Nicholas Lukowiak

This conversation is closed.

When is murder or killing acceptable?

Discuss: war, crimes, self defense, etc.

Closing Statement from Nicholas Lukowiak

No big turn out. I guess "murdering" drew people away, thought "war" would have covered that in a lot of senses.

No question killing is wrong, it is too simple, too primitive. In a quantum consideration, eliminating problems creates more problems and fixing problems allows more solutions to other problems. Killing someone is easy, it is one less problem, one less concern... Horrific I know.

Truly creating a world in which there is no killing is the only logical thing to do. Those who know this are not the ones in position of power apparently. OR perhaps I do not understand it all yet to consider this, but, we ALL can be doing a lot better to make simple logical decisions a practice and a preaching to those around us, even if it makes you uncool. By logical, I simply mean well thought out "plan" decision, or thought.

"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" - silver rule

  • Jun 14 2011: Murder or killing is bad for your health....
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2011: It is never acceptable.
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2011: Chris,

      To me, you seem to be the definition of a humanitarian. However, a child can give me this answer!

      I want a reason why I should never kill someone who is about to cause me harm!
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2011: If he's just going to cause you harm why would you kill him for it?

        Self Defense is a little strange to me, at what point in the fight does the defender become the attacker? It seems fighting someone off and killing them in your own defense involves more wraith than actual defense.
        • thumb
          Jun 15 2011: Interesting views self defense.

          However Chris we do not live in a world where we have people like you in the masses, we have scared, confused, and ill educated people in the masses....

          When is killing justifiable among the norm? Among the average? Societal or individually?

          I do not want to ask scenarios, but I want you to give me something worth killing for!
        • thumb
          Jun 15 2011: Christopher:
          The legal definition of self defense often has two components: time and proportionality.
          If someone hits you with a baseball bat, you can not claim self defense if you go over and beat him the next day. Time constraints are very limited, the reaction must be immediate.
          The second component is proportionality. If you are hit with a baseball bat, you may find a blunt object and hit back, but you may not pull out a gun, or you have suddenly become the aggressor. It's tricky, but in general you are supposed to only respond with violence on the same level as the attacker is.
          The proportionality principle is even used by many armed forces around the world, at least in theory. (Meaning you don't carpet bomb a sniper...)
          (The US is not one of the countries with this definition of self defense by the way.)
      • thumb
        Jun 16 2011: Martin, Thanks for clearing up the law... Where I used to live had a "Stand your Ground" law. Without making an attempt at escape you can stand your ground and use deadly force.

        Nicholas, I can not foresee a situation where it is acceptable to kill someone. Murder does not improve anything, it just removes one or more people from the world.
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2011: Nothing justifies taking life from another
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2011: Murder implies a criminal act, but killing can be done in the service of a greater good.
    A lot of UN soldiers are struggling with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because they have been witness to genocide, brutality and violence against innocent civilians, women and children. As representatives of the UN, they were often forbidden to intervene.
    Would killing an agressor in for example Rwanda during the genocide be wrong?
    Or would it be more wrong to do nothing?
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2011: Hi Martin!

      The Canadian commander of the UN forces during the Rwandan genocide wrote a book called 'Shake hands with the Devil' in which he chronicles the horror of having to watch and of the stone wall he got from the UN. His name is Romeo Dallaire. He suffered serious PTSD and considered suicide because he felt so strongly that doing nothing was wrong. Doing nothing can kill your soul too.He is now a Canadian Senator with considerable influence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A9o_Dallaire
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2011: Hey Debra, thanks for the link, great read.
        I considered enlisting for UN service myself in my youth (man, sounds like I'm a 100 years old :p ), but after thinking about it and talking to veterans, I decided against it. I don't think I could have remained "neutral" if I had witnessed wrongdoings against unarmed civilians, women or children.
        I believe taking the lives of aggressors performing atrocities against humanity is justifiable. It's a tricky line to balance for when it no longer is justifiable, but there are exceptions to every rule, so I would not go so far to say that killing another human is categorically wrong/bad.
  • thumb
    Jul 14 2011: I think that people can have a skewed view on when killing is acceptable depending on their values on life and quality of life. I believe that when there is no quality of life, than something like euthanasia is a humane thing to do. If someone who is terminal with no quality of life has enough mindset to make the decision to end their own suffering, than it is inhumane not to grant that wish and continue their suffering. We do this with our pets, and have no quams about it at all, but just because we believe that we have a purpose, we cannot grant ourselves the same luxury. I know that sounds very pessimistic, but my morality is based around well being and suffering. If there is no quailty of life and only suffering, than it is in the interest of the well being of that person to let them exit this world without having to endure more suffering. I am a person who believes that death is something not to be taken lightly in any case, as we know not what, if anything, is on the other side. Some may say my views are skewed, but I would have to ask is suffering, in any form, humane? I do not believe that all suffering should be ended by exiting this world, but in cases that are already terminal and suffering, than yes, killing is acceptable.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 14 2011: I do not believe that "no Quality of life" is rubbish. There are circumstances where there is no quality of life, like when someone is surviving only from life support, has no real activity in the brain that can be viewed as something living.. Does this person still have a quality of life that is worth living?? I would have to say no, and if I was ever put into that situation, I would like the plug to be pulled, as I was not really "living" as it was. Now, what if I could alleviate the suffering that led to that moment, by taking the patient at their word, and end their life as per their wishes? I feel in those circumstances, it is more inhumane not to listen than to provide care for someone that does not want to live with the "Quality of life" they have left. I am a musician, music is my life, and if there was ever
        a time that I was physically or mentally incapable of doing anything that related to music, my quality of life would be impacted to the point, that I may consider a way out. For these people who have nothing left to live for, or are in the state of no return, letting them go when they want is the only decision that they have the power to make, and to take that away because you think that all
        life is important, takes aways the importance of their life. Therapy does not cure all problems and pain, either physical or emotional can not always be alleviated with medicine or therapy.
  • Jun 15 2011: Killing those who have unlawfully and maliciously killed a person or people seems like a good place to start. The idea is not to kill out of spite but for the purpose of removing a dangerous threat to the order of society.

    Lifelong imprisonment for monsters and those who would destroy a peaceful system is not cost-effective and makes no rational sense.

    Those who feel pity for the guilty are traitors to the victims.
    • thumb
      Jun 15 2011: How does a real genuine consensus of "right and wrong" take place? In reality and in political philosophy?

      I think out of ignorance most countries "right and wrong" become disfigured ideas of what any individual in that country would say is right or wrong. (I feel putting a 10 time killer to death is obvious, not a federal law, at all.)

      "Lifelong... "

      Indeed, but cost isn't everything that needs to be accounted for when dealing with monsters. There should be psychological approaches to determine if they are worth saving or not. Not just a psychologist, but a neurologist also, to examine the said monster.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2011: and just heard that cop who murdered that unarmed man in the subways sometime ago just got let free, recieved a credit for everyday he had good behavior.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2011: so when a higher ranked soldier tell another, "grenade that room" and it kills, let say, an child. is that murder, or just doing a job? or an accident?
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2011: Doing your job, which involves murder. Is it justifiable?
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2011: to me? hell no. even in the defence of "freedom" and i doubt most soldiers who enlist understand what they may be asked to do. and if they do, and still enlist, to me makes me a little sick.
        • thumb
          Jun 14 2011: Makes me really sick, and then people say "Thank you" to our American mercenaries...

          I ask my brother once "why are you thanking them?"

          My brother: "Because they are doing what I don't want to do so I don't have to.." (best answer)

          Me: "We shouldn't even f***ing be there, that is so dumb, who declared America the world peace keeper of capitalism exactly?"

          My brother and I are vastly different.
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2011: vastly it sounds indeed.
        • thumb
          Jun 14 2011: Yes, his normal defense would be, "where else would you rather live?"

          "Uh, want a list or a few suggestions?" Then he gets mad and patriotic on me.

          I pledge allegiance to the united states of corruptness... to ignore our founding fathers... to be a consumer zombie... and to practice selfish values.
      • thumb
        Jun 14 2011: right? and if our freedoms were under atack each day(which they are) they wouldnt be thousands of miles away