only a partial solution. If society believed killing wasn't ever OK, my choice wouldn't be a mere option, it would be mandatory. Furthermore, since buses would be driven by professional drivers, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.

Risk aversion of people is funny. The chance of dying in traffic in USofA, 1 in 6700, chance of dying from gunshot in USofA, 1 in 28,000. This was just published last week in the newspaper supplement magazine 'Parade'.

I don't know if this has any relevance at all, Potholer, but I wonder: why should the law assume that victims are necessarily more stable than their attackers? Criminals shouldn't either, obviously, but I bet they don't take that into consideration.

Here's a true example for ya. I'm non-violent. I haven't even been in a fistfight in my life, except for the normal, preadolecent squabbling with my brother. One night I stood six feet from someone who intended to invade my home with a loaded .357 magnum, fully prepared to pull the trigger if he advanced on me rather than leaving when I asked him if he wanted to lose his face. I'd not have waited for him to get all the way through the hole where my window used to be, either. And I've thought about it *a lot* over the years and I doubt I'd have felt any guilt had he advanced and I'd killed him.

There were extenuating circumstances at the time and I'd probably have gotten off with a slap on the wrist had I killed him. My point is, no matter how things look there's really no way of knowing just how dangerous someone has the potential to be.

Sea Change, I think I'm missing a connection here. If YOU don't think it's worthwhile to prevent slowly killing yourself (and other breathing-challenged people) by giving up the car, then how should it possibly be relevant to other people?

Yeah, I'm aware of the statistical risks of driving a car. I'll happily go parachuting (if I ever get the opportunity), I go diving at night, I indulge in some 'risky' activities because I think they're fun. But I don't own a car. That's not the way I want to be mangled or die, as well as finding it repugnant to pollute my environment and abuse resources that way out of laziness. But that's just me.

MoG - that you didn't just pull the trigger shows that you'd rather avoid escalation straight to the *use* of deadly force if possible, and for that I salute you.

The issue of stability of attackers versus victims is a very grey area (not an easy one for black-and-white morals).
There could be a case where someone had suffered injury (or lost a loved one) as a result of a crime (maybe even a relatively minor crime) in the past. In the case of their reacting more strongly than an average person to a similar crime later on, I think it's up to a jury to decide whether their history helps justify their actions given all the circumstances.

Alternatively, if an apparently sane person had a known hsitory of saying "all criminals should be in fear of death, and if I catch any I'll try and make sure they get it", I suspect that would count against them in anything but a clear self-defence case.

"I wonder: why should the law assume that victims are necessarily more stable than their attackers? Criminals shouldn't either, obviously, but I bet they don't take that into consideration."

I think the law draws a line between instability to the point where somnone doesn't know what they're doing and the case where they are sane but use violence as a first resort. It also tends to assume stability and responsibility either way unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Digressing, the problem with principles is that in many of the places where they are most clearly applicable, obvious pragmatism would function as well. In the grey areas it can end up as a matter of which principle people choose to use in practice.

I think I basically agree with deni's post #99.

Coming up with principles which end up with you saying "in such and such a situation it would be RIGHT to kill" is, it seems to me, just a way to be able to live with yourself after the fact. Really, if you're in a situation where you feel you have to kill someone the question to ask is probably - could you live with yourself knowing that you did it and honestly understanding why you did it? I suspect that most people, in most situations, wouldn't be able to live with that very easily and that the only way they could deal with it would be to construct a "moral theory" that said it was right. This is perfectly ordinary behaviour, but one I think we should try and avoid where possible.

I can imagine situations in which I would kill, but I know that it would sour the rest of my life UNLESS I lied about it to myself, and I don't want to have to lie to myself.

I think the honest way to approach the decision as to whether or not to kill someone is to be prepared to accept that the decision will follow you around for the rest of your life, and to resolve not to lie to yourself about it subsequently, and to factor this into your decision.

Let me give you an example. Suppose someone was intent on your death, but that you had an opportunity to prevent them killing you by killing them first. Suppose also, to clarify the moral issue at stake, that you could know with certainty that they would never kill again after killing you. The moral decision is absolutely clear cut: either let them kill you or kill them. I don't believe that there is a right decision here. You can't know what the consequences, other than the death of one or the other of you, might be, so you can't base your decision on that. You can't judge their life to be of less value, in an objective way, than yours, so you can't base your decision on that. The thing to do is to make a fully informed decision and be honest about it to yourself and others.

To sum up - kill if you must but accept with open arms the burden it places on you for the rest of your life.

The other question, about what the state should or shouldn't do, can perhaps be answered more satisfactorily. I think I might make some comments on that another time though.

I agree with that, Dogster. On a personal level that's how I try to base all of my behavior, especially when I'm considering doing something questionable. It's made it very simple to maintain *my* morals that way. I'm not overly successful at lying to myself.

There's a peripheral bit to the reason I started this thread, beyond inner consistency. I've been thinking about the political situation, my pacifist stance, all the muck. One thing I need to figure out is an answer to people who think wars are justifiable when they ask me "ok then. So what's your solution." A bunch of idealistic blather about the importance of dialogue and respect for others and blah blah blah isn't an answer because it doesn't take into account the fact that there *are* people, groups and governments in the world who justify using excessive force to get what they want. Soooooo.... I figured this was a place to start.

And now I'm off to bed. G'night, all.

Relevance to other people, indeed!

Is there a supposition that someone's decision that "killing people is never OK" must be irrelevant to me, just because I myself don't believe that particular proposition? What does 'never' mean, Mother of God?

Just because lots of people (or even only Sea Change) are wrong, doesn't mean what's right isn't worth attempting. The current social contract says it's OK to go ahead and blithely hurt and kill people like me by driving to the corner shop instead of walking. Do you, Mother of God, believe this particular decision by the society you live in is wrong or not, and what will YOU do about it?

Air pollution isn't the only example of an ignored collective threat that kills people. Water pollution, food additives, global warming, sweatshop labor, drugs (prescription and illegal) are some others. Just how valuable really is life?

There are a lot of people who wouldn't hesitate to kill you - for your fish supper.

The question is what do we moralistic people intend to do about it.

Custard Shark has thrown in a relevant point about the 'sacredness' of life, which could lead off on the track of eugenics, experimentation on animals and so on. It's also relevant to the idea of killing one or more persons for the good of the many. Some former civilizations believed in human sacrifice as good - though we don't know how the victims themselves viewed it. Probably depends on how they were treated - if they were feted first and killed as painlessly as possible, they and their families may have welcomed the esteem. So perhaps our views on thr right to life are coloured by society as a whole.
There are of course occasional circumstances today where someone will sacrifice themselves for the good of others.

McKay also touched on the question of rights. People so often forget that with rights come responsibilities. Because we are all living together, it can be difficult (not necessarily impossible) for everyone's rights to be observed because they may impinge on someone else's rights. Unfortunately I feel that generally society today seems to reject the responsibilty of caring for others. Perhaps we are moving away from the idea that everyone has a right to life. I hope not.

The only situation where it is justified to kill another person is in self-defense or when by killing the attacker you are able to save another person which is right at that moment in mortal danger.

It is under no circumstances "okay" to kill. The right to live is the most basic human right there is.

Death penalty has already proven not to work as a deterrent. And take a look at the people sitting for ten years (! - that's torture!!!) in jail waiting to be killed by what is supposed to be a democratic and civilized state - the USA. Many of them are only sitting there because they didn't have the money to pay for a good attourney who wozuld have been able to get them out.

And that people go out of jail just to steal or rape or kill again doesn't show that they are evil through and through but that the system of putting people in jail where many of them get their first contact with drugs and brutal violence doesn't work. It would be much cleverer to get them therapy. And how can you even meassure a human life in money, in the tax you pay?

Also the reason why you defintely should have problems with killing somebody - no matter in what circumstances - is that it's one of the most basic instinct in higher life forms not to kill when you don't have to - that is for food (and we're not cannibals, are we?) or to defend yourself or you pack from an immediate danger. Thankfully we haven't lost that bit of instinct.

Methos