is there ever a situation where its 'right' to take a life?

[athiest_420]

i believe so, in a few sircumstances

consider a situation where an individual was threatening u and your family to a point where it was clear his intentions where to kill you? would you kill him before he had the chance? or atleast wound...

i know if some one put me in a situation where it was quite litually 'me or him', i would do everything in my power to make sure it would be his demise, not mine.

other situations are like the death penalty, now im in no doubt there are ppl (paticuly child killers, who do not deserver life, and if not killed, then at VERY LEAST the life sentance should indeed be just that. life.
the only thing that puts me of the death penalty, is false convictions, i dont trust the legal system.
i think execution should be held for the highest and most evil of crimes where theres no doubt the subject is responsible.
and in other cases life should mean life, but ofcourse let the retrial and protest their innocence if there is any doubt to his guilt.

and a question i would like to pose to you all now:

theres a man, he is planning to go on a killing spree, you dont know who he is, or where he is, all you know is that in 2 days he will slaughter 200 innocent ppl.

you have a button, if you press it, he drops dead, end of story...

do you press it?

if not, what if i said he would turn the gun on himself afterwards anyway.. would that change your actions? is so.. why?

i for one would be thankfull for the chance to press the button, and save the people, i would do so without any remorse or guilt. but thats me.

[C-Nub]

Honestly, without meaning to address the originator here, this is a pretty easy question to answer. The button scenario isn't one I like, because there's a two day time limit during which you should try to find an alternative to killing him, here's an easy one.


There's a maternity ward, full of babies and one, assumes, mothers delivering babies. You're in the room where they incubate them all, you know, the one with the big glass window that people can stand on the other side of and make stupid faces through. (That's what people do, don't blame me.)

You have a gun. At the other end of the room is a suicide bomber, lots of TNT, and a switch in his hand that he has to depress in order to detonate his payload. Do you kill him, saving yourself and a ward full of totally innocent baby-things, or do you let him kill himself, taking everyone with you? He's dead either way, its pretty hard to argue against shooting him.

My problem is that there can be no standard enforced here. There's no way to say that sometimes its ok, sometimes its not. It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

[athiest_420]

i totaly agree with the case to case basis, and in your scenario yes, shoot, i feel that situations where a person or people knowinly and willingly threaten or risk others lifes is a situation where a feel any of the ppl being threatened are right to take whatever action they feel necceserry to help the innocent, regardless of the price the criminals pay, but as i say, this is more of a general statement, each case to be evaluated, but somtimes people are put on a spot where split second thinking is needed, hard to fully evaluate in a second...

[Grand Pbuh]

If you take a life you risk facing death penalty for your own sins. Example:

Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is the lesson of the Pericope Adulterae, you can't safely kill without being sinless yourself -- if you don't show mercy, you won't receive it, do unto others, etc.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

So Torah calling for death penalty isn't voided, just rendered almost impossible to administer without making yourself a hypocrite.

That said, should you risk being punished for your own sins in order to stop someone from killing your family? I suppose I would, that would be my sacrifice for them. Then leave it up to Jesus to judge me.

This is also the Jewish view, saving a life takes precedence over Sabbath and other commands.

[athiest_420]

If you take a life you risk facing death penalty for your own sins. Example:

Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is the lesson of the Pericope Adulterae, you can't safely kill without being sinless yourself -- if you don't show mercy, you won't receive it, do unto others, etc.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

So Torah calling for death penalty isn't voided, just rendered almost impossible to administer without making yourself a hypocrite.

That said, should you risk being punished for your own sins in order to stop someone from killing your family? I suppose I would, that would be my sacrifice for them. Then leave it up to Jesus to judge me.

This is also the Jewish view, saving a life takes precedence over Sabbath and other commands.

pointing out the:
"That said, should you risk being punished for your own sins in order to stop someone from killing your family? I suppose I would, that would be my sacrifice for them. Then leave it up to Jesus to judge me."
bit...

if a situation was to accur where i or anyone needed to take a life of someone befoe the killed someone else preciouse to me, or even myself, most people would have to do it really...
in you statement you basically said that you would do it, be prepaid to get judged and risk going to hell, but you would do that, and it is fully understandable...

and to be honest, if jesus of god (speaking that they exist ofcourse) was to condem you to hell for saving the lives of your family, i would consider them evil.

again if i personally got put into that situation, i would not have fear of hell because how can you fear that which you do not believe in, and i would aso not fear jail, again believeing that my actions would be fully justifiable.

and just to point out, sorry if i offend, religiouse quotes from text mean less tha nothing to me, just old words from an old book.

[cnorman18]

I once heard it said in a discussion of the morality of divorce that "Divorce is like killing someone; it's always a bad thing, but sometimes it's necessary."

[Defender of Truth]

(1) Self defense
(2) Capital Punishment
(3) Just War

[Coyotero]

i believe so, in a few sircumstances

consider a situation where an individual was threatening u and your family to a point where it was clear his intentions where to kill you? would you kill him before he had the chance? or atleast wound...

absolutely. Protecting my family is everything.

other situations are like the death penalty, now im in no doubt there are ppl (paticuly child killers, who do not deserver life, and if not killed, then at VERY LEAST the life sentance should indeed be just that. life.
the only thing that puts me of the death penalty, is false convictions, i dont trust the legal system.
i think execution should be held for the highest and most evil of crimes where theres no doubt the subject is responsible.
and in other cases life should mean life, but ofcourse let the retrial and protest their innocence if there is any doubt to his guilt.

I heard once of an old practice from Heathen Scandinavia: If a man were sentenced to death, then it was the duty of the one who sentenced him to carry out the execution personally. If the magistrate passing the conviction couldn't bear to swing the axe, then the convicted was spared death.

I find a certain poetic justice to this system. How many judges would pass down death penalties knowing they had to stare the convicted in the eye and do the killing themselves? The accused would have to have done something truly worthy of it, methinks, as well the judge would have to be thoroughly convinced that what he was doing was just.

and a question i would like to pose to you all now:

theres a man, he is planning to go on a killing spree, you dont know who he is, or where he is, all you know is that in 2 days he will slaughter 200 innocent ppl.

you have a button, if you press it, he drops dead, end of story...

do you press it?

if not, what if i said he would turn the gun on himself afterwards anyway.. would that change your actions? is so.. why?

I would not push the button.

If I knew what he was going to do, where he would be, I would do what was necessary to stop it.

If it were to come down to killing him, he would be standing, he would be facing me, and he would be armed.

[puddleglum]

There are two ways to take the life of another: by doing something that would lead to his death or by failing to do something that would keep him from dying. If someone is trying to kill someone and you stop him by killing him you are responsible for his death. But if you are able to stop him and fail to do so you will share the guilt for the murder he has committed. In this situation the question you must answer is not whether you will take a life but whose life you will take.

[MagusYanam]

That is an interesting interpretation; I don't know whether it is an appropriate one.

We all bear the burdens of our own sins - by definition, we can not be held responsible for something over which we have no control (which is why I do not hold with the Augustinian idea of inherited or 'original sin'), and we cannot live the lives of other people such that we can assume responsibility for their actions.

Speaking from a standpoint of deontological respect of persons, killing someone is an act for which you must bear responsibility - though it can be mitigated somewhat by the conditions (if it is in the context of a war, the greater responsibility and the greater sin rests on those who declare and support it than on the soldiers who are ordered to fight it). You are not to be reprehended if another person whose intentions you have not influenced kills, and you try to stop it and fail - that would be ridiculous. If you do not form an intention to stop it, that would be a different moral wrong - but you are not to be reprehended for killing, you are to be reprehended for being apathetic in the face of killing.

That said, there are ways of stopping someone from killing which do not involve force - the philosophy and methods of non-violence are more difficult for people to understand and to practice, but they are infinitely preferable to violence.