Is Murder Justifiable?

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Depends entirely on the ruleset.
Modern belief is that justifiably depends on legality.
At one time community standards applied "there was a man that needed killing" defense.
Then there are the moral standards that change depending on location and religious influences.

What standard would like to use?
The novel Earth Abides has a great example of this:
A small community of pandemic survivors have to decide how to deal with a newcomer who may be carrying venereal diseases, has taken an unhealthy interest in a mentally disabled woman and has challenged the authority of the defacto group leader. The elder members discuss their options: they don't have the resources to imprison him, are unwilling to banish him for fear of future reprisals, so ultimately vote to execute him. This is before he has actually done anything that would, in normal circumstances, justify execution, but in that situation, the death sentence seems to be the only way to protect the community from the various existential threats this man presents.
 
People change their minds about things with time and with experience, you can never tell if they'll regret something before the thing has happened because the other experiences that would change your mind simply won't happen. People who try to kill themselves often report sudden regret as they reach the point of no-return (such as kicking the chair out, or letting go), your body does not want to die no matter how 'painless' you think you can make it.
Yeah and my thinking was "what if you can recreate that in a safer enviroment". If a suicidal guy had some sort of legal way to apply for euthanasia you could do all sorts of things to illustrate to him that this might be a bad idea, if he has no legal recourse he can just buy some rope and dangle without the introspection my idea woud provide.
 
Yeah and my thinking was "what if you can recreate that in a safer enviroment". If a suicidal guy had some sort of legal way to apply for euthanasia you could do all sorts of things to illustrate to him that this might be a bad idea, if he has no legal recourse he can just buy some rope and dangle without the introspection my idea woud provide.
Sure but creating a 'safer environment' would also encourage suicide would it not? Ideally suicide would be as dangerous as possible so at least the fear of crippling disability would stop people, no amount of talking and reasoning can really help some people.
 
Murder is by definition a non-justified, pre-meditated homicide. So no, ‘murder’ cannot be justified.

As for homicide? My opinion mirrors Penn and Teller’s. It’s only justified when your life is in danger or you’re at war.

Indeed, a good case in point was Kyle Rittenhouse who taked care of Joseph Rosenbaum.
 
Sure but creating a 'safer environment' would also encourage suicide would it not? Ideally suicide would be as dangerous as possible so at least the fear of crippling disability would stop people, no amount of talking and reasoning can really help some people.
Well the purpose of that wouldn't be to scare people into not killing themselves, it would be to separate people who are just temporarily suicidal from people actually determined to kill themselves. Those who really want to do it would then be allowed to, and those who can be persuaded not to would be better off.
Making them roll the dice on being either dead or a super cripple would be not only cruel and inhumane but also really dumb since that would have 0 benefit to anyone involved.
 
it would be to separate people who are just temporarily suicidal from people actually determined to kill themselves.
Sure but given can't predict the future this effectively an impossible task.

Making them roll the dice on being either dead or a super cripple would be not only cruel and inhumane but also really dumb since that would have 0 benefit to anyone involved.
Not if you consider someone killing themselves to be inherently wrong, which I do.
 
Sure but given can't predict the future this effectively an impossible task.
That's why its just a theoretical concept, that said in my opinion such a system could be feasibly constructed even if it wasn't perfect, after all no legal system ever is.
Not if you consider someone killing themselves to be inherently wrong, which I do.
Ok but do you really want to punish that behavior by potentially crippling those people and making them want to kill themselves even more? This is needlessly cruel and unjust. Just like in some extreme cases keeping someone alive is in my opinion cruel and unjust (for an instance somebody who is suffering and would die anyway in a short time)
 
Ok but do you really want to punish that behavior by potentially crippling those people and making them want to kill themselves even more?
They are responsible for their actions, I can only do so much to help them. If the potential to be disabled for life doesn't dissuade a particular person I cannot help them, but at least it will save other people.

Just like in some extreme cases keeping someone alive is in my opinion cruel and unjust (for an instance somebody who is suffering and would die anyway in a short time)
I don't think keeping someone alive can be cruel except where it concerns them being a threat to other people. Living is inherently a good thing regardless how much pain you're in.
 
They are responsible for their actions, I can only do so much to help them. If the potential to be disabled for life doesn't dissuade a particular person I cannot help them, but at least it will save other people.
In the situation you're proposing you'd be introducing this "potential to be disabled" though, you can't just distance yourself from that since its a conscious decision to cripple people.
I don't think keeping someone alive can be cruel except where it concerns them being a threat to other people. Living is inherently a good thing regardless how much pain you're in.
Not necessarily, sometimes pain can outclass any benefit to living. Until we are able to turn off our nervous system that would continue to be the case.

Let me give you a specific example to make my point.
A soldier in Syria gets shot in the neck, the wound is fatal but it would take him half an hour to actually choke in his blood and die. He can't be helped and his remaining time is going to be spent in absolute agony. As his brother in arms are you then morally justified in ending his suffering before the 30min does that to him anyway?
Its an extreme example sure, but it illustrates that sometimes ending a life is the humane option and other situations like this do exist. The time limit is the most artificial part of it.
 
In the situation you're proposing you'd be introducing this "potential to be disabled" though, you can't just distance yourself from that since its a conscious decision to cripple people.
Sure but what I'm saying is that I think the benefit outweighs the harm there.

As his brother in arms are you then morally justified in ending his suffering before the 30min does that to him anyway?
I don't think I am.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo