Quote from: maledoro on Jun 24, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
Not if the killer doesn't know right from wrong.
Those people would be insane and/or extreme sociopaths. The end result, extremely negative, without question. But if it's being done without any kind of predatory intent... That's why laws generally make an exception for those types of people and put them in psychological institutions instead of subjecting them to the type of disicplinary measures reserved for everyone else. A child - or even chimpanzee - who doesn't understand the impact of shooting a gun at someone? It's not the same as a serial killer who's pursuing that course of action for sadistic thrills.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jun 24, 2013, 02:05:09 AM
I'm not talking about "good" or "bad/evil" at all, because I think that is completely irrelevant when you talk about killing people. I'm just saying that killing is killing and that trying to justify certain killings really opens up a bunch of can of worms.
Isn't that what this debate is about, though?
The ethical considerations of a killer's motivations are the only way we can really differentiate. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the option of ruling manslaughter.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 24, 2013, 02:36:11 AM
There's no right side to murder. Ever. I'm sorry but that's true. Killing may be necessary but that doesn't make it right. Heck, even in times of war, the rules of engagement dictate that someone not be killed in cold blood (of course that's never considered in reality but I'm just throwing it out there).
How is standing up to tyranny not a justifiable use of it? Or defending the defenceless? Or helping someone to die peacefully, to avoid a much more agonising, perhaps even prolonged, different form of death? Or killing an animal to feed a starving family?
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather that we didn't live in a world where any of that ever needed to happen, but that's the reality of life. Those situations can and will continue to crop up. When and where they do, we need to be able to make a distinction between someone who acted in, say, self-defence and had no other option, as opposed to a real-life Hannibal Lecter (or those who commit murder more indirectly, such as Stalin). We can't simply box everyone together and say they're all 'just as bad' as one another.
Remember, sometimes inaction has a much greater, negative consequence than taking action.
Would it have been better, in hindsight, to have taken out the Nazi regime when it became obvious that it had global domination in mind, rather than waiting? Absolutely. Many, many more lives would have been saved and things like the death camps could have been largely, if not completely, avoided.
