1. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    10 Jan '14 19:03
    Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Jan '14 19:22
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
    If someone is actively attempting to kill me, I'd say the situation is morally neutral as to which one of us dies.
  3. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    10 Jan '14 19:371 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
    If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

    *"is there any other kind?"
  4. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    10 Jan '14 19:49
    Originally posted by JS357
    If someone is actively attempting to kill me, I'd say the situation is morally neutral as to which one of us dies.
    I'd say it is morally awesome if he dies, and morally screwed up if my attacker kills me.
  5. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    10 Jan '14 19:511 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

    *"is there any other kind?"
    There's the danger of being bitten by an ant vs. a tarantula. One is grave; the other, not so much.
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    10 Jan '14 20:03
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    There's the danger of being bitten by an ant vs. a tarantula. One is grave; the other, not so much.
    Take it to Colonel Nathan R. Jessup spanky.


    ...or the Lord our God.
  7. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    10 Jan '14 20:28
    Originally posted by divegeester
    If the person has come into my house and is a threat to me or my family, I would say their life is in grave* danger.

    *"is there any other kind?"
    Classic.
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jan '14 20:58
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
    Yes. Why do you ask?
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    11 Jan '14 00:011 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Colonel Nathan R. Jessup.
    Psssst... (I'm frankly shocked that I know what you're talking about here, although I've never seen the movie.

    Is it as drenched in testosterone as I've heard? Meaning I may not have a snowball's chance of understanding it?

    Much like another Cruise movie, Top Gun. Hated it.)
  10. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    11 Jan '14 10:55
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Yes. Why do you ask?
    It related to a discussion I was having elsewhere. I was surprised at how many people were able to justify taking a human life depending on circumstances and wondered if that was a general tendency. Looks like it might be.
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    11 Jan '14 11:461 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    It related to a discussion I was having elsewhere. I was surprised at how many people were able to justify taking a human life depending on circumstances and wondered if that was a general tendency. Looks like it might be.
    Hmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
    wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.


    I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.

    First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid doing
    it.

    However, where circumstances lead to a situation where not killing a human or humans
    would lead to greater harm than not killing them then I would contend that the best
    moral choice in that circumstance is to choose the lesser evil and kill the person/s.

    And the example/argument I give goes like this.


    In the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics Surface to Air Missiles [SAM] were deployed around
    London as a defence against people flying planes into the Olympic stadiums during the games.

    For it to be morally correct that it is never ok to kill another human being in any circumstances
    then it would have to be the case, that if there was a terrorist hijacked plane heading in towards
    the Olympic main stadium during the opening ceremony when it was full to brimming with
    50,000 people, Reveal Hidden Content
    [and for our purposes here you know beyond reasonable doubt that the plane is hijacked and being flown at the stadium]
    that the morally best choice is to allow the plane to fly into the stadium
    and not to shoot it down. Now lets say that this plane is a cargo plane, and has nobody
    [alive] on-board who isn't a terrorist.

    So to come to the moral conclusion that you can't shoot down the plane...
    You have to conclude that it's as bad, or more likely worse, to kill the [lets say] 5 people
    on the plane than it is to allow the plane to hit the stadium and kill tens of thousands.

    I don't think it's possible to justify not shooting down the plane in the above circumstance.
    It cannot be the case that it's better to allow thousands of people to die at the hands of a few
    simply to avoid killing the few.

    Once you then accept that there are extreme circumstances where it is morally right to kill, then
    the discussion is not IF it's sometimes ok to kill but WHEN.

    That's a much more complicated question, on which there is much disagreement.

    If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.
  12. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    11 Jan '14 19:48
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Hmmm. Ok, well I would suspect that the number of people who believe it is never
    wrong to take a human life under any circumstances are going to be a small minority.


    I can't speak for everyone, but I can give my reasons for not being a part of that minority.

    First, Killing a human being is a bad thing, we should try if at all possible to avoid ...[text shortened]... is much disagreement.

    If you disagree with the above, then i would be fascinated to know why.
    Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
  13. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    11 Jan '14 20:16
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
    Why? I could understand it if it would trouble you if there were some hostages on the plane.

    And I would prefer not to have to kill the terrorists.

    But why would the conclusion that it was the right thing to do trouble you?
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    11 Jan '14 22:42
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Assuming that you know the plane is under terrorist control and heading towards the stadium, then yeah, I guess shooting down the plane looks like the right course of action. That conclusion troubles me though.
    It could be argued that that's a good thing, that the sign of being one of the
    'good guys' is that even when your enemy is trying to kill you and those that
    you love and care about you still don't WANT to kill them.

    If I was faced with the situation I outlined I would shoot the plane down.
    I would feel really bad about it, and really pissed that the terrorists had put me
    in a position where the only morally correct option open to me was to kill them.

    And I would be really keen to make sure that neither I nor anyone else was put
    in that situation again.


    And as it turns out, part of the reason it was so widely advertised that we were
    deploying so much anti aircraft fire-power, with SAM sites and Interceptor fighters
    on ready alert, and aerial exclusion zones ect.. Is that by making it so hard to pull
    off an attack by air, we made it much less likely that any terrorists would try.

    Another variant of the "If you want peace then prepare for war" adage.



    Lets look at the issue another way.

    Lets say you are in your home at night, with kids upstairs, and someone breaks into
    your house and attacks you with a knife. They're bigger than you, and are armed.

    To say that it's never ok to kill someone is to say that if you defend yourself and
    end up killing your attacker doing so then you would be morally/legally at fault for doing so.
    That you are either just supposed to let them kill you, or to try to stop them without doing
    anything that might lead to them dying and thus massively increasing the chances they
    get past you to your kids upstairs.

    We should go to great lengths not to kill people, we should feel that it's wrong and
    constantly be on the lookout for alternatives.

    But I don't think it's possible to morally justify never killing anyone in any circumstance.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    12 Jan '14 01:49
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Is deliberately taking a human life ever the correct course of action?
    Sure, but only if Obama says so.

    However, if "W" or another Republican says so, they are murderous thugs.
Back to Top