When is or can Murder be Justified?

[Enigmatic]

You're only moving blame further back. It wasn't the Germans fault it was the French at the end of WWI. They're human last I checked. But wait WWI wasn't caused by the French, it had many causes not the least of which was colonialism. There were "good" intentions there too. "Let's civilize the savages." So now we're blaming various powers. British, French, Germans, Russians, etc. But colonialism didn't just spring up out of nowhere nor did the idea of racial superiority, so we go further back. Back and back and back we go through history, humans abusing and using and killing and hating each other for all of our history. Every time there were the "good intentions," but the hearts and souls of man remained selfish and tainted. Twisted by greed, lust, what-have-you in to thinking that what is evil isn't really so bad. It's a story as old as earth itself.

Now, let me be clear. I never said we did not have the capability to be good. A person (singular) can be "good." Even a small group of people can be good, but humanity as a whole is fundamentally degenerate. My previous comments stand. Humanity as a whole does not change, individuals don't change. Not on their own. No good comes out of humanity when humanity acts out of itself or a sole individual acts out of himself.

You also must realize that there is a distinction between what is humanly good and what is truly good. As you said, we are flawed and ignorant. That means even the best we do is still not ideal. All of our virtues are tainted, imperfect. No matter how good we think we are, we cannot escape the evil we do; we cannot escape what we are. Not on our own.

[The Attica Peoples]

People are changing though. 6000 years ago was a different culture, not comparable to ours. The vast majority of people don't do evil. They don't kill or steal or commit crimes. The vast majority follow the rules laid out for us by our governments and ourselves.

It seems worse than it is because the media makes such a large fuss over reporting the bad in the world rather than the good

[Enigmatic]

6000 years ago there was violence, greed, murder, selfishness, slavery, and a thousand other human evils. Today we have the same thing. They don't steal or kill because some order has been imposed, but once that goes away so does any apparent progress. Underneath the same flawed creature remains. We haven't changed, we've just gotten better at hiding who we are. We've become masters at rationalizing and ignoring our guilt.

And not killing or stealing or committing crimes is what I mean by humanly good. If a person is a reasonable, productive member of society, if they obey the laws of the country then we label him good. However, he still may lie or betray a trust or hurt a friend or hate someone or believe himself superior to another because of money/position/intelligence/whatever or one of a thousand other things that's not "illegal" but is still wrong on a base moral level.

I heard a story today about a young woman who got engaged to someone just so her fiancee could pay off her debt and once he did she broke it off. That's not illegal. No one died. It's not technically stealing because he gave it to her willingly. It's still wrong though to use a person that way. That's an extreme example of what I mean, but there are many many many little things we do each day that cannot be considered good. We are only good when we manage to rationalize away the thousands of little evils we do on a daily basis.

[Broncrano]

well back to the main question , can a good person with good intentions murder some one?

[Markanite]

^^i think if pushed to it , anyone can do anything

[The Attica Peoples]

I cannot accept that any organism is evil in its intrinsic nature. Humans are good and I'm an idealist dammit. If there is a universal evil then humans are not born with intent to commit it

[Enigmatic]

I won't argue that point with you. We may not be born with the intention to commit evil, but neither are we born with the intention to do good. If we are not born evil then we are born amoral and must be taught to do good. Doing good is the hard thing; evil is easy. Humans like easy. If we do not teach good, then evil will hold sway because it is simpler.

And for the record I'm an idealist and an optimist. I never said humans can't do good, just that we don't do good on a regular basis. I think you know I'm a man of faith. I believe there is an answer to evil if mankind would simply take it. I get a little frustrated when they don't.

But back to the question. I agree with Mark. Anyone can do anything. A good man with good intentions may make choices which lead to an outcome that results in him taking the life of another. That may or may not be murder. He could be trying to make things better and make the wrong choices and become what he is trying to fix murdering someone in the process. Perhaps he becomes a police officer and is forced to kill someone in the line of duty to protect himself and others. We live in a fallen world. Murder and killing isn't the ideal, but it is what is and sometimes taking the life of another is necessary in this world of ours. The day it isn't is the day man is truly good.

[Broncrano]

so are you saying murder can be justified?,because that is my opinion

[Enigmatic]

The taking of a life can be justified within the confines of this fallen world. I use the term murder to refer to an unjust killing.

[Bad Infinitum]

Apr 19, 2010 15:53:15 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

The taking of a life can be justified within the confines of this fallen world. I use the term murder to refer to an unjust killing.

This is what people can't seem to grasp. There is a difference. Killing in self defense, or the defense of others who may be killed, is justifiable. The act of murder, by its legal definition, is wrong.

[NunYa Dam Biz]

Summary execution is not Murder per say

[Lord Reigner (LJCS[A])]

Apr 19, 2010 16:06:34 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Apr 19, 2010 15:53:15 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

The taking of a life can be justified within the confines of this fallen world. I use the term murder to refer to an unjust killing.

This is what people can't seem to grasp. There is a difference. Killing in self defense, or the defense of others who may be killed, is justifiable. The act of murder, by its legal definition, is wrong.

Exactly! Murder is the selfish, planned act of killing a human by a human. And killing is the ending of life. There's a bit of difference there. It just takes a little bit of dictionary-reading, and you can sort out this stuff! Sadly, some people like to cling to their own opinion of a word's meaning, even when the definition is right in front of his face Even if it is my native tongue, I still fairly despise the English Language for taking from three different languages, and making so many synonyms based on those languages' roots. It basically allows for easy selfish mistranslation...

Since this is a topic about murder, and I'm talking about translation, I might as well get something straight with the majority of Christians about the Sixth Commandment:

Many Bibles (Most notably the King James Version and most Catholic Bibles) happen to translate the sixth Jewish Commandment (from Latin) as "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Apparently "kill" is a mistranslation from Hebrew to other languages to Latin to English, and is incorrect. To "Kill" means to "cause to die," so if that were the case, the commandment in Hebrew would be said, "Lo Taharog." However, that is not the case, as the commandment is said "Lo Tirtzach," which translates to "(All of) you will do no murder," or "Thou Shalt Not Murder." To "Murder" is to "kill intentionally and with premeditation," which requires that the killer (Or technically, "murderer," in this case) has already planned to kill the victim in some way.

Based on this info, it seems that killing in general is immoral if you intended and had an incentive (Revenge, money, etc) to kill the victim. But if you didn't plan to kill the victim in the first place (Self defense, accident), then it is okay (Maybe except for accident...)

Some Christian parties may not agree with this, but this is what I had found in my research. You can't just use a Romance language as a base for studying ancient texts...

[The Attica Peoples]

There are many routes to peace, both religious and not. I don't mind how people get there as long as we do, and I choose the route that goes by what I know

[McMulliness]

The only time I feel that killing another human is justifiable is self defense... all other killings are stupid and primitive (in a way).

[Caerthrage]

In protection of your life or others, that is when justice is overturned

[Cerb]

The act of murder is simply not justifiable. It is the act of taking the law into your own hands and making yourself judge, jury, and executioner. It leaves no room for mistakes or incorrect assessment of situations.

The act of self defense is another matter. There is no time to pre-meditate. Someone is attacking you and you have to act to protect yourself or others that you care about. This is not murder.

I'm wholly against any form of pre-meditated death dealing. It makes the individual (or state for that matter) no better than the criminal.

"two wrongs do not make a right".

[The Republic of Exal]

Murder is COMPLETELY justified if they either:
Threaten you with murder of anyone.
Point a weapon at you or someone else.
Try to kill you or someone else.
;D

[Silvermain]

May 27, 2010 13:55:03 GMT -5 The Republic of Exal said:

Murder is COMPLETELY justified if they either:
Threaten you with murder of anyone.
Point a weapon at you or someone else.
Try to kill you or someone else.
;D

I'm curious, Exal. At what point does the threat of a murder justify killing a person? I know little kids often say things like "I'm going to kill you!", and I'm going to assume that you wouldn't be suggesting that it's okay to kill them. So when is it okay to murder someone based on a threat? Just curious

[Bad Infinitum]

Justifiable threat is easily discernible from a ten year old saying they're going to kill you. In my experience, you can usually tell if someone means to harm another person just by looking at their face. Fear, wrath, and anger are usually tell-tale signs. As is no facial expression at all... that's a good sign you're dealing with a sociopath, who will probably do whatever he or she wants without regard.

[Jusyr]

Apr 12, 2010 18:33:43 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

You make it sound as if the purpose of war is killing. That is not the case; killing is a side effect.

shrubbery.

Killing is the main tenet of war; it's how political goals are either furthered or quashed in an unstable region.

[Enigmatic]

I believe you have restated my point. The purpose of war is to further a political aim that cannot be fulfilled otherwise. Killing is the means to that end, not the end in itself. The killing is unfortunate, yes, but no war is fought with the express purpose of killing another. They are fought to force an opposing government or organization in to an agreement which could not be reached through peace.

[skegnezz]

Murder in the UK has to be premeditated, much like Murder One in the US. It has to be thought-out, they have to show that you intended to kill the person and that it wasn't done in the heat of the moment. Otherwise it's manslaughter.

Manslaughter can be justified by self-defence. Someone attacks you, you attack them back, you end up killing them. They gave up their human rights the instant they decided to attack you, so the consequences are what they are.

Murder however is much, much harder to justify. But let's say you KNEW an individual was planning to kill you, but you can't prove it and so you can't get any protection from the law. Is it justified to kill that person first to protect yourself? I don't know, maybe. And then there's the blackmail debate - is it justified to murder someone if they're blackmailing you? Again, I don't really know. Just a couple of thoughts there though.