Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

Do you want non-defensive, intentional killing of born, brain-alive humans to always be prohibited?

Yes, I want it to always be prohibited.
11
38%
No, I have exceptions. (Please explain.)
18
62%
 
Total votes: 29

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Wilson » September 24th, 2015, 4:22 pm

Ecurb, you're right in saying that if we start with a certain set of principles, then it's theoretically possible to have objective standards of morality. But of course not everyone is going to go along with those principles as constituting what morality is, and even if they did, not everyone will agree on the interpretation of those principles in a particular case. A more basic objective for morality could be: 1) that which decreases suffering and increases happiness, 2) that which benefits humanity, 3) that which benefits all sentient life, 4) that which helps humanity to survive, 5) that which increases the glory of God, that which follows the Quran or Bible best, ....... and so on and so on. Even if everyone agreed on one of those sets of principles as constituting morality, there will be infinitely many situations that aren't covered by those principles, and situations where an argument can be made on both sides of the question.

I do agree with most of what you wrote in that last post.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6994
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Greta » September 25th, 2015, 3:27 am

So Ecurb (as per earlier posts), do you think it's better to keep allowing hardened criminals to rape and bash less violent inmates than to execute the main perpetrators and actually allow people in prison to rehabilitate? Segregating the most dangerous and irredeemable of them is not possible economically. Putting them in solitary is considered to be torture.

So instead, we sit on our hands and allow torture to be perpetrated on less violent inmates by prison predators. In that way we can convince ourselves that our hands are clean. They are not - far from it. People are killing themselves, being broken, being turned dangerous inside prison - but since the damage is not state sanctioned then it's apparently not our fault. It IS our fault - the fault of our weakness and squeamishness. By failing to commit lesser atrocities we facilitate greater atrocities still.
This space left intentionally blank.

Iapetus
Posts: 372
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Iapetus » September 25th, 2015, 7:25 am

Reply to Ecurb:

Our little conversation started when you offered a comment about evil in relation to an exchange I was having with Wilson, based on our mutual acceptance that subjective morality was all that existed. You stated, “This notion of evil differs from the standard Christian (and hence Western) approach”.

Yes, I am aware of that. But we were discussing on the basis of a different assumption. I am also aware that the ‘standard Christian approach’ is, in fact, not all that standard. I am aware that there are protestants and catholics and numerous subgroups, all with differing beliefs. I am also aware that there are sunni, shia and kharijite muslims, with many subgroups. And sikhs, hindus, buddhists and so on. I really do appreciate that there are people who think differently from me.

I was, however trying to develop an argument based on one particular assumption - subjective morality - and I tried to explain this when I said, “but I would appreciate a response in the context of my objections”. That is why I was not interested in a treatise about objective or absolute morality or the finer definitions of evil. I am perfectly happy to discuss them in other contexts.

With regard to your subsequent comments, I do find them more relevant and interesting. I tend to go along with you that considerations about the death penalty are rather more practical that moral, though I do think that the penal system we acquire says a lot about the characteristics of society. I would not, for example, feel any allegiance to a system which advocates torture and it strikes me that ten years on Death Row, with intermittent threats of execution followed by reprieval, is a peculiar but definite form of torture. I could easily understand why prisoners might well prefer execution to permanent or indeterminate incarceration.

-- Updated September 25th, 2015, 7:45 am to add the following --

Reply to Greta:

I came in too late to engage in several discussions related to prison (lack of) reform – many led by you – but they were very interesting to read. I am not sure that further discussion on this thread is entirely relevant but I can certainly sympathise with your theme. Whilst I subscribe to the principle that a state should not resort to execution as a means of removing people from society, that state is not more ‘moral’ if, instead, it degrades prisoners and inculcates them into a deeper culture of crime. I agree that, “It IS our fault - the fault of our weakness and squeamishness. By failing to commit lesser atrocities we facilitate greater atrocities still”.

I don’t think it helps when people have in mind only their own particular national or state system. Circumstances vary, but we need to learn lessons from history and from other societies.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6994
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Greta » September 25th, 2015, 8:48 am

Iapetus wrote:Reply to Greta:

I came in too late to engage in several discussions related to prison (lack of) reform – many led by you – but they were very interesting to read. I am not sure that further discussion on this thread is entirely relevant but I can certainly sympathise with your theme. Whilst I subscribe to the principle that a state should not resort to execution as a means of removing people from society, that state is not more ‘moral’ if, instead, it degrades prisoners and inculcates them into a deeper culture of crime. I agree that, “It IS our fault - the fault of our weakness and squeamishness. By failing to commit lesser atrocities we facilitate greater atrocities still”.

I don’t think it helps when people have in mind only their own particular national or state system. Circumstances vary, but we need to learn lessons from history and from other societies.
Unfortunately, there's simply not enough resources available - and that can feasibly politically be made available - to provide proper rehabilitation, supervision and organisation of prisoners. Therefore, killing "the worst of the worst" would seem the least destructive option, and least likely to result in the harm of innocents and relative innocents.

Executing violent criminals who continue to terrorise others whilst behind bars would seem the most logical option in lieu of sufficient funding for rehab. In an ideal world the funding would be available, but I can't see it happening with so many other spending priorities and the media playing on people's vengeful instincts.
This space left intentionally blank.

Ecurb
Posts: 396
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Ecurb » September 30th, 2015, 11:15 am

Greta wrote:
I'll try again: some people in prison cause incredible harm to other inmates, who then carry that harm and anger out into the community. Why keep incorrigible thugs alive - the "worst of the worst" - who cannot heap but to spread their poison? Executing them would be kinder to all involved, other than the psychopath concerned and perhaps the executioners. Some people are simply too damaged and the choice is whether to kill them or let them spread their poison through prisons and into community. There is no inbetween option. Have you read accounts of brutalisation in prisons?
Rape and murder in prison are, no doubt, problems. However, it seems to me that we cannot execute people based on what they might do in the future, rather than on what they have done in the past. After all, perhaps some of those prisoners who are most likely to commit crimes in prison are imprisoned for shop-lifting or embezzlement. Are we going to give shop-lifters psychological tests, and then, if we find them dangerous to other prisoners, execute them?

No doubt one reason to imprison people is to separate them from society and protect the public. However, we have no right to imprison anyone MERELY because we think he is dangerous; he must have committed some crime that forfeits his right to freedom or we have no right to imprison him.

It seems to me, Greta, that your argument is dangerous. Perhaps (based on your notion of protecting prisoners) we should give ALL citizens psychological tests, and then lock up anyone we find dangerous to society, even those who have committed no crime. What's next? Lock up Fundamentalist Muslims because they might become terrorists?

If all you are advocating is that some crimes (like murdering a fellow prisoner or a guard while serving a long term in prison) should be uniquely punished with the firing squad, the noose, or the lethal injection, then I think your argument is reasonable (although I still disagree). If, on the other hand, you are advocating punishments designed to protect the public from future crimes, then you are headed down a slippery slope which might lead to sending innocent (although troubled) people to the gas chambers.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2923
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by LuckyR » October 1st, 2015, 11:05 am

Violence behind bars (as opposed to violence in the community) is what solitary confinement was invented for.

To put things in perspective if a prisoner passes back checks and goes to prison , then rapes another prisoner while incarcerated, let's be realistic, the punishment for neither check fraud nor rape is the death penalty.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Scott » December 12th, 2015, 2:12 pm

@Spiral Out, thank you for your reply.
Spiral Out wrote:I can answer "always" to all 6 questions since they are all based on the fundamental fallacy that life is inherently good and worth preserving, and the unfounded assertion that Humans deserve somewhat of a utopian existence.
How does that lead to an affirmative answer instead of a more nihilistic-tinged answer? If you aren't motivated to save lives let alone passively oppose in mere opinion the taking of lives, how are you motivated to actively take them or actively support the taking of them?

***

@Lagayscienza thank you for your reply.
Lagayscienza wrote:In principle I would say no, never, to all six questions. However, I'm sure someone could come up with some bizarre scenario that would make me question this initial response. But I still think it would be the thin edge of the wedge and that therefore we should not condone it.
I agree. I also think it's important to note that just because we support an ideal code of conduct in principle doesn't mean we would expect ourselves to follow that code in practice. Indeed, anyone who has struggled to keep a diet when staring down a delicious looking cake or pizza knows this first-hand.

What's scarier to me than a first person who in a blind rage kills a second person is a first person who even in a calm philosophical state of mind wants to hurt or kill people even hypothetically either out of outright sadism or some sort of religious-esque belief that it's metaphysically "good" or "just" or "ought to happen".

***

@Greta

Thank you for your replies. I am enjoying this discussion with you. (Please excuse the long breaks in my replies. I hope to only reply when I can take the time to carefully read, consider and reply to your comments in full.)
Greta wrote:... some people in prison cause incredible harm to other inmates, who then carry that harm and anger out into the community. Why keep incorrigible thugs alive - the "worst of the worst" - who cannot heap but to spread their poison? Executing them would be kinder to all involved[...]
Scott wrote:If for the sake of argument we accept your many premises, then the type of killing you describe is defensive not non-defensive.

However, not blindly accepting your premises, in real life it is often quite possible to defend people by using non-lethal force to temporarily incapacitate and lock up the dangerously psychologically abnormal in either (1) humanely run treatment centers where experts can try to rehabilitate them or (2) humanely run centers for the so-called criminally insane. Lack of consideration for all these other options creates nothing short of a false dichotomy fallacy.
Greta wrote:I do agree that the execution of "prison predators" is defensive in a broader sense.
That seems to be the key point, and we agree. So is there a scenario where you support non-defensive intentional killing? Or is your new answer to all six bolded questions in the OP "never"? (I know you included specific answers in your post which I appreciate, but with this new agreement about what qualifies as defensive, it could be that your 'sometimes' has turned into a 'never'. If not, then can you explain what the exceptions are and why, since the wouldbe exception listed above has been discounted as not being a case of intentional non-defensive killing.)
Greta wrote:Good luck getting funding for the rehab centres for "the worst of the worst".
You are correct that it would be hard if not impossible for me to stop the amount of non-defensive intentional killing in the world. So although I and many others may answer "never" to all 6 questions in the OP, that doesn't mean that politically in the real world we will have power to enact these policies. In fact, I doubt I will have the power to get pacifist marijuana users out of prison let alone this. But I can wish. :) In any case, it's kind of beyond the scope of this topic: it's politics not philosophy of politics.
Scott wrote: in real life it is often quite possible to defend people by using non-lethal force to temporarily incapacitate and lock up the dangerously psychologically abnormal in either (1) humanely run treatment centers where experts can try to rehabilitate them or (2) humanely run centers for the so-called criminally insane. Lack of consideration for all these other options creates nothing short of a false dichotomy fallacy.
Greta wrote:When I worked in corrective services each welfare officer was responsible for 500 inmates - and you think it's a "false dichotomy" to assume that money won't appear in the foreseeable future for expensive politically unpalatable facilities capable of rehabilitating or containing the very worst psychopaths in the prison system?
No; I think it is a false dichotomy to say we must choose only between (a) killing the person and (b) letting the person hurt or kill other people. That's because obviously we have option (c) which is some form of incarceration or confinement.

Moreover, philosophically structurally speaking, I think it's a false dichotomy in a philosophical discussion to apply the law of the excluded middle to disregard the existence of such an option.

The logic doesn't make sense, Greta. I say that philosophically I support Plan X and ask on the Philosophy Forum if others philosophically support it; and I wish to philosophically debate the pros and cons. The response in your post seems to me to be, No because most people don't support it and thus it can't be funded because they don't support so let's not support it. This is a strange combination of the begging the question fallacy and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Greta wrote:In an ideal world I'd be all for your suggestions[...]
Great! :) As for your other comments about the problem with getting everyone else on board to make it realistic, I'd love to continue that conversation in a different topic, perhaps named something like "In practice, how do we realistically stop intentional non-defensive killing [since we agree that that is the ideal]."

***

@Atreyu

Thank you for your reply! :)
Atreyu wrote:1. I would never support state-sponsored killing for revenge.

2. I could support an individual killing for revenge, depending on the original crime, although I would never say it was the "right" thing to do. Right or wrong, I fully support the elimination of low-lifes from society.
Isn't so plainly and simplistically supporting "the elimination of low-lifes from society" an exact summary of the Nazi philosophy?

Isn't it too subjective to be accepted as an answer on the Philosophy Forums? What if some group of strong people think that those who want to kill prisoners are themselves lowlifes?

Why do you never condone state-sponsored killing for revenge but do support individuals killing for revenge? What's don't you like about state-sponsored killing for revenge? What about when the mafia kills someone in revenge?
Atreyu wrote:3. I could support state-sponsored killing for utilitarian reasons depending on the circumstances. Again, I wouldn't call it the "right" thing to do, but if millions can be saved by killing a few dozen people, I can "give way to the state" in such a situation. However, I would never support the death penalty, since I oppose cloaking killing someone in "justice", and I've always said that "two wrongs do not make a right". If someone must be killed, it's the executive, not the judicial or legislative, branches of government that should do it, as in the case of a Navy Seal secretly eliminating a terrorist.
Killing a terrorist doesn't seem to be a form of non-defensive killing, right? Would you mind re-answering the questions with the emphasis on non-defensiveness in mind.
Scott wrote:My answer to all 6 questions is never. Frankly, I think non-defensive, intentional killing is a disgusting, barbaric practice that is most effectively dealt with using a zero tolerance policy and I see no convincing reason to make any exceptions for these few excuses.
Atreyu wrote:I think your position is rather narrow and inflexible, and sounds a bit self-righteous (no offense intended)....
Luckily, for me, calling a position self-righteous is not a valid philosophical rebuttal. The same goes for merely calling it narrow and inflexible. In fact, such statements are so utterly lacking in contrary argument or evidence that they seem to just be off-topic.
Atreyu in post #30 wrote:the usual justification I give for opposing [the death penalty] is simply: "two wrongs do not make a right". And this is merely an alternative way of saying that killing is only justified as a means of self-defense....
Your statements are contradicting. Is killing only "justified" as a means of self-defense or are some forms of intentional non-defensive killing "justified"?

***

@LuckyR

Thank you for your reply. :)

You made a great point about differences in the severity of illegality. Certainly, even if we outlaw all forms of intentional non-defensive killing, we have to have an understanding approach to dealing with the criminals who engage in some of the more debatable and understandable forms of non-defensive killing.

***

@ShrimpMaster

Thank you for your reply!

Abortion and animal rights are excluded from this particular topic, so regarding your comments on abortion I invite you to discuss abortion in my topic: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
ShrimpMaster wrote:Capital punishment is the only case where I think it is legitimate to take another persons life. I am a Christian and most people this this is contrary to biblical teaching, because Jesus taught forgiveness, etc... I see no contradiction with forgiving and individual and seeking justice in this life.
Why do you support capital punishment? Why do you make an exception for that form of intentional non-defensive killing? Can you answer all 6 questions from the OP since capital punishment might fall into more than one question depending on how it's defined and in what circumstances you support it. Since the motivation is ex hypothesi not defense, then it is important to explicitly state what the motivation of the intentional killing is.

Regarding the intentional conflict with Christianity, simply saying it doesn't conflict is not sufficient. Why do you think it doesn't conflict? For evidence of why it arguably does strongly conflict with Christianity, see the biblical quotes in the following post: Casting the First Stone ~ Do you love murderers?

What about when capital punishment is literally done by stoning? Do you support that too? Would you cast the first stone? Why or why not? If not you, then who would you want to cast the first stone?

***

@Grecorivera5150

Thank you for your reply. :)
Grecorivera5150 wrote:This quarry is very well written. As a general response you could use some democracy to approach the question. You could do robo call surveys to every phone in the county to to every email address attached to a public utility and provide a link to a video of the trial. Citizens would be able to claim an account created for them at an sanctioned online voting sight if they want to be a part of the voting process. They must click the link and run the video of the trial and then vote guilty or not guilty within a determined time frame after both sides rest their cases.
I don't understand this in regard to the OP. We aren't talking about how to get a conviction in a criminal trial. What's your answer to each of the 6 bolded questions in the OP?

***

@Chasw

Thank you for your reply. :) I don't think the example of killing an armed combatant in conflict is generally applicable to this discussion since this discussion is about non-defensive killing. What's your answer to each of the 6 bolded questions in the OP?

***

@LuckyR

Thank you for your reply. :) We both agree in that we both do not support the death penalty. What about the 6 bolded questions in the OP? Can you provide your answer for each of those?

***

@Iapetus

Thank you for your reply. :) Your post (#32) is very well-written and a great dissection of the discussion so far. However, you didn't include you answer to the 6 bolded questions in the OP. Will you please answer each of those?

Once we have both provided our respective answers we can see on which questions we agree and on which we disagree. We can then each provide evidence and argument to back up our different positions on whichever questions those happen to be, which of course may first require a little more mutual questioning to flesh out the exact points of disagreement.

***

Hi and thanks again, @Wilson . :)
Wilson wrote:Don't know if this was asked before, but does abortion count as intentional non-defensive killing?
That was addressed in the OP.

In this topic, abortion and animal rights have been excluded. If you want to discuss abortion, I invite you to discuss with me in my other topic Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
Wilson wrote:Some people, on the other hand, like Scott perhaps, don't see the worst criminals as less than human. They see them as "like us", flawed but not so different, and worthy of our sympathy. In the case of many murderers, I feel the same way. But someone who truly did something horrible and cruel to one or more people - there is a point beyond which the only emotion I feel toward him is anger. I'm not predisposed to feel sympathy.
Wilson, those are very wise words, in my opinion.

I imagine I could feel the same sympathy-suppressing anger and likely kill a person too. But doesn't that action contradict my position? Yes. Anyone who has had a diet and failed to keep it in the sight of pizza, cake or some delicious food can understand. Just as we falter in our diet of food, I am sure I would falter in my diet of behavior when under the duress of incredible anger. Sympathy becomes the metaphorical eyesight that is blinded when we are in a blind rage. What emotional Scott does in the heat of the moment isn't the same as what rational Scott philosophizes. Indeed, those who most give into their animalistic emotions are probably often the ones who we are here talking about executing. Let's hope we can have more self-control when emotional be it by anger or delicious looking food.

***


@Platonymous

Thank you for your reply. I'm glad to see you are in agreement about answer all six questions in the OP with never.
Platonymous wrote:Now, this however does not compare well to the questions at hand, for neither the utilitarian, nor the nationalist reasons are conclusive enough to say that the refusal to kill would result in more deaths. So here we actually have the clear choice to commit murder or not, but we don't have the choice to grant life, for that is only a possibility, not a fact.
That's a very wise point about the difference between the definite choice of becoming a murderer as opposed to to the mere possibility of hoping to achieve utility in consequences.

***

@Ecurb

Thank you for reply! :)
Ecurb wrote:This notion of evil differs from the standard Christian (and hence Western) approach.
The rest of your post contains some wise comments regarding Christianity and view on so-called evil, which I appreciate. However, in the context of this discussion, it seems clear to me that one must choose between answering all six questions with never or following the teachings of Christianity. For evidence, I submit the key teachings of Jesus as quoted in the following post: Casting the First Stone ~ Do you love murderers?
Ecurb wrote:Nonetheless if we refuse to punish people because there's a chance we are wrong about their guilt, we wouldn't imprison anyone.
That's not necessarily true. We could incarcerate some people as a defensive measure rather than sadism.

***

@LuckyR

Thank you for your replies. :)
LuckyR wrote:Violence behind bars (as opposed to violence in the community) is what solitary confinement was invented for.

To put things in perspective if a prisoner passes back checks and goes to prison , then rapes another prisoner while incarcerated, let's be realistic, the punishment for neither check fraud nor rape is the death penalty.
Wow, that's a great point. To those who make the claim (presumably without supporting evidence and statistics) that abolishing capital punishment is financially unfeasible or otherwise impossible in practice because the would-be executed prisoners are too dangerous to deal with any other way, the unsupported claim seems to be disproven by the fact that many very dangerous violent criminals are not executed already. If it's feasible to not execute child rapists and attempted murderers, etc., than surely it's feasible to not execute the few murderers that happen to be executed.

***

Again, thank you for your thoughtful replies everyone!
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6994
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Greta » December 13th, 2015, 7:31 am

Greta wrote:I'll try again: some people in prison cause incredible harm to other inmates, who then carry that harm and anger out into the community. Why keep incorrigible thugs alive - the "worst of the worst" - who cannot heap but to spread their poison? Executing them would be kinder to all involved, other than the psychopath concerned and perhaps the executioners. Some people are simply too damaged and the choice is whether to kill them or let them spread their poison through prisons and into community. There is no inbetween option. Have you read accounts of brutalisation in prisons?
Ecurb wrote:Rape and murder in prison are, no doubt, problems. However, it seems to me that we cannot execute people based on what they might do in the future, rather than on what they have done in the past. After all, perhaps some of those prisoners who are most likely to commit crimes in prison are imprisoned for shop-lifting or embezzlement. Are we going to give shop-lifters psychological tests, and then, if we find them dangerous to other prisoners, execute them?
Ecurb, I'm obviously not advocating a Minority Report style system. However, what do you do with inmates in prison for serious crimes who are so incorrigible that they operate as predators on vulnerable inmates and interfering with their rehab potential? You can't separate them because extended solitary confinement is considered to be torture. here's not enough resources to supervise them 24/7. There are always opportunities for predators in prison and, instead of removing the predators by whatever means, authorities turn a blind eye.

Basically our current system sanctions "incidental" torture. The main victims are vulnerable non-violent inmates. The biggest winners are corrupting psychopath bullies. I prefer a system where non-violent inmates have a chance to rebuild their lives and the worst psychopaths are the biggest losers.

I'm okay with solitary confinement for the "worst of the worst" - for the sake of other inmates and also because a higher number of rehabilitated offenders benefits society at large. However, I suspect that at least some of those inmates themselves would mostly prefer the death penalty to permanent solitary confinement, and I think it reasonable for a "worst of the worst" type of criminal to request the death penalty rather than enduring more segregation.
This space left intentionally blank.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Scott » December 13th, 2015, 11:46 am

Greta wrote:Basically our current system sanctions "incidental" torture. The main victims are vulnerable non-violent inmates. The biggest winners are corrupting psychopath bullies. I prefer a system where non-violent inmates have a chance to rebuild their lives and the worst psychopaths are the biggest losers.
@Greta I absolutely agree that I do not want the non-violent prisoners--who are the majority--to be exposed to being victimized by violent victimizers (e.g. rapists, murderers).

We agree on the use of defensive force. Instead of turning a "blind eye" as you claim the current "authorities" do, I would propose we use as much force as necessary to step an an attempting rapist or attempting murderer from committing the deed, which in many cases would be indeed be lethal force. However, we are verging off-topic because that's defensive force and this topic is about intentional non-defensive killing.

Additionally, there is something strange about locking a pacifist in a cage with a violent maniac and then killing the violent maniac to defend the pacifist. It seems both much more cost-effective and much more non-sadistic of us to simply not lock the pacifist in the cage with the violent maniac; Don't you agree?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Belinda » December 13th, 2015, 1:19 pm

Scott wrote:
Additionally, there is something strange about locking a pacifist in a cage with a violent maniac and then killing the violent maniac to defend the pacifist. It seems both much more cost-effective and much more non-sadistic of us to simply not lock the pacifist in the cage with the violent maniac; Don't you agree?
I agree. I think that in liberal democracies prison authorities have a duty of care to the inmates.
Socialist

Keen
Posts: 170
Joined: July 18th, 2010, 3:38 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russel

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Keen » December 28th, 2015, 8:11 am

There can be one exception I might be inclined towards making non-defensive Killing legal: In case of euthanasia, when a patient wants willingly to have his life terminated due to for example some terminal disease or a major disability, that makes his life hell. However even in those cases I would be more inclined towards assisted suicide rather than euthanasia, because I think that it has a more legal value if the patient chooses himself to end his life rather than let someone else do it.
Other than that I do not really see a reason that could justify non-defensive killing to me and I am strictly opposed to it.
I don't exactly see the reason why revenge killing done either by the state in form of execution or by individuals in form of murder should be acceptable. What exactly are the results of it? Someone feels slightly better, because he's been avenged? Do we really want to live in a society where a life can be a trade off for some victim's feelings? When it comes to justice, I am convinced that incarceration is always a better approach to death penalty. It isolates the individual dangerous to society and gives him a chance to rehabilitate contrary to death penalty which is terminal.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 151
Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by TSBU » August 27th, 2016, 1:31 pm

Personal defense is not very clear, we don't see the same as defense. The same about killings.

Sometimes it's a good idea to kill someone to keep you safe, even if you can put him in jail (I find that more cruel sometimes...), even if he is not a murderer (he can be just a crazy sadist person, for example). So, self-defense can be killing to keep your flowers clean... and you can kill with words, using them to make a person commit suicide or things like that.


We always try to kill before we get killed, but if we keep seeing potential murderers as humans, we can't be completely sure that they are going to kill again or things like that.

If you are going to say when would you allow murder, you are talking about your actions. It doesn't matter if I think that should or shouldn't be prohibited by other people if I'm not the one going to change their minds.

I can't change it, there are murders I don't like, but the question has no sense for me. (Do you think death should be prohibited? You can't change that, people die, so that question has no sense).

Would I be friend with a person who is a murderer? Well, I have "friends" in the army. And I think it's completely absurd the idea that they are there to "self defence". I'm not going to be "very friend", but that's a matter of how different we are... and, of course, the one who pulls the trigger, isn't the only responsible, he is usually controlled.... nearly everybody seems to think that it's a good idea to separate people who pull the trigger and people who think when it's pulled... As I said, I can't stop killings.

I would probably be a good friend of a doctor who kill some people when they ask him to do so, for example.

User avatar
Seeker91
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 10:13 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Thomas Jefferson
Location: Colorado

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Seeker91 » September 16th, 2016, 10:11 pm

I figure it’s probably too late to enter into this discussion, but I figure you might like to have more data on the prevailing opinions regarding this issue.

I think non-defensive intentional killing should be illegal. What I generally mean by this is that there has to be consequences for actions. On some of these occasions the consequences may be diminished by mitigating circumstances, but that would be for our judicial system to determine. And yes, I’d probably fall prey to some of these actions given the right circumstances, but that is exactly why we need laws. We must in our saner moments agree that killing someone for non-defensive intentional reasons is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide? If one is ok, then why not these other ten reasons?

The only possible exception would be during war. It’s not that I think killing is ok then (I believe war by definition is one of the human races biggest failures), but I do believe that it is a different enough issue that it should be discussed separately.

Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Vijaydevani » September 17th, 2016, 9:31 am

We as a race seem to have decided that non-defensive killing of others is wrong and therefore not to be tolerated. However, there are people who kill others simply for pleasure or to appease a craving maybe due to genetic defects or simply to retain power. It makes sense to weed out such people and kill them instead of wasting money on keeping them alive and burdening the system.

I believe that even people who use cruel and vicious means to attempt to kill people should be included and done away with. Just because they didn't succeed does not mean anything. It does expose an extraordinarily cruel and vicious mindset. These are people who will never rehabilitate and must therefore be annihilated for the greater good. I am assuming that we are not discussing establishment of guilt and that guilt is to be taken for granted.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.

Philosch
Posts: 427
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose

Post by Philosch » March 2nd, 2017, 4:55 pm

My two cents is that non-defensive killing as posed by the OP is always wrong for the simple reason that if you make an exception for utilitarian or consequentialist reasons then the flood gates open and the slippery slope becomes an avalanche of exceptions. The trolly car problem is the classic example of this case. Pull the lever and interfere with the path of the train to save five people by killing one. Once you decide this is okay then it should be okay for a doctor to harvest the organs of one healthy person to save the lives of 5 sick people in need of those organs. The logic is the same but the implications for society are appalling. So by choosing to interfere in outcomes, you must do so carefully. Non-defensive killing is fundamentally wrong and there is no exception to be tolerated unless we are willing to give up on the fundamental right to self-determination and life of the individual. If you want to give up on those, then all bets are off.

Post Reply