No. Murder is murder. There is no rationalising one’s way around it. There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence, which is not the case when discussing things in terms of justice systems.
There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence
But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.
Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.
As a Romanian, our Revolution ended the instant the people took back control of this nation and Ceaușescu had no more power (it was obvious, because literally nobody was taking orders from him at that point). Then they shot him. Then they shot his wife. That’s the point when the Revolution just turned into mob murder.
In this case, it is the people’s duty to protect their collective interests, yes, but killing still isn’t justified. You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.
Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them. Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!
Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.
I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?
You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.
And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.
Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.
And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.
Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!
Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.
Yep, we’re totally in those times… You do realise our methods and resources have changed immensely, right? It can be done. Your way remains and shall remain unjustifiable.
Sure, you can call it that and yeah, it might make some people think more before being in favour of it just because it doesn’t sound as bad.
But I disagree with the first part, plenty deserve to be killed, always had and always will.
In theory death penalty is exactly that - people justly decide that someone harms society too much and they don’t want that person in society.
(again, note that I don’t think it should be implemented in real world because of how easily corruptible people are)
No. Murder is murder. There is no rationalising one’s way around it. There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence, which is not the case when discussing things in terms of justice systems.
Killing is never justice.
But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.
Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.
As a Romanian, our Revolution ended the instant the people took back control of this nation and Ceaușescu had no more power (it was obvious, because literally nobody was taking orders from him at that point). Then they shot him. Then they shot his wife. That’s the point when the Revolution just turned into mob murder.
In this case, it is the people’s duty to protect their collective interests, yes, but killing still isn’t justified. You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.
Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them. Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!
I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?
And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.
And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.
Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.
Yeah, it’s really easy to kill someone when you’re locked up all day in a double-walled room, or when you’re exiled alone on an island… Good thinking…
This is why our society is going down the gutter, because people are still trying to rationalise and justify the unjustifiable…
50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.
Yep, we’re totally in those times… You do realise our methods and resources have changed immensely, right? It can be done. Your way remains and shall remain unjustifiable.