Philosophical Discussion #5: Is a sanctioned killing immoral?

[Times Roman]

Think about it. We are taught at a very young age that killing is wrong. One should never take another's life. And then the government comes in and gives us a weapon and tells us killing is OK. As long as we only kill those who the government says is OK to kill. But if our killing is NOT sanctioned, then killing is wrong.

Make sense?

So our government gets to decide, not us, who gets killed.

Sometimes our government tells us to kill so the government can control oil.

Sometimes our government tells us to kill so the government can control how we think.

Who decides morality? Our government?

Is there ever a justified killing?

From a morality perspective, what difference does it make if the government sanctions a killing? Isn't it still killing? Isn't it still wrong?

[--->>405<<---]

good topic TR.

curious to the basis of morality from which u ask these questions? someone who does not have a higher moral authority (GOD, allah, buddha, etc..) i would think would not necessarily be subject to what would be defined as "moral"if they chose not to participate or happened to disagree with the status quo..

it seems to me an individual as described above would be subject to the "morals" or his/her government, social, and cultural background, etc... of course then it seems to me that would only pertain if they valued their culture, govt, etc..

where would the authority come into play? if govt, it seems to me it would be a matter of legality, and if social or cultural then it would be dependent on other peoples' opinions??

[Times Roman]

good topic TR.

curious to the basis of morality from which u ask these questions? someone who does not have a higher moral authority (GOD, allah, buddha, etc..) i would think would not necessarily be subject to what would be defined as "moral"if they chose not to participate or happened to disagree with the status quo..

it seems to me an individual as described above would be subject to the "morals" or his/her government, social, and cultural background, etc... of course then it seems to me that would only pertain if they valued their culture, govt, etc..

where would the authority come into play? if govt, it seems to me it would be a matter of legality, and if social or cultural then it would be dependent on other peoples' opinions??

all too often, people in our culture confuse morality and legality. They think that if a certain action is legal, then you are g2g. This becomes extremely obvious with attorneys and matters of law. And during times of war.

[--->>405<<---]

^^ if you have no moral authority, where does the morality come from?

personally i believe in war you have to kill because someone is trying to kill you. my moral authority tells me i have to be subject to governing authorities.... to a point of course, it does not say to a point, but i believe it is understood and substantiated elsewhere as i have been taught but do not possess the knowledge to defend at this time. i would prefer not getting into a micro-debate as to the legitimacy of my beliefs.

if i am a soldier and i am told to go to war, then it is my duty to go whether i agree with the reason or not. once over there and a guy in front of me points a gun at me, i believe i then have the right to shoot the mf'er!

naturally there may be extenuating circumstances that could be grounds for disobedience/insubordination.. life is not lived in a vacuum

[Times Roman]

it's one thing to defend your country against foreign invaders.

Quite another to go to someone else's country and do your killing there.

in today's military, all are volunteers, and so the argument that it is your duty may hold somewhat.

But what happens if you do NOT volunteer, and are told to go to a foreign country and kill the people that live there for economic reasons, like oil?

[DAAS]

Its all a balance.
From a moral stand point, I think no matter what killing is only acceptable when DEFENDING from an attacking force. Weather it be at your home or for a country. Morally I think even lethal injection for criminals is wrong.

But like I said its a balance. We can't let criminals get away, and we can't afford to keep them all imprisoned. Also if we don't "crusade" we risk being at the whim of more powerful countries who do. So if you're a solder killing for your country, who is invading on a "crusade" then morally its wrong to kill, however necessary it may be. But its a balance. Tough question. I think most solders don't believe they're fighting for their country, because even they do not think our government is in the right. They fight for they man next to them, their brother in arms. And I think that is honorable, even if it is immoral.

[trikydik]

ask the question this way... if you can save thousands by killing 1 is it moral? What about saving 6 million Jews by killing Hitler? 4 million Cambodians by killing Pol Pot? 40 million Soviets by killing Stalin?

Who would argue killing any of these 3 men would not be moral?

[Times Roman]

ask the question this way... if you can save thousands by killing 1 is it moral? What about saving 6 million Jews by killing Hitler? 4 million Cambodians by killing Pol Pot? 40 million Soviets by killing Stalin?

Who would argue killing any of these 3 men would not be moral?

Personally, I think killing may be justified as the lesser of two evils.

I am not a pacifist, and I believe in my second amendment rights. And I will kill to defend my family or my home/community.

But is it ok to go to war, as we did in the last couple of wars, to defend our oil supply, or to "finish" unfinished family business?

[thisAngelBites]

Ah, I know it's not raising hackles like the tranny thread, but I'll bite.

Governmental sanction has no bearing on the morality or immorality of any action, it only addresses the consequences, meaning whether an act is punishable or not.

And there is no necessary intersection between law and morality. Just consider that we could refer to a particular law as a bad law. If making a law conferred some moral weight to to the underlying proposition, the phrase 'bad law' would be incoherent, and yet we speak of bad laws all the time. I think mandatory seat belt laws are bad laws, as an example.

And yes, I think there are surely justified killings. Ending the life of someone who wants their life ended is justified, on my view.

So our government gets to decide, not us, who gets killed.

Sometimes our government tells us to kill so the government can control oil.

Who decides morality? Our government?

Is there ever a justified killing?

From a morality perspective, what difference does it make if the government sanctions a killing? Isn't it still killing? Isn't it still wrong?

[cgi]

Killing is only justified in self defense. End of discussion.

[Times Roman]

Ah, I know it's not raising hackles like the tranny thread, but I'll bite.

Governmental sanction has no bearing on the morality or immorality of any action, it only addresses the consequences, meaning whether an act is punishable or not.

And there is no necessary intersection between law and morality. Just consider that we could refer to a particular law as a bad law. If making a law conferred some moral weight to to the underlying proposition, the phrase 'bad law' would be incoherent, and yet we speak of bad laws all the time. I think mandatory seat belt laws are bad laws, as an example.

And yes, I think there are surely justified killings. Ending the life of someone who wants their life ended is justified, on my view.

totally agree, but hadn't considered in the context of this discussion. "Blind spot"

Thanks for pointing that out.

[cgi]

totally agree, but hadn't considered in the context of this discussion. "Blind spot"

Thanks for pointing that out.

That's not really killing though. That's assisted suicide. They are killing themselves via someone else.

[dk94]

I support capital punishment but only in the most heinous of situations. For people that rape and murder children, the type of people that have no possibility of being rehabilitated and whos actions were just too morally reprehensible.

Regarding the alleged terrorists being hit by drone strikes in yemen and pakistan with out trial, i am against it, but sadly my reason is because of the large amount of money these operations cost taxpayers. I acknowledge the hypocrisy in my statement and views, i demand fair trial for all Americans regarding any issue no matter how minute but sit back and watch as people are being executed over seas. Very good topic, very thought provoking

[Times Roman]

I support capital punishment but only in the most heinous of situations. For people that rape and murder children, the type of people that have no possibility of being rehabilitated and whos actions were just too morally reprehensible.

Regarding the alleged terrorists being hit by drone strikes in yemen and pakistan with out trial, i am against it, but sadly my reason is because of the large amount of money these operations cost taxpayers. I acknowledge the hypocrisy in my statement and views, i demand fair trial for all Americans regarding any issue no matter how minute but sit back and watch as people are being executed over seas. Very good topic, very thought provoking

I have mixed emotions about capital punishment.
1) it does not deter crime.
2) it should be swift and certain. Instead, it is a painfully slow process, costing the tax payers millions in mandatory appeals.
3) it usually does not provide significant closure to the families of the victims.

Additionally, the concept of "cruel and unusual" as it applies to punishment is unsatisfactory in my opinion.
1) Rapists should have their offending sex organs removed, allowing testosterone levels to plummet and reduce the severity and frequency of their aggressive behaivor. Some may continue to find other outlets for their compulsions, but it will no longer involve their sex organ. The term rapist needs to be refined and assigned a hierarchical rating system. The worst offenders are rated a 1 on a 5 scale. An 18 year old boy with his 16 year old girlfriend would be given a 5 (lowest). This remedy would only apply to the more extreme offenders. Not the statutory offender that is only a few years different than his GF.
2) Serial killers need to be put down immediately. Let's not dick around by thinking someone that has killed many multiple people is redeemable. They are not. I don't care if they were traumatized in their youths. I can't change the past. I can prevent others from being killed by this monster.

There are a variety of non standard punishments we can dish out to this anti socials. These are just a few I've considered over the years.

[dk94]

I would argue that no punishment deters crime or any non criminal offense. People that plan their crimes dont think theyre get caught and people who commit crimes out of emotion are not thinking of the consequences.
When there is undeniable forensic evidence, clear crisp undeniable video evidence or an un coerced confession, the appeals should be limited to one. It shouldnt cost more to execute than to house an inmate for life.

[Rwy]

I think more people should be put to death but not the way the current system is enforced.

[Times Roman]

I would argue that no punishment deters crime or any non criminal offense. People that plan their crimes dont think theyre get caught and people who commit crimes out of emotion are not thinking of the consequences.
When there is undeniable forensic evidence, clear crisp undeniable video evidence or an un coerced confession, the appeals should be limited to one. It shouldnt cost more to execute than to house an inmate for life.

and I think the current "three strikes" system backfired. Criminals with two strikes already have nothing to lose, and may choose to do anything it takes to avoid arrest, including killing others to escape. But... I have not reviewed the statistics to back up my claim. Just empirical observations and the BS I see on TV

[Chicagotarsier]

1. Killing vs Assassination. Separate that in the topic. Political agenda killing is bogus and why I left the military. I want no part of that moral dumpster fire. Winning a war is about conquering the people.

2. Killing is Nature's way of culling the heard. People go through the day with their head in the clouds and act like Survival of the Fittest is just a joke. I find it a far greater travesty to not know HOW to shoot a gun than to shoot it too many times.

3. Americans in general are oblivious to killing. They become ignorant and do what they can to "not see it" and accept any reason that allows them to cope. I am one that thinks the Trade Towers were demolition and it all was part of an insurance scheme and robbery plan. The proof is pretty clear when you review the chemistry residue and the fact a building that took no structural damage managed to fall on its own. Americans want to think their government is beyond this type of thing. There was a reason Hitler targeted the Jews in Germany and it was because they had no morality or sense of humanity...just greed and take whatever was not tied down or they could force others into. Due to marketing and propaganda it is Oh poor pitiful Jews....do your research and see what they were doing in the banking system at that time and it is a different picture. Moral of the Jew story: Thinking the government is going to protect you when the S*** hits the fan is a bad idea. Americans still think WWII was over the unjustified killing of Jews..lmao. Fn hilarious.

Saying all of that to say this. There are two sets of rules. Those for the rich and powerful and those for the not rich and powerful. Stallworth runs over a guy and kills him while driving fdrunk and the court says because he was not in a crosswalk Dante had limited liability and he spends less than 90 days in jail.....because he paid off the family and cut a deal...all because he was able to pay off the groups involved. Killing is the only equalizer the poor have and when they become bad at it the government has its way with the sheeple.

[Chicagotarsier]

So, allow the other side to build superior force and then die while fighting that force.

Killing is only justified in self defense. End of discussion.

[Times Roman]

1. Killing vs Assassination. Separate that in the topic. Political agenda killing is bogus and why I left the military. I want no part of that moral dumpster fire. Winning a war is about conquering the people.

2. Killing is Nature's way of culling the heard. People go through the day with their head in the clouds and act like Survival of the Fittest is just a joke. I find it a far greater travesty to not know HOW to shoot a gun than to shoot it too many times.

3. Americans in general are oblivious to killing. They become ignorant and do what they can to "not see it" and accept any reason that allows them to cope. I am one that thinks the Trade Towers were demolition and it all was part of an insurance scheme and robbery plan. The proof is pretty clear when you review the chemistry residue and the fact a building that took no structural damage managed to fall on its own. Americans want to think their government is beyond this type of thing. There was a reason Hitler targeted the Jews in Germany and it was because they had no morality or sense of humanity...just greed and take whatever was not tied down or they could force others into. Due to marketing and propaganda it is Oh poor pitiful Jews....do your research and see what they were doing in the banking system at that time and it is a different picture. Moral of the Jew story: Thinking the government is going to protect you when the S*** hits the fan is a bad idea. Americans still think WWII was over the unjustified killing of Jews..lmao. Fn hilarious.Saying all of that to say this. There are two sets of rules. Those for the rich and powerful and those for the not rich and powerful. Stallworth runs over a guy and kills him while driving fdrunk and the court says because he was not in a crosswalk Dante had limited liability and he spends less than 90 days in jail.....because he paid off the family and cut a deal...all because he was able to pay off the groups involved. Killing is the only equalizer the poor have and when they become bad at it the government has its way with the sheeple.

I find this comment very distasteful. And a reflection as to your character. You will not last long on this board. I will not tolerate the BS hatred you spew.

Take a hike jerk

---Roman

[Chicagotarsier]

But who watches the enforcers of this? A US senator is trafficking guns and supporting terrorists and gets off via a loophole that he managed due to the laws he put in play. At some point the system failed in all of that and about everything else with that. I am all for punishing people quickly and with much prejudice but not in a system where the jury system fails. Pick a black jury and OJ walks. How did that happen? OJ paid it to happen. The system is too imperfect to support punishment with quick resolve.... this is just my opinion.

I would argue that no punishment deters crime or any non criminal offense. People that plan their crimes dont think theyre get caught and people who commit crimes out of emotion are not thinking of the consequences.
When there is undeniable forensic evidence, clear crisp undeniable video evidence or an un coerced confession, the appeals should be limited to one. It shouldnt cost more to execute than to house an inmate for life.

[Chicagotarsier]

Also, how do you maintain order when a certain minority group feels anything where a white person hurts a black is totally unjustified but where a black hurts a white or anyone is totally justified? Do you have the military set up to hold law on this? I would but that would lead to martial law and hurt the system far more than expediting the punishment. I do agree with your point of view but the current state of the Union would have to change drastically and politicis as we know it go away.

I would argue that no punishment deters crime or any non criminal offense. People that plan their crimes dont think theyre get caught and people who commit crimes out of emotion are not thinking of the consequences.
When there is undeniable forensic evidence, clear crisp undeniable video evidence or an un coerced confession, the appeals should be limited to one. It shouldnt cost more to execute than to house an inmate for life.

[dk94]

Jews have no sense of humanity.. they invented drip irrigation which makes it possible for people in arid lands to grow crops, who may other wise go hungry. Recently a jew invented a machine that creates clean drinking water out of thin air using only 3 cents of electricity to produce 1L of water. Invented the polio vaccine, chemo therapy, the Artificial Kidney Dialysis machine, the Defibrillator, the Cardiac Pacemaker, Vaccination against Hepatitus B, the Vaccinating Needle, all inventions that took some one deeply concerned with humanity on a global scale to conceive. they make up 23% of individual nobel prize winners while only being .25% of the worlds population.

Take your ignorant comments elsewhere, this was a good conversation with no one attacking specific groups or preaching hate

[Hazard]

What hitler did was incredibly evil..... I don't find it remotely okay to even try to justify it. It's just poor taste man c'mon. I understand the point you're trying to get across but it seems like you're suggesting that they deserved it. You can't blame a group of people for a handful.....

[austinite]

Well this got out of control quickly. Anyone suggesting that genocide is acceptable for any reason is delusional. Embarrassing thoughts, to say the least.

[thisAngelBites]

I find it a far greater travesty to not know HOW to shoot a gun than to shoot it too many times.

Not at all intending to be the word police, but just in the name of understanding what you are trying to say, I'm going to assume you mean 'tragedy', not 'travesty' since travesty means a poor imitation of something which is often mocking or absurd, and since it doesn't make sense in the context of what you wrote, I suspect you meant tragedy.

But in all seriousness, you think it is worse to be unskilled in shooting than it is to kill people with a gun? Perhaps that is just a hyperbolic statement intended to convey that you think it is extremely important that people know how to shoot a gun, but if you mean it literally, it's laughable.

There was a reason Hitler targeted the Jews in Germany and it was because they had no morality or sense of humanity...

The person who thinks it is better to be someone who kills people than someone who does not know how to use a gun is now an expert on morality and humanity? And what about the immorality (not to mention poor reasoning) of concluding an entire group of people is completely homogeneous? To make sweeping statements that any one group of people is with or without any particular trait or virtue is so ridiculous as to not be worth any serious response.

just greed and take whatever was not tied down or they could force others into. Due to marketing and propaganda it is Oh poor pitiful Jews....do your research and see what they were doing in the banking system at that time and it is a different picture. Moral of the Jew story: Thinking the government is going to protect you when the S*** hits the fan is a bad idea. Americans still think WWII was over the unjustified killing of Jews..lmao. Fn hilarious.

And now you show you know fvck all about history. First of all, throughout most of history, jews have been forbidden to own land, so they could not make livings via farming and that sort of thing. Secondly, christians established trade guilds that were exclusive to christians, so many jews were forced out of trades and many areas of commerce. Then the church forbade christians to lend money to people and charge interest (and back then people actually followed church rules), which had the practical effect of people not lending money. People needed to borrow money then, as they do now, to finance all sort of things, like wars and for many personal reasons. I suppose it's all marketing and propaganda however, and it's just down to the jews being immoral.

[thisAngelBites]

I have mixed emotions about capital punishment.
1) it does not deter crime.
2) it should be swift and certain. Instead, it is a painfully slow process, costing the tax payers millions in mandatory appeals.
3) it usually does not provide significant closure to the families of the victims.

Additionally, it appears to not be meted out in a fair way with regards to sex or race. AND there have been cases of people destined for execution where evidence has come to light that exonerates them. I think it's fairly certain that people innocent of the crime of which they were convicted are sometimes put to death.

[jimmyinkedup]

1. Killing vs Assassination. Separate that in the topic. Political agenda killing is bogus and why I left the military. I want no part of that moral dumpster fire. Winning a war is about conquering the people.

2. Killing is Nature's way of culling the heard. People go through the day with their head in the clouds and act like Survival of the Fittest is just a joke. I find it a far greater travesty to not know HOW to shoot a gun than to shoot it too many times.

3. Americans in general are oblivious to killing. They become ignorant and do what they can to "not see it" and accept any reason that allows them to cope. I am one that thinks the Trade Towers were demolition and it all was part of an insurance scheme and robbery plan. The proof is pretty clear when you review the chemistry residue and the fact a building that took no structural damage managed to fall on its own. Americans want to think their government is beyond this type of thing. There was a reason Hitler targeted the Jews in Germany and it was because they had no morality or sense of humanity...just greed and take whatever was not tied down or they could force others into. Due to marketing and propaganda it is Oh poor pitiful Jews....do your research and see what they were doing in the banking system at that time and it is a different picture. Moral of the Jew story: Thinking the government is going to protect you when the S*** hits the fan is a bad idea. Americans still think WWII was over the unjustified killing of Jews..lmao. Fn hilarious.

Saying all of that to say this. There are two sets of rules. Those for the rich and powerful and those for the not rich and powerful. Stallworth runs over a guy and kills him while driving fdrunk and the court says because he was not in a crosswalk Dante had limited liability and he spends less than 90 days in jail.....because he paid off the family and cut a deal...all because he was able to pay off the groups involved. Killing is the only equalizer the poor have and when they become bad at it the government has its way with the sheeple.

Spew you hatred and prejudice elsewhere. So what , justifiable genocide? People like you make me sick.

[Times Roman]

Additionally, it appears to not be meted out in a fair way with regards to sex or race. AND there have been cases of people destined for execution where evidence has come to light that exonerates them. I think it's fairly certain that people innocent of the crime of which they were convicted are sometimes put to death.

This is more common than we care to admit. There are documented cases in Texas where it was discovered "too late" that someone put to death was not guilty of their crime.

I'm not anti-capital punishment in any way. But I think we need to rebalance the system we have somehow. Unfortunately, I'm not sure right at the moment how to do that.

[Times Roman]

Not at all intending to be the word police, but just in the name of understanding what you are trying to say, I'm going to assume you mean 'tragedy', not 'travesty' since travesty means a poor imitation of something which is often mocking or absurd, and since it doesn't make sense in the context of what you wrote, I suspect you meant tragedy.

But in all seriousness, you think it is worse to be unskilled in shooting than it is to kill people with a gun? Perhaps that is just a hyperbolic statement intended to convey that you think it is extremely important that people know how to shoot a gun, but if you mean it literally, it's laughable.



The person who thinks it is better to be someone who kills people than someone who does not know how to use a gun is now an expert on morality and humanity? And what about the immorality (not to mention poor reasoning) of concluding an entire group of people is completely homogeneous? To make sweeping statements that any one group of people is with or without any particular trait or virtue is so ridiculous as to not be worth any serious response.



And now you show you know fvck all about history. First of all, throughout most of history, jews have been forbidden to own land, so they could not make livings via farming and that sort of thing. Secondly, christians established trade guilds that were exclusive to christians, so many jews were forced out of trades and many areas of commerce. Then the church forbade christians to lend money to people and charge interest (and back then people actually followed church rules), which had the practical effect of people not lending money. People needed to borrow money then, as they do now, to finance all sort of things, like wars and for many personal reasons. I suppose it's all marketing and propaganda however, and it's just down to the jews being immoral.

Angel,

I'm glad we are on the same team! =)

You are an intellectual steam roller

You go girl!

---Roman

[thisAngelBites]

I'm not anti-capital punishment in any way. But I think we need to rebalance the system we have somehow. Unfortunately, I'm not sure right at the moment how to do that.

Agreed. It's very difficult and complicated, as are most things that intelligent people disagree about, as it can be difficult to make rules/laws that state things generally that deal with the many shades of grey that appear in real life in the way we would like.