Can murder be justified?

[sixtyandaquarter]

I man kills my entire family.  He's killed them all, violent deaths each and every one.  Ends up, near the end of the story, I have him on the ground with a gun in my hand.  He'll kill again if given the chance.  I may have the physical and mental facilities to hold him till the police come, but that's a "may" not a "definitely have".  Am I wrong for pulling the trigger?  Even if I shoot him in the leg, he could still come at me, get away, continue his spree of death.  Is it wrong to kill him?

A man is holding a child hostage, the police is trying to negotiate.  Who knows how this'll turn out.  Even negotiators and the like can only guess.  The call is given to the sniper, if you get a clean shot take it.  Is the order wrong, to kill the man?

A man is on death row.  He's horrible.  Horrible.  He's raped, he's stolen, he's murdered - and often more than two at the same time.  He's costing the tax payer's money to keep him alive, and he's already caused fights and injured fellow cell mates and guards. A few who were lucky enough to limp out of the showers are now laying in the hospital wing of the prison with their asses up if you get my drift.  The man has spit in the face of those who claimed they wanted to help him.  Is the system wrong for declaring he is deserving of the ultimate punishment.  Death.

A woman is going to have a child.  But she's been injured.  The injury is complicating the pregnancy.  There is an incredible chance that there would be two deaths, if the labor happens.  She can have an abortion, and hopefully have another child again one day, or she can risk the possibility that at best the odds say only one of them may scathe out of this alive, and even then it won't be a "healthy" life.  Is she wrong for considering the abortion?

A man finds himself at a park after playing some baseball.  He is seeing someone brutally attack another, he hears death threats being screamed.  He picks up his bat and goes to defend the victim, and in the struggle he strikes the attacker in the head.  A little too hard.  Is he wrong because the attacker is now at the morgue?

Thousands die in war.  Thousands of thousands.  Wars can be justified.  Even most doubters of WWII gave up most of their arguments when the concentration camps were found.  WWII became justified, how many people think that's the reason we went to war.  But, there are some who fought to stop that kind of treatment around the world for others, some who saw equally horrible things - even if it's not on the same scale - two soldiers on opposing sides both claiming the "greater good", have killed and injured dozens of enemy soldiers.  One may get a medal, while the other for the same acts gets a trial for war crimes.
Is one more justified than the other?

Not just the soldiers being more justified than the rest, are any of these examples more justified than the others?  A woman who would most likely kill herself a child, instead choses an abortion and the chance to have many more children, is she more justified than the soldier on the battle field?  Is that soldier more justified than the man in the bat trying to help a victim, is that baseball player more justified than the executioner at the mass murderer's date with the electric chair?

A suicidal person.  A suicide bomber.  A police man shooting at a criminal.  Is there a line between murder, and an unfortunate death for a justifiable cause?

 

[Brosek]

Murder isnt justified.. but sometimes there are no last resorts. The guys are psychos.. and I have no doubt in my mind that the judicial system has murdered more than a thousand innocent people on mistake. . I am not proud of it nor ashamed of it. I dont like innocents dying not in the least.. not at all.

Someone slits your moms throat, the fucks the wound as she's dying. You're locked away in the closet as a kid.. forced to watch this pervert do such things. He then kills everyone one of your siblings and saves you for dessert. You know for a fact that things arent going to turn out good for you.. all of a sudden you snap, you run out of the closet with a sharp object.  In your mind you're thinking, "I will survive, I must survive!".

Do you think in a scenario that is helpless as this one you wont think twice about killing?
If the police found you just in time and arrested the guy, you think that you are really going to root for him not to be on deathrow?

Im pretty sure if all humans were immortal, and they turned out to be psycho.. they would be judged on the spot by a higher power. So, why is it they should get away with their crimes?

 

[Venetia]

Well what you're talking about is martial law. An eye for an eye.

As a society, we cannot uphold martial law because it can't always apply. It has to be on a case-by-case basis.

But seeing all the violent criminals in jail, awaiting death row, but instead dying of old age, having bled the system of millions of dollars, I question the system. If it were me, and I somehow ran the nation under the iron thumb of an aristocracy, then I'd say to torch every last one of those fuckers, if only for the financial aspects of it all.

HOWEVER, I'm not a monarch, and perhaps it's best that way.

Murder is the only thing that doesn't have any true "justice" behind it. You can say you murdered for revenge, but the reasons are selfish. You can say he murdered because he's insane, but why should he get off easy because he's unstable? You can murder for the sake of pre-emptive control, but then you're killing someone to avoid something that may never happen (i.e. Minority Report). Hell, there have been 18 people put to death since the law was lifted restricting it, who were later absolved of the crime. Was it justice then, for those men who paid the ultimate price for a crime they didn't commit?

But there are those moments. Those 'what else could I do'? moments. Some dipshit rapes my daughter, then fuck yes I will castrate the guy with a hot, dull knife. Some woman's health is at extreme risk while she's with child? I'd say it's more important to preserve the mother. A soldier gets a command to kill someone--he should be fine, since the other guy'd probably kill him in a second.

But these aren't justifications because the outcomes are not just. They are consequences of the situation, and punishment can only be dealt on a case-by-case basis.

 

[e]

Murder is never justified. By taking someone else's life (assuming you did it consciously), you are belittling his or her subjectivity; you're auto-proclaiming yourself the judge and jury, giving your own point of view/sense of righteousness a superior value to that other person's. Whilst you might disagree with him or her (e.g. : a rapist), you cannot simply, because of cultural/personal bias, affirm with a hundred percent certainty that your judgment has some weight over that person's. Both are, in these matters, equal.

I am not saying self-defense is stupid, or that a soldier killing his opponent is a monster; quite the contrary. Self-defense is, by all means, the one and only thing to do, especially under stressful circumstances where your live is endangered by an individual's will to kill you. However, even though you had every right to off him, it does not make the murder justified; it does not make it right (and shouldn't).

Don't misunderstand: the sniper, in the aforementioned example, isn't a monster: he killed a twisted, disturbed person who overstepped the boundaries of cohabitation and forced himself upon an helpless girl in order to save that child. And whilst, in this context, saving the child was the right thing to do, the murder is still murder, and hasn't been thus justified. The ends do not justify the means, no matter what some might want you to believe.

Now, I know some better, sharper minds than mine have investigated the matter, but I honestly believe there is too much emotional/cultural bias to actually produce an objective work on the subject, so don't take my words at face value; I'm not trying to force my point of view on anyone.

 

[candle]

To me the only kind of murder that can be justified is a mercy killing.  That is where a terminally ill person with no hope of survival and will die a horrible death asks for a clean one.  They must ask for it though.

 

[Pisteleh]

To me the only kind of murder that can be justified is a mercy killing.  That is where a terminally ill person with no hope of survival and will die a horrible death asks for a clean one.  They must ask for it though.

Doctor Kevorkian type stuff, eh? I think that this might be okay. Some religious people might argue with it, since it might be considered a form of suicide. But if I had to say what I thought about it, I'd agree.

 

[PeteD2S]

An unecessary murder (like a criminal killing someone) will never be justified. It's wrong and unfair for the victim since this one has as much right of living it's life as the murder.
Self-defense killing is justified if it was the only thing to do and one's life was endangered.

Troops that go to war are mostly forced to fight for the ones who make them go so they are just in the battlefield to defend themselves from death most of the times, I think their kills can be justified. Everyone's wrong in a war, anyways.

What must be done is try to work things out without killing someone and when there are no more options left, do whatever you feel like. You can't really tell nobody has the right to kill, we are animals afterall and it's in our nature to kill (we have done it so many times), but if we live in a civilized society, then those who commit the crime of murder must be punished with death (or torture for the rest of the life), with exceptions.

 

[Beadly_Dastard]

@ Venetia: Have you ever read "Metaphysics of Morals"?  You probably wouldn't agree with Kant's categorical imperative.[/moment of extreme nerdiness]

Anyways, My two cents are that whenever you kill, you are reduced back into the state of nature; that is, you are open game.

The few exceptions that I can think of in which you should reject a more "lex talionis" view are during war and other situations of self-preservation/defense.

 

[Venetia]

BOO DEONTOLOGY!

I won't say Kant had all bad ideas, though. When I was on the debate team we actually had to study Critique of Practical Reason by Kant. Except I was lazy and only looked up a synopsis on all his theories in an encyclopedia. I won anyway :P. But that man certainly loved the flowery, extraneous vocabulary.

But I agree with you for your second/third statements ... However it's still not "just", per se.

 

[Grathea]

Can murder be justified? Of course. Please don't flame me or anything for this viewpoint... give me time to explain it.

Killing in self-defence or to prevent a worse outcome can be justified. Killing someone for a psychological rush (not that many people are likely to do this, but there are some psychopaths who this applies to) is difficult to justify.

To me, if killing someone has an immediate benefit that outweighs killing them, then it is indeed justifiable. I still maintain that it's very difficult to kill someone, though. To look into the eyes of a dying person, and to see the spark that drives them die... that's a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies.
If death is necessary, then it is justifiable. If it carries no great bonus for the species, then it isn't justifiable.
As to the death penalty for dangerous prisoners... I'd agree that if it's justifiable, then it's OK. Having lived the majority of my life in a country that did have the death penalty for certain unjustifiable acts such as terrorism, I agree that if the crime is beyond justifiability, then capital punishment is certainly acceptable.

Just my two cents.

 

[Actingman00]

I find it can be justified if it is self defense, like killed the terrorist with the baby or the man who killed your family and may kill you.

But killing someone you have in jail anyway is not justified. Which brings up the argument, "if he killed lots of people and would be in jail all his life anyway, don't you think he should be punished by dieing?".  Well if I was to be in jail all my life anyway, with no chance of being let out, I don't think I would like to live in there, so the death penalty may not be the best thing in the world, I wouldn't hate it if it happened.  But, I would hate living in jail all my life which could possibly be more of a punishment than dieing.

I'm glad I live in Canada

 

[___]

I'm not much interested in participating in the debate on this one but I think you should change your question to "Can killing a person (homicide) be justified?"  The word murder is loaded, it already implies an unjustified killing.  In common law, murder is homicide with malice aforethought.  A better question yet might be "is a justified homicide still murder?" E.g. even if you have a rationally describable and sensible reason to kill someone, is it still immoral.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Murder = The intentional killing of one or more individuals
Manslaughter = The unintentional killing of one or more individuals
If anything I should switch it to Murder/Manslaughter - since half of my examples and those talked about were in fact murder by the simplest of definitions : purposely cutting life.

 

[kaidus]

Abortion and war deaths != murder.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

How so?  Explain.
I can show you a thousand people who have said "Abortion Is Murder!!!" and have had giant rallies on it.  I can show you a thousand people who have said "War Is Murder!!!" and have had giant rallies on it.

It's funny how doctors at abortion clinics get spit on and called "baby killers" and "baby murderers" while soldiers coming home from a war get spit on and called "baby killers" and "baby murderers", but neither is murder.  It's a subjective question, but one that deserves a subjective answer.

Simple "I say so" arguments don't apply, at least back it up with your thoughts on the subject.

And no, I don't consider either "murder" on the degree of "unforgivable", but it's still killing. Any random debater very well might consider it an unforgivable act.  For me, I'm a prolifer who'll always vote for prochoice, and I wouldn't consider any person who had an abortion a killer, simply for the fact, but I acknowledge it was a death, and one caused by someone deliberately.  That is, by the very definition: murder.  Possibly not the mental terminology you or I would look at, but at least someone else could argue it a tad better at least.

 

[___]

That's why I suggested you change your terminology, due to murder's obvious and deeply rooted connotations.  We can all acknowledge a homicide when one person is killed by another, but the word "murder" implies something beyond that and I don't think you can easily or rightfully ignore. 

Even dictionary definitions see murder as more than the simple fact of one person killing another (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder), and that has been the standard for a long time through history.  Even in one of the earliest examples of written law against homicide in the Ten Commandments, in the original Hebrew there is a special word for the concept of "murder" as opposed to simple homicide (see http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/capunslap.htm, first Google result).  I think most likely you are in the minority in this discussion in assuming the word means only homicide, and therefore discussion can be better served if you bring your personal definition more in line with everyone else's at least for the sake of clarity in discussion.

And I'm still not interested in the question, so I'll leave it at that and let you fellahs start discussing with whatever choice of terminology you like.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime

Okay so murder with deliberate or premeditation - I guess you go to the abortion clinic and accidentally fall into the chair, and didn't mean to sit still while the doctor did his thing...
I'm not changing the name of the thread, someone'll always find a loophole.  Homicide strikes me as more barbaric than the word murder, someone would bitch that self defense isn't homicide - yet one thing I can prove one thousand times over.

People.  Call.  Those.  Who.  Have.  Or.  Do.  Abortions.  Murderers.
In. Court. They. Have. Been. Found. Guilty. Of. Murder. In. Dozens. Of. Countries.
Therefore you can group abortion under murder, if that was your thought.  It's not hard, it's done everyday.  So, forget what's murder okay, just take the damn act itself.  Semantics are only good if your a dead comedian.

 

[Yoshine]

yes murderers should die
think if you let them live they could escape jail and murder more people...

plus its just plain moral, if your kill senselessly you should die...

and it depends on circumstances if you kill to protect yourself or others from being killed
I  say it doesn't need court because you were acting of good and the
murderer was acting of evil, your not a murderer if you murder a murderer!

war is not murder it is protecting your country from... MURDERERS

and with abortion I'll say if its more than two months pregnant YES IT'S MURDER

 

[Mezmerize]

I only believe in a justified murder in honest self-defense. It all comes down to "Either he dies, or I die, and I sure as hell am not gonna go ahead and let him kill me just because I think murder is wrong."

Its human instinct to protect yourself. Its part of your drive to survive.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

war is not murder it is protecting your country from... MURDERERS

For which country?
Northcountry invades Southcountry. Northcountry it is said by Southcountry wants materials and certain trade routes so they can levy taxes on merchants.  According to Northcountry they are stopping the tyranny of Southcountry, who have killed thousands of their own citizens ruthlessly.  Naturally Southcountry claims those are evil people attempting a coup, they are military and they want to conquer and wrestle power away to turn the arms against those of another religion.  Lest not forget Northcoungry is allied with Westcountry, who is of a different religion - same religion the Southcountry would be rebels would want to "purge" simply for their faith.

Northcountry and Southcountry are different faiths, different people.  Is one being absolved then by your statement, or are they both protecting from "murderers"?