Murder without guilt

[Mounce574]

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...

THe law does call that murder or accessory to murder though. In the state of Oklahoma- Shooting with intent to kill carries the same penalty as attempted murder. In my mind Kill and Murder are one and the same. The end result is the person's physical body ceases to function in any capacity other than decomposition.
I don't know if I would ever say someone of sound mind would ask you to kill them. Extreme pain or hopelessness would cause someone to be desperate to rid themselves of that feeling. Those people generally commit suicide, which I think is wrong in a spiritual sense.
Is it justifiable for the state to execute death row inmates? Recently a person I know killed a police officer and crippled another. He was given a death sentence by lethal injection. Another person I know (I am beginning to believe I need to reevaluate the people I am around) killed a man by shooting him in the back. He was given life with possibility of parole. Why is the standard of who is sentenced to die different for each person? The first did not plan on shooting anyone, the second did. The first had never been to prison before. The second had been to prison at least twice. By looking at those factors- is it justifiable to kill the first man but not the second? Both caused the kiss of life of one person. Both fled the scene of their act. Ironically they are both similar in age.
I don't feel guilty for what I did overseas. I don't know how anyone else would view the situation soldiers are placed in. I was part of supply, I wasn't on the frontlines. I can honestly say that it didn't matter to those shooting at me. They hated me for what I represented - a foreigner in their land opposing their belief system. That being said, I know many people who have killed someone out of self-defense feel guilty for taking a life. I don't know if I would feel the same or mentally detach myself from what I did like I have my military past.

[LuckyR]

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you're answering the question "how to get on with a stranger", then yes, the answer "accept their use of language" is both simple and true. "Don't insult them, their tribe or their religion" would be another.

But that's not really the point at issue. The question is more about what is a reasonable balance between getting on with other people and saying what one believes to be true. Somewhere between riding roughshod over their point of view and being a complete doormat lies a happy medium that is polite but not lacking assertiveness.

Even a conversation with a stranger is a form of relationship, involving give and take on both sides.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

Since you asked, "Hispanic" as a racial descriptor is an Americanism that I have no attachment to. If I'm interested enough to ask about his racial background, then I'm likely to get a better answer if I use his terminology for it. If the terminology seems to me to contain an untruth (?"First Nations"?) then I have to weigh up pragmatically how much I want to hear his information against my distaste for untruth.

Whatever choice is made as part of that encounter, when he's gone away i'll happily talk with you about "cowboys and indians" in the language I grew up with. He has no rights over our conversations together.

I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.

Yes, avoiding topics where offence is likely to be taken seems prudent with strangers.

The difficulty with pronouns is that they appear to be making a judgment about a possibly-controversial topic, whilst it is difficult to avoid their use in natural English.

If a female person is visiting my office, I want to be able to say to a colleague to show her where she can get a cup of coffee, without going into personal details of how much that person identifies with masculinity/femininity.

Dragging one's personal baggage, psychological problems and sex life into an office setting is unprofessional.

Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?

Apologies for continuing the tangent. I post on a phone in odd moments and haven't mastered the art of quoting a tangential discussion on a new thread.

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...

Happy we are in agreement on how to have polite casual conversations.

I also agree that meeting folks where they are when in conversation with them carries no obligation to use their descriptors when they are no longer part of the conversation.

Sorry to break it to you but office etiquette is changing. True, since it is near the beginning of the change there is currently a lot of pushback and naysayers (as always happens during such events).

As to the OPs topic, it ISN'T a legal discussion of: under what circumstances can one be found not guilty of murder, it is techniques to assuage the natural emotion of guilt when one commits murder.