NationStates Jolt Archive

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...
Generally, one does not refer to an act as murder if she/he believes it to be justified. Therefor, murder is never justified, by definition.

Arguments by defintion, however, never achieve anything in terms of ideas.

The idea here is, can an act of killing ever be justified? Most people agree that it can be justified in case of self-defense. If any other cases of justified killing exist, they are relatively uncommon. I cannot think of any right now.

Generally, one does not refer to an act as murder if she/he believes it to be justified. Therefor, murder is never justified, by definition.

Arguments by defintion, however, never achieve anything in terms of ideas.

The idea here is, can an act of killing ever be justified? Most people agree that it can be justified in case of self-defense. If any other cases of justified killing exist, they are relatively uncommon. I cannot think of any right now.

Murder is never justified.

Justifiable homicide is allowed in cases of self defense, self defense of another, prevention of a violent felony, prevention of an escape of a violent felon, etc. Texas and florida are both pretty loose, so if it's about to commit bodily harm on you or your friend you are usually justified.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

No.

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

Yes

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

You might be able to get away with it, the defense to use would be duress

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?
If you were present and you shot him while he was trying to and he died, yes. If you did Ex post facto you would probably get a very light sentence. A jury would have a hard time throwing you in the slammer for a while for killing a murderer.

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

Didn't pay attention and just spouted off the rules governing deadly force in TX.

there was a good term for this I read it in a book but i don't remember the exact qoute think it was"

lethal force if nessessary

I think it would be justifiable to kill someone in self defense or protecting somebody else. But killing someone as an act of vengeance is almost never justifiable and just displays barbaric and provincial behavior.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi

The killing of another human being is always justified.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi

Yeah, but look where he got himself landed in the end. Murdered.

I wouldn't call it killing for vengence. It's more like "this person committed murder, so this person deserves to be punished in an equal manner." Doesn't that sort of makes sense?

Of couse it can be justifyed, I could justify anything. Justify meaning giving a good reason for doing it. I was always good at making excuses, although I'm out of practise. I left school a while back. Lets see if I've still got it...

The classic "He started it!"
"Er...my dog ate it. The evidence I mean...and then blamed me!"
"I found it like this...and then I picked up the gun. Then I slipped in the blood and that's why I'm covered in it."
"I've got a note..."

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

First off, as DesignatedMarksman and An archy already pointed out, "murder" probably isn't the word you want. That's why most legal jurisdictions have justified homicide laws (which don't just apply to situations of self defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#The_potentially_excusing_conditions_common_to_most_jurisdictions))

That being said, I'll assume you mean justifiable killing. And assuming some sort of "state of nature", here are my:

short answers: possibly, possibly, no, possibly

and long answers:
The answers (except the apple) all depend on the exact circumstances.

In the first case the key factors are what you mean by squatting and starting a fight.

If A is passing through, and not intent on appropriating the property, and B attacks with deadly force, then A is justified in replying in kind.

If A is not intent on appropriating and B attacks with less than deadly force, A is not justified in escalating to deadly force.

If A is intent on appropriating the property and B attacks with less than deadly force, A is not justified in escalating to deadly force.

If A is intent on appropriating the property and B attacks with deadly force, the question is a grey area, and A is may be justified in escalating to deadly force depending on the exact circumstances, to be decided case by case.


In the second case, deadly force is appropriate if the kidnapped subject is in danger of deadly force. If the victem is in danger of less than deadly force, the question is a grey area, and deadly force may be justified, depending on the exact circumstances, to be decided case by case. If no force at all is being used, a reply with deadly force is inappropriate.

In the third case, deadly force is inappropriate. However there may be compounding factors in play. For example, if A threatens B with deadly force to get the apple, B is justified in replying in kind.

And in the last case, the appropriateness of deadly force will depend on the exact circumstances of the first killing.

I think killing a pedophile wouldn't really be murder, since murder has to involve the killing of another human being.

*shrugs* Probably.

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Getting away with murder...I hear that's quite common.
*Tries to resist pressing the sniper button* :headbang: Sucess!

I think there's a fundamental that's been forgotten here:
the difference between justifiable and excuseable.

In my opinion, the killing of a human by another human can never be justified, but under certain circumstances it can be excused (self defense, for example).

Can't you blame murder on the pill?
"I don't usually go on killing sprees, it's the pill making me act this this. It's changing my behaviour! It makes me cry all the time." *sniffles*

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...
There are levels of justification. Those are also subject to culture/law and further details of the circumstances at hand. So, yes x 4.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

No. Murder by definition is UNLAWFUL killing.
Self-defense is not murder.
The rest would be.

Try again! ;)

No. Murder by definition is UNLAWFUL killing.
Self-defense is not murder.
The rest would be.

Try again! ;)
All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. Not all unlawful killings are murders, either.

No. Murder cannot justified by any circumstances.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

Technically speaking, if it's justified, it's not murder.

Only in self preservation.......well for me that applys in full :upyours:

Self-defense and abortion are justified forms of murder, and I wholeheartedly support both of them.

Some links worth reading on the subject:
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/continuum.htm

And the rules that apply to me:

http://home.earthlink.net/~haskman/va_law.htm

Murder cannot be justified by definition.

Any other type of killing can and should be justified. (self-defense, accidental, they wouldn't let me play Halo 4 and hogged the bathroom, etc.)

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

My wife and I talked about this recently, interestingly enough. Short of governments (legal systems, war, etc) taking a life cannot truely be justified. In the case of "self defense" I could just as easily protect myself by shooting someone in the knee as opposed to shooting them in the head. In Oklahoma, if you come onto my property, I can legally shoot and kill you. It's called the "Make my day law." I just can't shoot you in the back, unless you are actually in my house. That doesn't mean I think it would be justified. If you are not posing an immediate threat to me and my family, I should wait for the law enforcement officials to show up. If you are posing a threat to me, I can just as well protect myself with non-lethal means. Of course, the Oklahoman in me wants to say 1st, call the police and tell them there is about to be a shooting, then aim for the head. One of the good things about being human is the ability to resist impulses like that, though. Good thing for our mailman, too. He keeps coming onto my property.

Some links worth reading on the subject:
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/continuum.htm

Good one. And it can't be said enough avoidance, avoidance, avoidance, when at all humany possible avoidance...

My wife and I talked about this recently, interestingly enough. Short of governments (legal systems, war, etc) taking a life cannot truely be justified. In the case of "self defense" I could just as easily protect myself by shooting someone in the knee as opposed to shooting them in the head. In Oklahoma, if you come onto my property, I can legally shoot and kill you. It's called the "Make my day law." I just can't shoot you in the back, unless you are actually in my house. That doesn't mean I think it would be justified. If you are not posing an immediate threat to me and my family, I should wait for the law enforcement officials to show up. If you are posing a threat to me, I can just as well protect myself with non-lethal means. Of course, the Oklahoman in me wants to say 1st, call the police and tell them there is about to be a shooting, then aim for the head. One of the good things about being human is the ability to resist impulses like that, though. Good thing for our mailman, too. He keeps coming onto my property.

For the first bolded point, yes, but no. There's a damned good reason shooters are trained to aim for center of body mass and not a head shot or to "clip" the bad guy. You may be able to make both on the range, but the range is not the split second timing and confusion of a combat situation.

As for the second bolded point, two questions:
1) are you positive your "non-leathal" means are actually "non-leathal" and not "less-lethal"? Every "non-lethal" I know of can be lethal. Hence the move towards renaming them as less lethal.
2) Are you as sure about those methods as you are of lethal force?

Good one. And it can't be said enough avoidance, avoidance, avoidance, when at all humany possible avoidance...


A lot of people seem to think that because I carry a pistol constantly, and have used it to stop confrontations before, that somehow I am a bloodthirsty killer bent on murder.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then again, maybe those people would be happier if I let well enough alone, and allowed men to beat their wives on a public street.

A lot of people seem to think that because I carry a pistol constantly, and have used it to stop confrontations before, that somehow I am a bloodthirsty killer bent on murder.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then again, maybe those people would be happier if I let well enough alone, and allowed men to beat their wives on a public street.

Bingo. And those same people seem to confuse confidence with weakness...

For the first bolded point, yes, but no. There's a damned good reason shooters are trained to aim for center of body mass and not a head shot or to "clip" the bad guy. You may be able to make both on the range, but the range is not the split second timing and confusion of a combat situation.

True, but I'd guess (I say guess because it's really just my opinion and I have no facts) that a lot of the people firing a gun in those situations are the reason we have people shooting family members by mistake. You shouldn't use a gun unless you know what your target is and are capable of using it.


As for the second bolded point, two questions:
1) are you positive your "non-leathal" means are actually "non-leathal" and not "less-lethal"? Every "non-lethal" I know of can be lethal. Hence the move towards renaming them as less lethal.

Point taken. But in that regards, a straw could be lethal, but you wouldn't refer to it as lethal, would you?


2) Are you as sure about those methods as you are of lethal force?

Yes

Of course it can be justified, but that doesnt mean its right.

Of course it can be justified, but that doesnt mean its right.
If I survive, then it's right.

If I stop a man from beating a woman to death, it's right.

My wife and I talked about this recently, interestingly enough. Short of governments (legal systems, war, etc) taking a life cannot truely be justified. In the case of "self defense" I could just as easily protect myself by shooting someone in the knee as opposed to shooting them in the head. In Oklahoma, if you come onto my property, I can legally shoot and kill you. It's called the "Make my day law." I just can't shoot you in the back, unless you are actually in my house. That doesn't mean I think it would be justified. If you are not posing an immediate threat to me and my family, I should wait for the law enforcement officials to show up. If you are posing a threat to me, I can just as well protect myself with non-lethal means. Of course, the Oklahoman in me wants to say 1st, call the police and tell them there is about to be a shooting, then aim for the head. One of the good things about being human is the ability to resist impulses like that, though. Good thing for our mailman, too. He keeps coming onto my property.

Too many factors to be taken in to be shooting in a non-vital area. If he is posing enough of a threat for you to shoot, you shoot to KILL, not to wound. Under stress NOONE is that good. The best you can ask from somone is Center of mass hits.

A lot of people seem to think that because I carry a pistol constantly, and have used it to stop confrontations before, that somehow I am a bloodthirsty killer bent on murder.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then again, maybe those people would be happier if I let well enough alone, and allowed men to beat their wives on a public street.

You blood thirsty puppy killer.

























:D

Too many factors to be taken in to be shooting in a non-vital area. If he is posing enough of a threat for you to shoot, you shoot to KILL, not to wound. Under stress NOONE is that good. The best you can ask from somone is Center of mass hits.

I don't think that most people appreciate how far in advance you have to be thinking about what is about to go wrong, and once things start going wrong, how little time you have to do something.

It's not like the movies, where everyone gets to monologue.

Murder is never justified.

Justifiable homicide is allowed in cases of self defense, self defense of another, prevention of a violent felony, prevention of an escape of a violent felon, etc. Texas and florida are both pretty loose, so if it's about to commit bodily harm on you or your friend you are usually justified.
I agree with you for once, Murder by its definition is completely illegal and never “Justified” (I put it in quotes because this is from a legal standpoint)

Yes, it can be justified and accepted.

Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. This is necessary.

Yes, it can be justified and accepted.

Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. This is necessary.

Not really, you always hear people whining about how unfair it is that a poor burglar gets capped by a middle class homeowner, etc.

If I survive, then it's right.

If I stop a man from beating a woman to death, it's right.

The taking of a life is never right. Does it need to be done at times, yes. That in no way makes it right.

Actually, in the animal kingdom, killing one another over such scenarios rarely happens. It costs too much energy to get into actual fights over things like territory, mates, or food. Most of the time it's limited to aggressive displays, and when fighting actually does occur, the wounds are generally superficial.

That's not to say that animals never kill eachother over these things, but most animals simply opt for the easier method.

yes, follow the way of the Sambar

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

"Do, or do not. There is no try"

"Do, or do not. There is no try"

So Yoda's a sith lord?

Dang. I missed a plotline somewhere.

yes, follow the way of the Sambar
I prefer Sambo. Or as unbelievers call it a sandwich.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?



If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

You can, if it is necessary in the process of effecting a rescue; such an act would not, in fact, be murder.


If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?



If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

No.

Murder can not, by definition, ever be justified.

Generally, one does not refer to an act as murder if she/he believes it to be justified. Therefor, murder is never justified, by definition.

Arguments by defintion, however, never achieve anything in terms of ideas.

The idea here is, can an act of killing ever be justified? Most people agree that it can be justified in case of self-defense. If any other cases of justified killing exist, they are relatively uncommon. I cannot think of any right now.
Remind me never to go into law.

I think killing a pedophile wouldn't really be murder, since murder has to involve the killing of another human being.

I'd say you're right, if he or she has hurt a child. If all they do is touch themselves while thinking of touching kids, they're not hurting anyone. Except maybe themselves, if they do it too hard.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...

1. If a fight erupts and you try to kill me yes I am justified in self defense.

2. You kidnap my wife and I find you before the police.... Yes you will be killed.

3.Depends on the situation. If some zombie hoard was ravaging the land and that was the only food....then yes.

4. Eye for an eye my friend.

We are animals. Most people like to think we are not.

Isn't it pretty obvious that murder isn't justifiable. It never has been and hopefully it never will be. I do agree with whoever said that in some cases it could be excused, but that's the only time.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things? I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...
if a killing could be justified then it wouldn't be called murder. murder is by it's definition unjust.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?

NO!!!

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

YES!!!

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?

NO!!! Split it for God's sake.

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?

Depends on the situation, but generally yes...

Murder for vengence should be avoided, but should not be punished

Once I asked one of my Legionary of Faith, our best sniper, to kill an alien who said his scriptures ere better than the ones I'm writing. He murdered the guy, he was right to do so. It was a superior order for the health of our sane Holy Nation.

Murder the enemy when he does not convert.
Our faith prohibit to let alive anyone who does not agree with our Scriptures.

Then we cannot speak of "murder", that's only "holy" justice, or "for the sake of the State" action.

Murder is a detail in our way of life, only special forces have guns. The Holy Country is gun free. We prefer to evict the trouble makers (like jealous husbands).

Now let's pray bros, for the devil to get the souls of these people who do not follow our Scriptures, amen.


The High Priest
- Writer of the Scriptures -

Once I asked one of my Legionary of Faith, our best sniper, to kill an alien who said his scriptures ere better than the ones I'm writing. He murdered the guy, he was right to do so. It was a superior order for the health of our sane Holy Nation.

Murder the enemy when he does not convert.
Our faith prohibit to let alive anyone who does not agree with our Scriptures.

Then we cannot speak of "murder", that's only "holy" justice, or "for the sake of the State" action.

Murder is a detail in our way of life, only special forces have guns. The Holy Country is gun free. We prefer to evict the trouble makers (like jealous husbands).

Now let's pray bros, for the devil to get the souls of these people who do not follow our Scriptures, amen.


The High Priest
- Writer of the Scriptures -
Change your policies AT ONCE or you are in for the war of your life pal.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?you did not start the fight, you acted in self defense, but if it can be proven that you could've gotten away without killing him. then you will be charged for that person's death.

If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?no.

If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?no

If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?If I witness the act and kill you then. it can be explained as Temporary Insanity. but if you kill my wife and three years later I kill you. I probably can still get away with the Temporary Insanity, but it would be harder to prove.

The above four scenarios regularly happen in the wild, can we justify murdering someone over those things?they don't happen that often. very few species mate for life. and those that do, the loss of one usually means the death of the other though heartbreak. In the animal kingdom, revenge is unheard of. killing a mate won't make the survivor hunt you down and kill you. most animals, while they will fight over food, won't fight to the death. same with tresspassers. usually the looser runs off.
Death in most situations usually occur during mating season and usually by the Herbivores, those that are not used to fighting. I'm sort of on the fence, but have been thinking a lot about the seperation between humans and the rest of animals. Discuss. Slander me for making a stupid post...Some actions that happen in the wild that mimic human behavior...
Mating season and The Date.
the instinct for self preservation.
Herd Mentlity - Peer Pressure.

If you're being attacked, Yes.

Can murder be justified(in certain circumstances)?

Yes, IMO. For instance -- If someone brutally assaulted or killed one of my family members, and I retaliated by killing them.. I really don't think I'd ever regret my action. Regardless of my prison term. I might would regret not doing it in a fashion that would've kept me from being imprisoned.. but I wouldn't regret killing them. I'd just face my Lord and the judgement on my wrath.

True, but I'd guess (I say guess because it's really just my opinion and I have no facts) that a lot of the people firing a gun in those situations are the reason we have people shooting family members by mistake. You shouldn't use a gun unless you know what your target is and are capable of using it.

As DM and DK said.

Too many factors to be taken in to be shooting in a non-vital area. If he is posing enough of a threat for you to shoot, you shoot to KILL, not to wound. Under stress NOONE is that good. The best you can ask from somone is Center of mass hits.

I don't think that most people appreciate how far in advance you have to be thinking about what is about to go wrong, and once things start going wrong, how little time you have to do something.

It's not like the movies, where everyone gets to monologue.

No to mention that in the movies the hero is (almost) never affected by having killed someone, unlike real life.

Point taken. But in that regards, a straw could be lethal, but you wouldn't refer to it as lethal, would you?

It's a matter of degree and of purpose. Pistols and tasers are intended as weapons. Straws are not.

Yes

All I can say to that is good luck and I wish you well.

Just because something is not intended to be used as a weapon does not mean it cannot be used as one. Look at traditional martial arts weapons- they were originally farming implements(this is in regard to asian arts not fillipino or western arts)

If it's justified, it's not a murder.

If it's justified, it's not a murder.


Hmmm. *thinks it over*

Let's say a girl requests protection - under my roof.
Let's say that it turns out that she is a prostitute.
Let us then say that her pimp shows up - and tries to kill her.

But then: as she is under my protection and under my roof, I destroy him.
At once. No warning.

I think it is murder - but utterly justified.

My roof - my rules.
( And the case is quite real - except that I merely broke his arm. )

Your roof- you still have to obey the fucking law!

Hmmm. *thinks it over*

Let's say a girl requests protection - under my roof.
Let's say that it turns out that she is a prostitute.
Let us then say that her pimp shows up - and tries to kill her.

But then: as she is under my protection and under my roof, I destroy him.
At once. No warning.

I think it is murder - but utterly justified.

My roof - my rules.
( And the case is quite real - except that I merely broke his arm. )
Nope I make Tangled right on this one.


Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one hum,an by another. If it is unlawful, against the law then it cannot be justified. You kill the pimp, it is up to the courts to say wether it was justified or not. If they say it was a justified killing, then it was not a murder.

Your roof- you still have to obey the fucking law!

Afterwarz.

The Laws of Hospitality tend to be a wee bit older than certain other laws.

Nope I make Tangled right on this one.


Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one hum,an by another. If it is unlawful, against the law then it cannot be justified. You kill the pimp, it is up to the courts to say wether it was justified or not. If they say it was a justified killing, then it was not a murder.

I'm afraid I would not exactly await a court-decision.
One just does what one deems morally imperative.

It doesn't matter if you own the property you gunned/beat/stabbed some guy down on, the government tends to have a dull view of silly little things like that.

It doesn't matter if you own the property you gunned/beat/stabbed some guy down on, the government tends to have a dull view of silly little things like that.


And? Maybe you would - but I don't let my consicience get dictated by a government.

I'm afraid I would not exactly await a court-decision.
One just does what one deems morally imperative.


Sorry I don't get what you mean? You would not await a courts descion for what reason? What are you saying?

Sorry I don't get what you mean? You would not await a courts descion for what reason? What are you saying?


What I am saying is that the 'justified' and 'court' are not connected.
I know to some extent what I mean with justified - so what a court says about it is not something I consider to be very relevant.

What I am saying is that the 'justified' and 'court' are not connected.
I know to some extent what I mean with justified - so what a court says about it is not something I consider to be very relevant.


Okay I understand, yeah of course if you say that killing the pimp was justified and so not murder, thats your opinion, but when we talk about the killing of one human by another justified in your mind or not, relevant in your consideration or not, to find out if it was murder then the courts have to be involved.

Individual morality in cases of killing are not good enough, it has to go to the majority to decide.

Okay I understand, yeah of course if you say that killing the pimp was justified and so not murder, thats your opinion, but when we talk about the killing of one human by another justified in your mind or not, relevant in your consideration or not, to find out if it was murder then the courts have to be involved.

Individual morality in cases of killing are not good enough, it has to go to the majority to decide.


The majority is not the actor on the scene.
I am.

Decisions taken afterwarz ( typo on purpose ) are morally irrelevant.

There is no justification for taking a life. At all. A life is a life.

A life is a life.

Yes? And?

*confuddled and befused*

The majority is not the actor on the scene.
I am.

Decisions taken afterwarz ( typo on purpose ) are morally irrelevant.

Hahahah sooooo please correct me if I've got this wrong, but you belive that what the majority says is moral does not count for you? That the killing of another human by you is moraly irreleavent?

A] Hahahah sooooo please correct me if I've got this wrong, but you belive that what the majority says is moral does not count for you? B] That the killing of another human by you is moraly irreleavent?

A] Yes. The belief of the majority that an act is moral (or not) does not make that act moral (or not).

B] I am saying that the killing of another human is very morally relevant!
So much so that I would never ever do anything as silly as asking the majority what the morality of the case is!


There has been a time when 99% ( exageration on purpose ) of all adults believed that homosexuality is utterly morally wrong.
There has been a time when 99% of all adults believed that homosexuality was morally right.
Has the moral righteousness ( or moral unrighteousness ) of homosexuality been changed because people changed their minds?

There is no justification for taking a life. At all.
Not true. There are some people who are undeserving of life. Those who are intolerant of others, those who believe war and killing are morally right or permissible, those who rape or kill others, those who are cockroaches or mosquitoes, those who leave banana peels on the floor and hog the bathroom... killing any or all of those can be justified in certain circumstances.

And AIDS is an effective means of population control.

A] Yes. The belief of the majority that an act is moral (or not) does not make that act moral (or not).

B] I am saying that the killing of another human is very morally relevant!
So much so that I would never ever do anything as silly as asking the majority what the morality of the case is!


Then I very much disagree with you, heh but before we get into that one, to redress the original question. Murder is an unlawfull killing, so by it's very definition no murder can be justified, which is not the same as saying no killing can be justified; A justified killing is not called murder, in your example you said 'I would call it murder' then my friend you would be guilty of misuse of the word murder. Hahah pedantic me, perhaps.


Okay on with it then. If the majority does not set morality then what does? I do not belive there is an objective set of morals, so then morality if not objective must be subjective. As such the governance of such a subjective morality comes from the majority. If the majority say that theft is moraly wrong, then the majority passes laws to that effect and theft is moraly wrong.

There may be individuals that will not accept this, but faced with the majority, and the laws that the majority has made then their position is not worth having.

So point B, means your own sense of morality suppercedes that of the majority?

Getting away with murder...I hear that's quite common.
*Tries to resist pressing the sniper button* :headbang: Sucess!



I like the headbang.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Also, I feel that intentional homicide is only OK in self-defense or defense of another if a life OR lives depends on it. If murder is accidental, uhh... i dunno...

(me thinking if accidental murder is OK::headbang: )

murder is never justifiable.

Not all killing is murder however. If you kill someone who is trying to harm, rob, or rape you or someone else, in order to prevent them from so doing, then it is not murder.

If a person in war kills an enemy in the line of duty it is also not murder.

Or if the law of the land requires the execution of a criminal for crimes they have committed, and you are involved in that execution that is not murder either.


I don't think killing is justified in any of the circumstances listed, they all sound like vengence killing, or some other form of murder.

Now if someone was trying to kidnap or kill your wife, and you killed them to protect her, or if you had to kill them in order to secure her safety, then yes it would be justified.

If you are on someone elses property and they command you to leave (which they have a right to do), you refuse, and a confrontation ensues, in most cases they would be justified in killing you, but you would not be justified in killing them, because you are guilty of the original offence of trespassing.

If I come with my lackies and squat on your property and you start a fight with me, can I justifiably kill you?
No.
If you kidnap or somehow take my wife, can I justifiably kill you?
No.
If there is one apple left in the store and no other food in the area, can I justifiably kill you over it?
No.
If you kill my wife, can I justifiably kill you?
No.
Slander me for making a stupid post...
Okay.

Stupidhead.

It can be justified. Look at executioners - many of them are as sadistic as their 'victims', but it's allowed because they're cleaning society of unwanted traits.

It can be justified. Look at executioners - many of them are as sadistic as their 'victims', but it's allowed because they're cleaning society of unwanted traits.
Yeah? And what if they execute the wrong 'victim' - ?