| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 4:50:49 PM | | Is it acceptable to kill in self defence? What force is acceptable, what if one could stop a person without killing.?What about times of famine, who should live or die? Who should get food or water on a boat with inadequate supplies.?What about adequate supply, should every person survive as a general right? What if you know there will be lack of supply in the future, should you make changes to provide during scarcity? If you are born rich, do you have more of a right to survive than your neighbor, given limited supplies? What is fair, do you feel any moral responsibility to a death that is preventable? Does a person have a right to self preservation? What about when person B is unaware or indirectly responsible for person A's lack of supply? What is your level of benevolence? Does being unaware make someone less responsible? What about someone who is aware, do they have anymore responsibility for someone else's death.? | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:14:54 PM | WOW ... Thats a LOT of questions ... Im in my mid 40s and I dont think I have time to answer them all ...  ... just had to say that ...
Wish ya the best ...
AnglFlyn | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:23:24 PM |
Is it acceptable to kill in self defence? Yes , also if someone decides he wants my money clip , acceptable if I jam a Bic pen in his throat , he'll be less inclined then, I suppose .. Or I could wait the 30 minutes for a police officer to show up , to sort things out , .. Most humans are born with the innate sense of right and wrong , just like every people believes in a higher power . | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:38:04 PM | What if they need your money clip to survive. Do they have a right to kill you for self preservation? Do you have a right to kill for survival, is that self defence? Defending your right to live? Under the assumption that poverty or need is innocent.
What if you knew your money would save his life, is it an innate right or wrong to share your wealth to save another? Or, would you still feel the need to stick him in the neck with a pen. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 6:07:32 PM | Lots of great questions , with endless possibilities , but yes in the middle of civilisation ( Ohio? ) , threaten someone , you lose your right to life , ( hungry ? walk over there to a shelter )
( cold ? same thing )
 | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 6:11:17 PM | | I feel its acceptable to kill in self defense when its a kill or be killed situation. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 6:22:51 PM | Ok, answered in the context that person B, (group B, country B) has other acceptable alternatives and is still threatening, you have avoided the metaphor. Your retaliation is a direct result of an injustice occurring. As a question of humanism, sometimes we make decision that effects innocent people unable to seek aide. Or in a question of unsustainable how do you decide who should lack supply. In a case of "lack of supply" what action is justifiable for preservation?
Consider money, any type of commodity, wealth, food, oil. Who has a right to it? What right does someone have to fight for food, money, for survival. Should you, a nation, a person or group, have a right to deny another, their right to live, when there is not a shelter around the corner offering what they need. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 7:19:11 PM | @agenteightysix
In answer to your questions:
Yes : whatever is needed to protect yourself : One should try to do so. : Somebody else : me : yes : yes : no : yes : yes : I'd inform B of his responsibility and squeal on him to A : Pretty high : yes : yes.
Happy to clear it up for you...Any more questions?  | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 7:42:04 PM | | Thanks for the condescending attitude. Self preservation is never a question of morality, or ethics. Is there an obligation to preserve others lives? Are you responsible for someones death based on your decisions. When you know lack of supply is a factor. I get that there are a lot of questions, they are linked to a central idea. Justifying ones death over another, my actions may preserve myself but kill another or many. Or, if someone kills another while they struggle to survive is that justified if they are innocent. You could consider it in concepts of a person or country. Greed means that another may not get what they need to survive. What right is there to deny the poor, even if it depletes another's wealth? What is considered fair, or just when inequality exists? | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 7:46:34 PM | It's OK to kill at any time that your ability to justify killing allows you to overcome any reluctance to kill. Whether other people agree with your justification matters because they will probably do something about it if they don't agree. The simple fact of life is that people are mortal, and they have the capacity to kill. So there will be the potential to kill and then there will be what stops a person from killing.
It sounds like you are looking for an absolute answer, like some rule written down that says when it is OK to kill and when it is not. Well, there are rules about killing that you can read. There are religious rules and legal rules and philosophical rules and even statistical rules based on various models of survival of the species overall, and so on. You can pick and choose which rule to read, which to adopt for yourself, or even make up your own.
It comes down to what you think and what you decide to do. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 8:16:26 PM | | If you are in a life boat at sea. there is not enough water of food for every one to survive. How do you decide what is fair. Save all, save only the number who can survive. Kill or let the rest starve. In a case where it is your personal life boat, who do you help, how much do you give up. Do you feel you should even share if it is yours to begin with. Then place this situation on a global situation. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 8:29:58 PM | | killing is good no matter how you look at it .. animals kill to survive ... self deffense or food or whatever... humans have had the right removed from them ... now only the higher up goverment type people are aloud to say who lives or who dies... which makes them ??? you know .... come on guess.... yep GOD .... thats why those rules are inplace... but not only that but to protect there votes.. and there tax money they recieve from the living ... if your dead you cant pay your taxes ... | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 8:50:14 PM | @86
Thanks for the condescending attitude.
I wasn't being condescending. I was (I thought) just being cute.
Well, OK, maybe it was a tiny jibe about all those questions you asked at the start of the thread. A full ethical exploration of each would have required a 400 page dissertation to get them covered and frankly I'd get CTS from all the typing. Lucky for me most of the questions had yes/no answers and didn't present too much of a moral dilemma to agonize over. Incidentally, I answered all of them truthfully and thoughtfully.
But just for taking it the wrong way, I'm not gonna answer any more of your damn questions!
I'm leaving & getting another beer (I think there's another one in the fridge somewhere....  | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/2/2009 11:24:46 PM | | Yes, killing can be justified, and self defense is one example. Survival of the fittest. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if you're in a famine type situation, the bigger and more aggressive are going to win. That's just the way it is. Self preservation is only logical. At the end of the day, your life matters, not anyone elses. Very few people are martyrs. They just like to pretend otherwise. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 12:12:07 AM | agenteightysix : Is it acceptable to kill in self defence? What force is acceptable, what if one could stop a person without killing.?What about times of famine, who should live or die? Who should get food or water on a boat with inadequate supplies.?What about adequate supply, should every person survive as a general right? What if you know there will be lack of supply in the future, should you make changes to provide during scarcity? If you are born rich, do you have more of a right to survive than your neighbor, given limited supplies? What is fair, do you feel any moral responsibility to a death that is preventable? Does a person have a right to self preservation? What about when person B is unaware or indirectly responsible for person A's lack of supply? What is your level of benevolence? Does being unaware make someone less responsible? What about someone who is aware, do they have anymore responsibility for someone else's death.?
In a perfect world all would live and not suffer.
1. Of course if someone could stop someone from harming themself they should.
2. Famine happens and sadly it would mean world change so that famine prone countries get family planning and the most 'green' sustaiable home grown crops possible.
3. Lack of supply in the future was in Biblical times why they stored food for the lean times so non one went without the basics.
4. The Gates Foundation shows that even if one is rich one must do what they can to make sure the less have the basics.
5.Self preservation is what being self sufficient and living below ones means while doing all the can to make sure they grow as much of their own food as possible.
6.If someone doesnt know of a problem doesnt mean they should be blamed for someting that is happening on the other side of the world as an example.
7. My level of benevolence. Think global act local is how I live. But I also set aside a certain amount for groups like Habitat For Humanity and world health issues. I work with food banks and housing needs for the poor.
What I want to know is how would you answer your own questions. I also worry that society get overload or burn out with all the requests for this or that need. So choose a couple causes and focus on those and do not beat yourself up if you are not doing more. And also remember death is part of life. Making the process the most humane is a must. We seem to care more about putting an animal down that the end of a humans life.
As for killing in self defense. I use this analogy. My home. I have a responsibly to make sure my home has secure locks on doors and windows. Its called prevention. Now should someone who is intent on breaking in and causing harm or death to me, succeeds then its my space, and I have a right to defend myself even if it means taking their life. But I would also have hit the 911 button on the phone at the first sound of some intruder. And having a guard dog would be part of my self defense mode. Will not share info on firearms, but I believe having a hand gun and knowing how to use it is wise. But most break ins are for either drug related issues or because someone wants to commit a sex crime. But I would also be sad as hell I had to kill someone.
And I hate the Lifeboat game since those who play it have NO idea what they would actually do in a crisis!! Those who dont play that game who have been in a crisis situation (the ones I know) have found ideas and solutions most arm chair game players never would have seen. Been there done that. Life boat players are the ones who whine and cry and have no Outward Bound smarts.
~Beth~ | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 7:38:32 AM | I think this is an interesting question. I will try and look at the legal and moral sides. Legally speaking, homicide can be justifiable in self-defence. It can also be justifiable by the authorities in certain limited circumstances. The defence of 'necessity,' i.e. killing in extraordinary circumstances to preserve life, is fairly rare. Two cases come to mind here from English law; a fairly ancient and famous one involving sailors who killed and ate a young boy to survive (R v Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 ), and a recent case (Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation) (2000) 4 AER 961) where a court ordered an operation to separate twins to go ahead even though it would result in the death of another. In the first case, the plea of necessity was rejected, and in the second, it was upheld. The reasoning of the judges in both cases is a bit strange, but basically in the first the line of reasoning is that even in extreme circumstances, the sanctity of human life must be protected, but in the other, respect for the sanctity of life by the parents (Catholics) did not justify letting two children die just because an operation to separate would result in the death of the weaker child.
There has also been some legal debate about a 'right to die', i.e. to allow people with a terminal illness and who are suffering to be euthanaised. This has been highly controversial but informally, people in these situations have been allowed to die or their death has been accelerated, usually justified by a sort of 'double effect' principle (where an action or omission is not in itself designed to kill someone or hasten death, but the action to relieve suffering may result in death or acceleration of death as a consequence). Some jurisdictions and countries also have allowed 'right to die' laws which permit assisted death in certain circumstances, usually by a competent person dying of a terminal illness with the approval of a number of doctors.
I think self-defence, necessity and a 'right to die' can arguably be used to justify intentionally taking life, but only in certain limited circumstances. Killing someone should always be the last resort used in any situation to defend yourself or to preserve life, excepting war situations (where doing the utmost to kill a hostile enemy may well be the best course of action to take).
Morally speaking, killing another person either deliberately or through negligence is an act with serious consequences. I think the range of circumstances in which killing another person is a moral good is likely to be very narrow, regardless of what ethical system you adhere to. On the other hand, a total and absolute prohibition on the taking of any human life causes serious moral dilemmas, especially in war situations or when you are faced with having to take another life to preserve your own life or the life of others. I don't think total pacificism is a good response to someone such as Hitler or Stalin. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 7:47:39 AM | Things are never simple. Might does not make right. Just because you have the power to do something, does not mean you have the authority to do so. There are many great minds throughout the ages which suggest, while we might have the power to kill in self-defense, morally it might not be justified. Some say only those with political authority can kill (St Augustine comes to mind), while others would suggest even that, even for self-preservation, is based upon fallacious reasoning and any such action is morally reprehensible (the Jains, for example).
Most, however, believe that one is allowed to defend oneself, in a just cause, with proportionate response, just as in the question of war. You can't kill to save yourself from being hit in the eye, since the prorportionality is not there. On the other hand, if it is some random serial killer with a chainsaw, and, blocking his attacks, you take him down, most people would find it is justified.
Now, even if it is justified, another question comes up: do you still hold some guilt for the actions? There, again, you will find different answers. For example with the Buddhists, if you rejoice in the death, then yes, you do. Others, of course, will say, once justified, it doesn't matter. That seems to be the typical Western approach. I don't buy it; just because an action is necessary does not mean there is no taint from the action (if you get soaked in rain, even if you could't help it, you will probably want to change your clothes). | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:21:19 AM | >>>Is it acceptable to kill in self defence?
Yes.
>>>What force is acceptable, what if one could stop a person without killing.?
Well, clearly, if you knock a robber down and have control of the situation, then its no longer self-defense if they then beat them to death....
>>>What about times of famine, who should live or die?
Whomsoever can. I don't believe it is any one persons right to decide, save the individuals.
>>>Who should get food or water on a boat with inadequate supplies.?
Depends on who is selling- I'd say whoever can afford it, but then again, it really is a question of value- maybe whomsoever is selling it finds more value in saving children than adults, and thus would be uninterested in money- it really is up to them.
>>>What about adequate supply, should every person survive as a general right?
I don't believe they are entitled to it, no. They must be willing to earn it.
>>>If you are born rich, do you have more of a right to survive than your neighbor, given limited supplies?
No, you have equal rights- only the rich person has earned more, and thus has a greater ability to survive. The poor should not survive on the backs of the rich, or there would be no incentive in society to achieve anything, and we would all become leaches in a poverty stricten state.
>>> Does a person have a right to self preservation?
Isn't that a contradiction? A Right is a protection society gives to the individual, to protect them against the actions of the collective- so if you have the ability for self-preservation, then you do not need a protection, since you are able to acheive it without society's grace.
>>> What if they need your money clip to survive. Do they have a right to kill you for self preservation?
The situation you are describing doesn't apply to self-defense- you cannot violently rob someone, swindle someone, or coerce someone, and say you did it in self-defense. That person has just as much right to the value of their labour as you have to yours.
>>>What if you knew your money would save his life, is it an innate right or wrong to share your wealth to save another?
If you gain value from helping another, then by all means- you both suceed because of it. But that person does not have the right to your money- you have the right to spend it anyway you find value, but others do not have a right to dicate what you must and must not value(unless you live in a society where you are not free)
>>>Consider money, any type of commodity, wealth, food, oil. Who has a right to it?
No one has a right to money or any commodity- you do not have a right to currancy, but you do have a right to the currancy you've earned- an employer can no more rob you than a hobo.
>>> Should you, a nation, a person or group, have a right to deny another, their right to live, when there is not a shelter around the corner offering what they need.
Yes.
>>>Is there an obligation to preserve others lives?
Only one- your children, until they reach an age that they are able to preserve their own. Otherwise, no. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:45:13 AM | Legally and morally, everyone has equal rights to survival which is why natural disaster is often one of the great equalizers. Rich or poor doesn't matter. In fact, it could be easily argued that those with more are, at least morally, obligated to share with those who have less and many do.
Legally, you do have the right to kill but only if your own life or the lives of those in your care are threatened. Other than that, it all becomes a matter of semantics. You can come up with all manner of scenario to test it but the basic principles are the individual's rights to health, happiness and enjoyment of personal space up until they impinge on another's rights. That's the basis of our most basic legal systems. | |
|
| justified death.
Posted: 4/3/2009 9:37:57 AM | Hehe. Eye for an eye one means
No.
or we be but a dust globule within our nuclear detriment
defence adjourns
most likely for muffins | |
|
|
Home
login 
