Can murder be justified?
- Thread starter sixtyandaquarter
- Start date
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Horrible example, but yeah I could actually spin it that way if I wanted to. Hitler was prospering his people, he was doing what was good for the world.
It can be done with any war. That's the point perhaps of the soldier/war example.
Confederacy wars with the Union for right of their own freedom, Union wars with the Confederacy for the freedoms of others.
America wars against Iraq and Afghanistan to protect native soil from terrorists. Those terrorists fight the world to protect their beliefs and family and neighbors.
Mongols goes to China, they do so to command trade routes, merchant treaties, and the like. China refuses, and arguments heat up. Eventually a bandit steals from a merchant, and war starts. Who was wrong? The Chinese for forcing the Mongols to live on outskirts and not allow themselves to trade, or the Mongol rogue who stole to feed his family and ended up starting a war that 30 years later would lead to the start of the Great Wall of China isolating everyone.
Any war is bias, absolutely, but the question is one attempting a biased answer.
It can be done with any war. That's the point perhaps of the soldier/war example.
Confederacy wars with the Union for right of their own freedom, Union wars with the Confederacy for the freedoms of others.
America wars against Iraq and Afghanistan to protect native soil from terrorists. Those terrorists fight the world to protect their beliefs and family and neighbors.
Mongols goes to China, they do so to command trade routes, merchant treaties, and the like. China refuses, and arguments heat up. Eventually a bandit steals from a merchant, and war starts. Who was wrong? The Chinese for forcing the Mongols to live on outskirts and not allow themselves to trade, or the Mongol rogue who stole to feed his family and ended up starting a war that 30 years later would lead to the start of the Great Wall of China isolating everyone.
Any war is bias, absolutely, but the question is one attempting a biased answer.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Then don't argue, your not winning and you are actually starting to spam the thread.
Guess what murder is in the dictionary as I said it, if you don't like it change the terminology in thousands of people's minds, or change it in my mind. Debate, or don't.
Guess what murder is in the dictionary as I said it, if you don't like it change the terminology in thousands of people's minds, or change it in my mind. Debate, or don't.
rpgmakerxp08
Member
Edited post. Death is inevitable, a lifetime in jail is the right punishment.
Dissonance
Member
In every option Sixty mentioned murder is justifiable, and even more cases. Murder is justifiable to bring about social change.
For example, let's look at the civil rights movement. Americans have been taught to think that blacks were slaves, and then Martin Luther King Jr. gave a flowery 'dream' speech, and then everybody loved each other. In actuality, 'I have a dream' didn't actually do anything but be a source of good sound bytes. Blacks had been protesting peacefully for equal rights for many, many years. Not only did people flat out ignore them, they kept killing them, raping them, exploiting them, and teaching their children to hate themselves. "Aw lookit dem cute little niggers out in the street, wanting 'equal rights'. Just ignore 'em, they'll go away." What got black people equal rights was not peaceful little marches, it was a large portion of the black community that had gotten fed up with their goverment ignoring them and popular culture shitting on them at every turn. They basically said "You want to ignore our peaceful protests? Fine. How about every time you kill one of us, we kill one of you? Every time you rape one of us, we kill one of you?" And they did it.
It was THIS that got blacks their equal rights, not some fluffy bullshit. It took the black community going militant and SCARING THE SHIT out of the upper class whites that got them their equal rights. And of course, this very movement has now been largely demonized in our own current culture - they were called the Black Panthers.
Real social change only happens if people die, and those groups wanting real social change need to realize that anything they do that's short of it is pretty much meaningless. When a social group is SO marginalized that every movement they make is viewed as negative, and their very existence is seen as disgusting - murder is a very justifiable tactic, because it's all they have left.
As for other instances where murder is justifiable - Our entire culture is built on us standing on the backs of third world nations. It's how we're so wealthy. When they get wealthier, we get poorer, so it's actually in our best interest to keep exploiting and killing people in other countries because it's how we can live so nicely.
For example, let's look at the civil rights movement. Americans have been taught to think that blacks were slaves, and then Martin Luther King Jr. gave a flowery 'dream' speech, and then everybody loved each other. In actuality, 'I have a dream' didn't actually do anything but be a source of good sound bytes. Blacks had been protesting peacefully for equal rights for many, many years. Not only did people flat out ignore them, they kept killing them, raping them, exploiting them, and teaching their children to hate themselves. "Aw lookit dem cute little niggers out in the street, wanting 'equal rights'. Just ignore 'em, they'll go away." What got black people equal rights was not peaceful little marches, it was a large portion of the black community that had gotten fed up with their goverment ignoring them and popular culture shitting on them at every turn. They basically said "You want to ignore our peaceful protests? Fine. How about every time you kill one of us, we kill one of you? Every time you rape one of us, we kill one of you?" And they did it.
It was THIS that got blacks their equal rights, not some fluffy bullshit. It took the black community going militant and SCARING THE SHIT out of the upper class whites that got them their equal rights. And of course, this very movement has now been largely demonized in our own current culture - they were called the Black Panthers.
Real social change only happens if people die, and those groups wanting real social change need to realize that anything they do that's short of it is pretty much meaningless. When a social group is SO marginalized that every movement they make is viewed as negative, and their very existence is seen as disgusting - murder is a very justifiable tactic, because it's all they have left.
As for other instances where murder is justifiable - Our entire culture is built on us standing on the backs of third world nations. It's how we're so wealthy. When they get wealthier, we get poorer, so it's actually in our best interest to keep exploiting and killing people in other countries because it's how we can live so nicely.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
As my old history teacher said, on February at that, "MLK had a dream, X had a solution". Just to show the militant can bring a change of good, that and I wanted to post that quote since BHM started.
The odd thing is murder may be the only solution or justifiable cause/result we have in the world today.
The odd thing is murder may be the only solution or justifiable cause/result we have in the world today.
The first one, I think I could take his life. It would haunt me, even though it shouldn't.
The second one, I would more than likely fire a shot close enough to either injure him, or just miss him. This would more than likely scare him into letting the kid go and running himself. I can always claim I sneezed >.> and if the kid got shot out of the mans surprise I would feel just horrible.
The third one we're taught that only God can judge.. But I don't believe in the bible ;p I'd sleep fine at night if he were to die. He's a sociopath and a menace to society.
I'm pregnant myself but I don't think it would be considered wrong in the slightest. Brainwaves don't start until after the first trimester so before that its not even human. Abortion is in the same pool as using a condom imo.
War is complicated. Take Americans right now who no doubt think they're being heroes when they're really just digging for oil. Blood for oil. Oil for blood.
I'm with Darwin on this one. Survival of the fittest. And harvey danger.. "Only stupid people are breeding" Pretty soon this worlds going to be an idiocracy ;( Like the movie.
The second one, I would more than likely fire a shot close enough to either injure him, or just miss him. This would more than likely scare him into letting the kid go and running himself. I can always claim I sneezed >.> and if the kid got shot out of the mans surprise I would feel just horrible.
The third one we're taught that only God can judge.. But I don't believe in the bible ;p I'd sleep fine at night if he were to die. He's a sociopath and a menace to society.
I'm pregnant myself but I don't think it would be considered wrong in the slightest. Brainwaves don't start until after the first trimester so before that its not even human. Abortion is in the same pool as using a condom imo.
War is complicated. Take Americans right now who no doubt think they're being heroes when they're really just digging for oil. Blood for oil. Oil for blood.
I'm with Darwin on this one. Survival of the fittest. And harvey danger.. "Only stupid people are breeding" Pretty soon this worlds going to be an idiocracy ;( Like the movie.
Dissonance
Member
kipani":3a052bbw said:
What
Please use quotes properly, that doesn't even make sense in this context.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Actually in most countries you are - s'long as your not in a corrupt region where you just killed someone important.
Self defense is in the law, and can be excusable for near any reason if you can show you were:
a) defending yourself while trying to not cause a mortal outcome to the best of your abilities
b) either had, or can fully create the doubt that you may have truly felt you had no other options
c) saving a sum of lives (generally hero's don't do jail time in many countries)
IE:
A man is attacking me, and he has a gun. He's not using it but he's beating me with a cudgel of sorts, and I can't get away. I actually have - at least here in the US - the legal right to grab that gun and shoot him given I can create the image for the court that it was my only option, if ever it was brought that far.
Likewise, another example, a man is attacking a woman. He pulls his gun out and he's got her on her knees turned away, the gun pointed to the back of her head execution style. Now if I just so happen to have a rock in hand, and am close enough, I could smash him in the head which may result in his death. If so, 99.9% of the time I'd be absolved of any criminal charges.
Now it's different if I was involved in an attempted murder - let's say I was helping the man in the last example who was about to execute this woman, and still managed to kill the bad guy and "save the day" after coming to my senses. I can easily be charged for attempted murder and even conspiracy and a slough of other things. Though, I would most likely not be charged with the murder of the gun holder. And because I had saved someone, chances are my other sentences would be a tad more lenient.
Self defense is in the law, and can be excusable for near any reason if you can show you were:
a) defending yourself while trying to not cause a mortal outcome to the best of your abilities
b) either had, or can fully create the doubt that you may have truly felt you had no other options
c) saving a sum of lives (generally hero's don't do jail time in many countries)
IE:
A man is attacking me, and he has a gun. He's not using it but he's beating me with a cudgel of sorts, and I can't get away. I actually have - at least here in the US - the legal right to grab that gun and shoot him given I can create the image for the court that it was my only option, if ever it was brought that far.
Likewise, another example, a man is attacking a woman. He pulls his gun out and he's got her on her knees turned away, the gun pointed to the back of her head execution style. Now if I just so happen to have a rock in hand, and am close enough, I could smash him in the head which may result in his death. If so, 99.9% of the time I'd be absolved of any criminal charges.
Now it's different if I was involved in an attempted murder - let's say I was helping the man in the last example who was about to execute this woman, and still managed to kill the bad guy and "save the day" after coming to my senses. I can easily be charged for attempted murder and even conspiracy and a slough of other things. Though, I would most likely not be charged with the murder of the gun holder. And because I had saved someone, chances are my other sentences would be a tad more lenient.
eharper256
Member
Well, justice is contextual.
If I kill the man that killed my family; I am just in my own eyes. Society would probably not consider it justice, and punish me accordingly.
If this occured at the same time; I return to my home to find the killer, and kill him, then its true that self defence or temporary insanity laws would perhaps counteract my punishment.
Similarily, societies own perception justice is warped and changes over time. 9/11 altered social perception of terrorism in america. WW2 altered social perception of genocide in the entire western world. It is in fact a barristers job to warp social perception of a crime enough so that their client is declared not guilty by a jury. (Barrister = Defence Lawyer)
Though we would like to think that we can be charitable and good willed to all, the eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth philosophy is very much more human. To kill in any of the situations 60&1/4 describes would perhaps be the natural reaction. Society, as a whole, however, teaches us to supress our natural urges, and places punishments for those who do not comply.
Ironically, animal training has proven that offering incentives is typically more effective than punishing a beast for an undesired action. I oft wonder if this could be applied to social control also. As in; rather than sending criminals to jail, we should instead offer annual tax refunds for not murdering anyone this year. It might sound crazy and stupid; but I suspect a perfect neo-capitalist society would probably do this.
It has, after all, been often noted that prisons are significant money sinks; as they cost alot to maintain (staffing, food, supplies, electricity). This is because human rights acts prevent them from ever reliving their glory days as medieval dungeons (now that you could be SCARED of). Not only that, but building a prison significantly reduces local land value. Nobody wants to live or work near one, after all.
I guess thats kind off topic though...oops...
If I kill the man that killed my family; I am just in my own eyes. Society would probably not consider it justice, and punish me accordingly.
If this occured at the same time; I return to my home to find the killer, and kill him, then its true that self defence or temporary insanity laws would perhaps counteract my punishment.
Similarily, societies own perception justice is warped and changes over time. 9/11 altered social perception of terrorism in america. WW2 altered social perception of genocide in the entire western world. It is in fact a barristers job to warp social perception of a crime enough so that their client is declared not guilty by a jury. (Barrister = Defence Lawyer)
Though we would like to think that we can be charitable and good willed to all, the eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth philosophy is very much more human. To kill in any of the situations 60&1/4 describes would perhaps be the natural reaction. Society, as a whole, however, teaches us to supress our natural urges, and places punishments for those who do not comply.
Ironically, animal training has proven that offering incentives is typically more effective than punishing a beast for an undesired action. I oft wonder if this could be applied to social control also. As in; rather than sending criminals to jail, we should instead offer annual tax refunds for not murdering anyone this year. It might sound crazy and stupid; but I suspect a perfect neo-capitalist society would probably do this.
It has, after all, been often noted that prisons are significant money sinks; as they cost alot to maintain (staffing, food, supplies, electricity). This is because human rights acts prevent them from ever reliving their glory days as medieval dungeons (now that you could be SCARED of). Not only that, but building a prison significantly reduces local land value. Nobody wants to live or work near one, after all.
I guess thats kind off topic though...oops...
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I hate when people say "defending your country" is justifiable because others brought it on themselves.
When unless you were viciously attacked, tried to make peace, were viciously attacked, and tried again to no response, it's not really ever that circumstance.
And even then...
When unless you were viciously attacked, tried to make peace, were viciously attacked, and tried again to no response, it's not really ever that circumstance.
And even then...
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I know what you meant.
I often respond to someone's wording rather than the idea behind it.
I often respond to someone's wording rather than the idea behind it.
Where I live, the following shit happens all the time.
Someone gets threatened with a knife, and therefore pushes the threatening guy. The police comes and the man who pushed has to pay, while the guy with the knife still runs free.
I would say Sweden is a pretty corrupt country.
Someone gets threatened with a knife, and therefore pushes the threatening guy. The police comes and the man who pushed has to pay, while the guy with the knife still runs free.
I would say Sweden is a pretty corrupt country.
sixtyandaquarter":26op5tdm said:
Woops, I entirely forgot that I posted in this topic. Anyway.
I meant to infer that my stance on the matter is that murder is wrong, however "kill" and "murder" posess key differences in their connotations, thereby suggesting that I felt killing was justifiable but murder wasn't. The post was made 19 days ago, and to be perfectly honest I can't imagine how I supposed anyone would get that out of "blardy blah != murder".
Anyways, I suppose I'll explain now. My view on killing (from a broad, generic perspective) is that it is only wrong if the victim is not a rational, autonomous agent (I use the term agent to prevent being questioned about my thoughts on aliens), and secondly; they have not given consent.
The first requirment is related to abortion (as well as vegetarianism and the likes). My view is that a developing child does not obtain the title "rational, autonomous agent" until late in the pregnancy, or as some studies would suggest, several months after birth. My reasoning for this is that they are not self-aware (ie. aware of themselves in a rational manner), and therefore do not have a concept of death. To clarfiy, the fact that they are not aware of themselves means they cannot be aware of a lack of themselves, or the implications of it. Of course there are a thousand and one lines of argument one could present in opposition to that, and if anyone chooses to I will happily retort.
Anyway, onto the second requirment (related to euthanasia, war, suicide). I have a very liberal stance on the degree to which personal freedom should be allowed. I believe that a rational person should be granted entire control and choice over the actions and occurances involving their own body. If a man chooses to end his own life, the state or any outside agent/party have no right to intervention. The man's mental state may be called into question, however this is not directly related to the matter and therfore I won't go into any depth. With regards to war, I believe that when a man signs up to the military he makes an agreement (whether it is mentioned in the contract to prevent anguished family trying to claim justice over his killer or not I do not know, but I feel the same either way) to both risk his life, and intentionally endanger the lives of others, in the event of a war. I see it as there being a mutual agreement both oppositions that they are there to fight and to kill, and the result should include no blame to either.
So yeah..