CAPITAL PUNISHMENT! (Just for Kahl)

[Dimnos]

Bah. Im not killing people because of their race or that I just dont like them. Im talking about the baby killers and child rapists and serial killers. Bitches best step off my mini-wheats.

[kahljorn]

I typed a response to this thread last night and my computer updated in the middle of it and rebooted ;/

Your just looking to defend yourself and your loved ones. But again what about war? You go into that knowing you will be killing people and its a bit different than self defense.

Okay well I have a few responses to this, the first thing I will say is that, even in war and self-defense, killing people is wrong.
Also, not everybody in the military signs up to "Kill people." A lot of people join so they can get a college education or be noble. The war is secondary to that, and a lot of them don't want to be in a situation which they are forced to participate in In the past, a lot of wars had draftees, so the people really didn't want to be there.
Which brings me to my next point: one of the key justifications I've heard for war, especially concerning the difference between a soldier and an assassin, is that soldiers aren't really supposed to be going somewhere to kill people. War could be said to be the perpetual placing of trained killers into situations in which they will have to defend themselves in order to achieve an objective, for the sake of themselves and loved ones.
The purpose of war is never to kill people. The intent of war is generally to capture stuff and make it so that the enemy can't attack you. This can be achieved in multiple ways, not just by killing people. Incapacitating a person, demoralizing the enemy etc. are all alternatives to the actual killing of people. And, interestingly, in self-defense, (imprisonment as far as I am saying) and also war, killing somebody after they have been incapacitated or are unable to fight back is a crime (or a war crime).

Basically, isn't war more about defending yourself, your loved ones and your country than about killing folks? And aren't wars seemingly oriented around killin folk generally considered abhorrent? Holocaust?

I might also say that soldiers have relinquished themselves to a different form of justice, but I don't really want to go there right now

I intend to never have to deal with the attacker again.

By incapacitating them safely within the confines a prison, I hope. Because otherwise you sir are a murderer or, at best, a manslaughterer.

In a way, the death penalty is self defense.

So is incapacitating them, or imprisoning them.

If you can justify it then it's right, right?

No. The act of killing (with the intent to do so) can never be right. For example, in self-defense, the act of self-defense is right, the idea of being passive and letting somebody else kill you is not right (if its wrong for you to kill them, its wrong for them to kill you); Regardless of this, it is still wrong to kill that person if you acted with the intent to do so.

If you try hard enough, you can justify almost anything. Most wars can and have been justified, does that make them all right? What counts as a "justification," exactly, anyway? Without blanket, moral statements its difficult to have any standard by which to "justify" things.

Is going to war for terrorists i mean for oil i mean to spread democracy in iraq and to liberate the gentle folk dwelling therein from a cruel and heartless dictator justified or unjustified? And what is it that makes it justified or unjustified?
It's not like hitler didn't have justification for what he was doing, either.

the vast percentage of wars are un-justified.

According to what? Maybe these wars were just spearheaded by persons who followed their own morals over the law.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

By incapacitating them safely within the confines a prison, I hope. Because otherwise you sir are a murderer or, at best, a manslaughterer.

False. You can kill someone and not be charged with a crime if it is ruled self defense.

[kahljorn]

False. You can kill someone and not be charged with a crime if it is ruled self defense.

If you are defending yourself and knock somebody out or make them unable to attack you (incapacitate) them, and then after all this is over you walk up to them and cap a bullet right into the middle of their forehead, you can be charged with a crime. Because the point at which you incapacitate them is when you have stopped defending yourself.

"if it is ruled self-defense." In that case, the murder wouldn't be ruled self-defense. At best, you could argue that you were over-taken by emotions. Self-defense isn't supposed to be about KILLING the other guy, but about making it so they can't attack you.

[MajorScales]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

If you are defending yourself and knock somebody out or make them unable to attack you (incapacitate) them, and then after all this is over you walk up to them and cap a bullet right into the middle of their forehead, you can be charged with a crime. Because the point at which you incapacitate them is when you have stopped defending yourself.

If it was filmed on a nanny cam...but just the fact that you could should someone point blank in the head would cause some suspicion.

The guy that was just caught for holding the girl in the backyard for 18 years should be killed. I don't want to hear about it, he did it and he should vanish.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Also, not everybody in the military signs up to "Kill people." A lot of people join so they can get a college education or be noble. The war is secondary to that, and a lot of them don't want to be in a situation which they are forced to participate in In the past, a lot of wars had draftees, so the people really didn't want to be there.

Im sure most people dont join the military to kill people. Im sure most of them do to, like you said, the college education or the money or just dont have much else to do with their lives. However they know that going to war and being in a situation where they have to kill someone is a real possibility. When they decide to join up that was a decision you made that put you one step closer to that situation. Whereas when you are in your home and someone kicks your door in to rob you or whatever you made no decision. You were just placed in that situation.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Which brings me to my next point: one of the key justifications I've heard for war, especially concerning the difference between a soldier and an assassin, is that soldiers aren't really supposed to be going somewhere to kill people. War could be said to be the perpetual placing of trained killers into situations in which they will have to defend themselves in order to achieve an objective, for the sake of themselves and loved ones.

That is a very idealistic way to look at it but I can see what you mean. Armies are for defensive purposes in a perfect world.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The purpose of war is never to kill people.

I believe there are some Hutus in Africa that would disagree with you on this. However for the most part you are correct. For those of us that live in the "civilized" world killing people is never the purpose of war, its just a byproduct. You cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs. If you are a soldier holding a fortified position and a bunch of guy come running at you with automatic weapons what is the best way of stopping them from killing you and/or getting past you to whoever or whatever you are defending?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The intent of war is generally to capture stuff and make it so that the enemy can't attack you. This can be achieved in multiple ways, not just by killing people. Incapacitating a person, demoralizing the enemy etc. are all alternatives to the actual killing of people.

Incapacitating an attacker isnt always a viable option. I am in agreement with you that when it is possible it should be done. Nonlethal weapons and technology have only recently made huge advancements and many groups such as police departments use them. However on the battlefield they are still "around the corner" and lethal force is still the only viable option in many situations.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

And, interestingly, in self-defense, (imprisonment as far as I am saying) and also war, killing somebody after they have been incapacitated or are unable to fight back is a crime (or a war crime).

Totally with you on this one. Again I would like to point out that Im only really for killing people after they have repeatedly assaulted and/or killed and either show no remorse or interest in rehabilitation. I would rather put them down before they put someone else down.

[Zhukov]

[quote=kahljorn;645756]
No. The act of killing (with the intent to do so) can never be right. For example, in self-defense, the act of self-defense is right, the idea of being passive and letting somebody else kill you is not right (if its wrong for you to kill them, its wrong for them to kill you); Regardless of this, it is still wrong to kill that person if you acted with the intent to do so. [quote]

Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else here. I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right. You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die. We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.

If you try hard enough, you can justify almost anything. Most wars can and have been justified, does that make them all right? What counts as a "justification," exactly, anyway? Without blanket, moral statements its difficult to have any standard by which to "justify" things.

Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war. Most wars have been "justified" at the time, sure, but I would not consider most of them just though. What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.

Is going to war for terrorists i mean for oil i mean to spread democracy in iraq and to liberate the gentle folk dwelling therein from a cruel and heartless dictator justified or unjustified? And what is it that makes it justified or unjustified?

Going to war in Iraq was unjustified. Most people think that way. Justifying by telling lies and spin is hardly justice.

What is it that makes it justified/unjustified? Well, that depends on the circumstances. Would going to war save lives? Make people's lives better? Would horrendous acts be stopped? In the case of the Iraq war..

Oh, I'm not talking about a reason like "WMDs" or "terrorists" or that kind of justification - those are reasons.

According to what? Maybe these wars were just spearheaded by persons who followed their own morals over the law.

Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.

[kahljorn]

I'm too hungry to really read or respond right now but congratulations to zhukov for discovering part of the criticism of my argument.

insertclappingemoticonhere

[kahljorn]

Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else here

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.

If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill

You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die.

If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.

We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.... I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right.

I guess.

Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war.

Is that a good justification? So a small population is being exterminated by a neighbor with vastly superior numbers but they are jerk racists and just think those other persons are inferior. There will be less deaths if you just let them exterminate that populace.
Is that a just war decision on our part? Certainly, if we went to war to save this small population, there would be more deaths than if we didn't go to war. So that would make that war to save the small population, according to this justification, wrong.

What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.

What?
This is contradictory.

Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.

But you can justify anything. And justify it in front of others? Lots of people were behind the Iraq war.
Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.

Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?

I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.

and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.

If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill

I mean the first. WHY is it wrong to kill? I mean, I know why; ending someone's life is a very drastic action and should not be taken lightly at all, etc... but how can it always be the wrong choice, especially when there are so many variables?

If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.



I do know where you are coming from, killing is wrong, but my point is that sometimes it is less wrong than the alternative.

No, that was just one example, obviously there are many different things to think about before you declare war on someone. Plus, in this case, the neighbour has justified the exterminating of the other guys without a thought going into "less deaths", since exterminating people always involves more deaths than not exterminating people.

Not really. You're thinking that I say "convince yourself!" and then "convince others!", but to know if something is right then you always have to find out other people's opinions. Thinking of others is a pretty major step in an adult being just and doing what's right. What's best for other people should be a major part of convincing yourself. Yes, I am well aware I said "should be".

Well, that's why you have to debate about these things. You can't "justify anything", but you can try. Also, this is all just speculation and brain exercisies. I don't expect people to think like I do.



Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.

Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?

I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.

and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.

[Zhukov]

Ugh, my computer fucked up and that was posted mid type. I forgot what else I was going to say now. Really, I think everyone should think things through, with as many variables as possible, and with the betterment of as many people as possible in mind before they act. I know this isn't how things are, but oh well.

As far as killing goes, well, it's the same. If it's the lesser of two evils in a certain situation, then that's the better choice to make. No, I suppose it doesn't make it "good". But I do consider less evil to be "right choice".


I don't know how this fits into capital punishment, since I'm mostly against that, really.

[kahljorn]

wtf?