Killing to save another?

[THanatosX]

Do u think that killing someone etc a terrorist who is going to kill an innocent is sin?
Discuss.

[Shinomori]

So is being a hippie.

Consider it this way - either way, one life is lost. By killing to save, you're picking the better person (i.e. the one who was not attempting to kill someone else). Of course, there's always special cases (i.e. if the saved person is a serial killer and you're their accomplice, or something of that nature), but in most cases, the world's better off because of it.

[THanatosX]

so let them die is not a sin???(if there is no other way than kill em)

[Shinomori]

Do u think that killing someone etc a terrorist who is going to kill an innocent is sin?
Discuss.

This question implies that you have the ABILITY to kill the other man, and that you WOULD if you tried. Elsewise, it would be "Do you think that trying to kill someone etc...". Therefore, the consequences of failing can be reasonably excused. Thusly, I can't think of any reason why not to. Especially since the words "terrorist" and "innocent" are used, which gives you the moral high ground AND the knowledge that the vast majority of people will support you.

[layla]

killing can be justified if its for absolute self defense, but to take the life of another, no matter what the reason, is the worst possible thing you can do. the decision is hard, but if it must be done, then let it be done. there is no such thing as sin, or complete right or wrong.

[THanatosX]

i added a poll plz vote.

[SLVR]

I think its fine. I look aint like if a bad man ( Murder or a crazy ) gonna shoot the police yah gonna let the police get shot? I wouldnt. Id Reach fer my Boom Stick and fill em with 44 magnum lead.

[ZangetsuHell]

Loss of life is a horrible thing, no matter what, but in some cases it is not always a sin. I do believe there is a huge difference between simply taking a life and defending yourself or others by any means necessary. This question is very circumstantial, but a terrorist by nature has absolutely no sense of regard for human life, whereas you, by protecting the innocent, are protecting life and somewhere down the line saving countless others he would have bombed etc. (assuming he wasn't a suicide bomber). In this world there is need for loss of human life because otherwise none of us would ever truly understand the difference between life and death.

In short: loss of life = horrible but necessary
loss of innocent life > loss of a killer etc

all latter judgement is left for God

[Azalea]

We were never given authority to take away someone's life,even your own life. Killing is dubbed as the worst of all sins. If you think that saving a persons life by killing another is a good thing? well it is true, though you have also committed the sin of murder while doing so, so that concludes that the good thing you have done will just be overshadowed by the greatest sin you have committed
:pangel3:

[Sanzora]

A life is a life, yes. Killing in general is wrong, yes. BUT, if a person killes one person such as a terrorist, you cant only look at the now of him threatening one person. You have to consider how many others he will threaten and/or kill in the future… If you consider this, then you may be saving many more than just one person, by killing one other.

[Lolable]

i cant vote their should be amaybe
u c if its ur loved ones
ur family for example
yeah ill do it for them
if there is no other choices
and sometimes when u r acop or afireman u die for some other ppl to
its just dying for other ppl isnt achoice i guess itswat happens in that moment :P

[kaede822]

killing is killing..although it varies from case to case (i.e. self-defense, protection, etc. is different from serial killing, etc).. the only case it becomes acceptable legally is when it is for self-defense or for the defense of another.. but morally, it really isnt right. but hey, we live in a world where there is no definite right or wrong..

[VampyreLord]

Of course it's wrong! If you kill someone to save a family member, are you not putting yourself and your feelings before the life of another? Are you not making the decision who should live and who should die, a decision which you do not have the authority to make?

Actually, I almost certainly would kill to save a friend. I'm just pointing out that it's immoral...

[ZangetsuHell]

I dunno. It seems in certain situations to be morally right to take a life. For example if your wife was being raped by some sick psycho I'd take his life in a heartbeat and not lose any sleep over it. I wouldn't worry about the sin factor because from a religious standpoint it's stated in the Bible that it is necessary and not a sin to defend your family in such a manner. I'll have to get the reference but it's in there.

We were never given authority to take away someone's life,even your own life. Killing is dubbed as the worst of all sins. If you think that saving a persons life by killing another is a good thing? well it is true, though you have also committed the sin of murder while doing so, so that concludes that the good thing you have done will just be overshadowed by the greatest sin you have committed

I think there are alot of things that are worse than murder. Sick and twisted torture, rape, deliberate spreading of AIDS and other STD's. Murder is a sin, but we're not talking about murder. The term suggests that you simply took the life of an innocent in cold blood. If we just went out and killed a man we thought was bad then that is different as well. That's taking justice and judgement into our own hands, which have neither the wisdom or right to do. However, in the heat of the moment when faced with the life or death of an innocent, it's necessary to protect and defend at any cost. I think it also has alot to do with what you're thinking when it happens. If your looking for an excuse to kill someone than maybe it'd be a sin. But if death isn't your goal but it's the only way to stop them than that's what has to be done. If you have the ability it's almost your responsibility in that situation.

[Esedess]

It is our free will to kill, it is our free will to rape and pillage and murder. But it is others free will to go against us, as it is our own free will to go against them. It is also our free will to choose our morals and as such do none of these evil things.

That said, all killing is wrong. But you have to decide within a situation whether you are prepared to accept and shoulder the burden of having taken someone's life. Those people who are willing to accept the punishment for murder, even if in the defense of another and regardless of said punishment, deserve respect. If I had to, I would kill. But I would always, always try and find a better way first.
Example:
Terrorists have entered a room and there is a now a gun to my head. As they are subduing other people, I would attempt to knock the gun out of the man's hand and put him into a position where I then had power, with which I would go further until I've either stopped them or died trying. If one of them dies in the result of my actions, then I will take full responsibility. It is unfortunate, but necessary.

Bit farfetched I'll give you, but I would try to do something meaningful/useful. ^_^;;;

[ZangetsuHell]

It is our free will to kill, it is our free will to rape and pillage and murder. But it is others free will to go against us, as it is our own free will to go against them. It is also our free will to choose our morals and as such do none of these evil things.

That said, all killing is wrong. But you have to decide within a situation whether you are prepared to accept and shoulder the burden of having taken someone's life. Those people who are willing to accept the punishment for murder, even if in the defense of another and regardless of said punishment, deserve respect. If I had to, I would kill. But I would always, always try and find a better way first.
Example:
Terrorists have entered a room and there is a now a gun to my head. As they are subduing other people, I would attempt to knock the gun out of the man's hand and put him into a position where I then had power, with which I would go further until I've either stopped them or died trying. If one of them dies in the result of my actions, then I will take full responsibility. It is unfortunate, but necessary.

Bit farfetched I'll give you, but I would try to do something meaningful/useful. ^_^;;;
I agree with that.

[Shinomori]

It's all a question of morality, I guess.

Being of...dubious moral quality myself, I could safely say that I could kill someone and not care at all.

[nerium]

life is something we don't quite understand and the definition of right and wrong varies from person to person and from situation to situation:what is more important saving someone by killing another or the sacriface we make ....i can't answer that,but i know a can't say murder is right in some conditions.
we don't know the consequences of such an act and by the way life is struggle why should i eliberate him/her?it lookes like a favour from this point .
let's say this person has a family.then they will want to kill you and the circele is closed when only one stands or all are dead.(our planet is overcrowded anyway,right?)

[Elelith]

I suppose what it boils down to, in the situation of killing someone to save someone else. In a terrorist/hostage situation it seems a lot more cut and dried, not many people could really say that the innocent should die instead of killing a terrorist.

But when it comes down to a situation where people are on the same plain. Like two twins, or just normal people. If you get a situation where one twin must die to save the other (at birth say,) or if people get trapped in a cave in and you need to kill someone to eat and stay alive! All horrible thoughts, but I'm just posing the scenarios.

In those situtations, who has the right to decide who lives and who dies. Would you let one person die to save one other person or three other people. Is it right or wrong in that case?

[Esedess]

In that kind of situation, I'd like to think that I would sacrifice myself to save the others, but I hope i never have to find out. What we say we'll do and what we actually will do can be completely different. In that kind of situation you have to rely on your instincts, I guess. Strongest survive.

[Elelith]

Yes, but what about in the situation where you might have to kill one twin at birth to save the other. Neither twin can make that desicion. So it's only really up to the mother. What sort of desision would someone make, if they are literally given the power over someones life. That's a different kettle of fish.

[JokerXgg]

When someone looks at it, someone dies in the end.... Either the killer or the Innocent people.......... So Than u have the option OF killing someone who is out to do Some damage, or let innocent people suffer.... The decision is up to you.

[Insight]

in that situation you have to kill the twin who cannot survive on her own to save the life of twin who has the best chance of growing up and bieng happy. it sucks to do it but life's a b1tch afterall.
think of it this way we would all die to save someone we love or a family member so the child would hopefully do the same and if you could ask him/her they would agree to sacrifice themself. if not, then i think they don't deserve to live in the first place.
on the origional point killing is almost always wrong but somtimes you have to do whats wrong so that other people don't have to. if i was in a situation i would like to think i would kill someone even though i know it's wrong to save someone else. it's called sacrifce.

[Elelith]

But think of the emourmous emotional weight put on someone who knew they had a twin, who died. I mean parents would'nt tell the surviving twin until they were olf enough to understand it. Therefore they have lived their whole life without knowing the truth. Imagine the great stress of being told you had a brother/sister who died partially because of you (althought that't not the main reason.)

That's just an idea to bounce around.

[Insight]

i would think that kind of think would act as an inspiration to you to live a better, fuller life. any normal person would obviosly be upset by the news but i would like to think they would also be changed for the better.

[baiken]

Something kinda of interesting here. The bible has a lot of trouble with the fact that it is sometmes mis-translated, on purpose or by accident. My father who used to teach Sunday school at our church pointed out to me that the actual translation of one of the ten commandments is not "Thou shall not kill" but "thou shall not murder." Which makes sense since it allows killing for self defense. Wether or not thats fully true, I dunno. I'm no bible scholar, plus the bible is a big book written by men and who knows how badly it has been mis-translated.

Which brings me to my stand, I would without question kill the terrorist. If he's going to take an innocents' or a friend of mine's life in his hands he'd better be ready to face the same treatment. A person such as that who thinks murdering is fully acceptable and does without remorse deserves nothing less death in return. You reap what you sow.

[saycheese]

terrorist is a mis-translated and overused word. lets use something else. :D

[ZangetsuHell]

Ok, let's just say criminal then. But there are some interesting points here...Concerning the twin thing, I would think that if I found out I had a twin that had died to save me, I would feel very grateful, and respect and honor them the rest of my life, despite they're being gone. I'd like to think things like those happen for a reason, though we have not the wisdom to interperet what that reason may be. Besides, there is a huge difference between killing and murder...murder is always killing but it isn't always the other way around. For example, to kill a chicken for dinner isn't murder...it's cooking. Of course it's much different for people but you get my drift. Things like the death penalty aren't murder but they are killing.

[strydr]

Under the circumstances obviously...its ok to kill another to save another.

Everyone in life has someone special, and i couldnt imagine life without certain people there... for support and for fun... because life is about enjoying it... if someone were to take your happiness just to fulfill their wish, then i think you have a right to protect what you want... be it good or bad.

[chipp zanuff]

I think it's OK to kill someone who will hurt my family, I will not prefer to be good guy while my family will be killed, then I'll regret for not killing all my life.

[Elelith]

I suppose it depends entirely on the situation, the individual's choice. If it was a spilt second desicion to kill someone or have them kill say, all your children. Then you can see the choice most, if not all, people would make.
But if the situation did not merit killing someone, if say, they were speeding, or robbing an offy, then killing someone is no justified - equivilent exchange.

[Mercurius]

In normal situations I say that it is wrong, one dies the one lives (you don't gain anything)
But in special circumstances, like the one said about the terrorist, I say do it because an ''evil'' person dies to save a ''good'' person

[Neve]

You really can't generalise to any extent at all with this question - you really have to take it entirely on a case by case basis - It would be right to, for example, kill a murderer to save a family from being murdered, but it would not be ok to kill a witness in order to stop a murderer from being given the death penalty.

[Elelith]

Who decides who should live and who should die? Who has the right who decides if anyone should die?

[Neve]

By not killing someone to save another, you are essentially killing the person who you had the potential to save. Like it or not, according to the topic you are in a situation where you have to decide between the lives of two people.

[Insight]

it is impossible to go through life without doing bad things but you should not be afraid to do so as long as you are going it for the right reasons and the greater good.
if it was in order to save my family, kill a murderer of course i would do it but i would do it knowing it was wrong to kill but that it was the last option and face the consequences without regret.

[Cassie]

Situations like those are usually something that just happens and cant be prepared for. I would just go with my instincts or reactions in such a situation and then convince myself that whatever I did was right. The problem is simple, no matter how u look at it, killing is wrong, but so is letting someone else die. It's a lose-lose situation, and since no matter what u do u lose, might as well be happy about it.

[M-50]

You might as well let the bad guy die and save the good guy. One of them has to die.:headbang:

[7D$]

Well i only think its oke if you kill the person who wants to kill innocent ppl

that way you can decrease Deaths a bit

lets say a terrorist wants to kill 10 ppl but he gets killed by someone that saves everybody then the kill is only 1 and the Death are decreased thanks to the man who killed the terrorist

My thoughts lol i someone cant understand Ask me for clearification

[odanion]

killing for the life of another is wrong...why is it wrong...well elelith stated it many times...who can truly choose who should live and who should die...no one here is god or some almighty ruler of life and death...so saying that someone should die to save another is the same as saying this guy needs to die because he MIGHT kill someone some day...by the time you get a choice to kill someone to save another in the way of criminals it is too late...once they have a hostage shooting the kidnapper or whatever he/she is might still end up having both of them die...that is why we have people who try to talk the kidnappers etc. out of killing hostages...and guess what happens afterwards...they get put into jail...not killed...

or another scenerio...in this one...killing is the only possibility...someone comes at you with a knife threatening to kill you, you pull out a gun and shoot him...he dies...you now have no proof he was actually going to kill you...now you just murdered someone...but if he cam along and let's say stabbed you...yes once again it might allready be too late...and you then shot him...well then you have proof...it isn't murder...but you might allready be dead

see what I mean...you can't just choose when someone needs to die or not...maybe the guy with the knife that was threatening you was only planning on doing that...and when you pulled the gun he would have ran...but you shot him instead...so how will you ever know...you can't simply say it was self defense...the weapon he had might have even been plastic...which means you still murdered him

[Daeruke]

here's my opinion. survival.... i think it is ok to kill someone for ur survival, even if u refuse ur instincts will kick in anyway. but killing just for fun is wrong. n terrorists are not killing for fun. they are killing to accomplish their goal and belief. thats another issue. 'cause every1 fight 4 their believes even though it is sometime stupid.

[bakatan]

see it's like this. ethical considerations of this particular situation would tell us to go base it on the principle of social utility---what would society better need, a terrorist or the people who are going to be killed by the terrorist?

I dont condone killing, but the situation given is definite..you had to choose between the life of the killer and the victim and i feel there is justice in preserving the life of the victim in this particular case.

I said the situation given in this thread is definite but in real life, it is not often the case. One cannot tell precisely and presume that a person is really going to kill. That DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY is the difficult part of this argument. Can we act like GOD and decide whom to kill off because we are certain that this person or this group of people will one day kill us? Do we wage war with a country because they might attack our own, even if at the moment they havent ( as a "preventive measure"?).

[spitechjr]

see it's like this. ethical considerations of this particular situation would tell us to go base it on the principle of social utility---what would society better need, a terrorist or the people who are going to be killed by the terrorist?
I dont condone killing, but the situation given is definite..you had to choose between the life of the killer and the victim and i feel there is justice in preserving the life of the victim in this particular case.
I said the situation given in this thread is definite but in real life, it is not often the case. One cannot tell precisely and presume that a person is really going to kill. That DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY is the difficult part of this argument. Can we act like GOD and decide whom to kill off because we are certain that this person or this group of people will one day kill us? Do we wage war with a country because they might attack our own, even if at the moment they havent ( as a "preventive measure"?).

A whole load of BS. Nothing but BS. Statements like these make the terrorists win!!! This statement is obviously from an old guy who has lots of issues especially when it comes to his "deep obsession" with kids. He even became a teacher for crying out loud. I am afraid... and you folks should be afraid that peeps like this exist and hangs around in message boards frequented by kids... BE VERY AFRAID!

[summer_faerie]

Ok the way I see it is that killing another person no matter what the reason is, is wrong. But then again if in real life I was faced with the decision to either kill one person, OR have that person even harm one of my family members, I would kill them (sad but true). Now this is saying though that nothing else could happen. This person either dies now or tens of thousands die later because of this one person. No ifs and or buts. There is no way I could kill somone going on a supsion that they might kill others. .. If all I had was a guess, I would report it to the police and let them take care of it.

[MatsumotoRangiku]

Killing anyone is wrong it is still killing someone and sinking to the low standerd of the person that is doing it I would rather go to the police and get the person doing the hurting put in prison.

[Daeruke]

Killing anyone is wrong it is still killing someone and sinking to the low standerd of the person that is doing it I would rather go to the police and get the person doing the hurting put in prison.
no the situation is that if u dont kill the guy, the world is going to blow up type of situtation.

[Sora]

I'll say that just depends on the situation... If the person you're gonna kill is a bad one, then it would be "not as bad" but always a sin... It's not okay... but, to be true... if someone I loved was gonna die and I could save him/her killing any other person... I'm pretty sure I'll do it... Fortunately, this does not happen...

[Draffut]

Yep, do it myself and help other people do it everyday in the military. Sorry if you think it's wrong, but that's how it goes.

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

Morals, morals, morals. You guys forget that these are nothing more than human concepts. They don't actually exist in the world. There is no right and wrong in nature. There is no mercy or justice. We as humans though hold ourselves up to higher standards due to our ability to reason. That being said, I think it's ok to kill someone who fits under our definition of guilty or evil to save an innocent in a life or death situation. Although "bad" is subjective, I think we all know that innocent is pretty clear. Good is what benefits humanity aka safe guarding the well being of others. Who benefits from having a person who takes other peoples lives running around? Ugh, no one. On the other hand, you might contest this by saying "well, you've become a killer yourself." Yes, but you did it to protect life and you would probably never do such an act under most circumstances. I love the irony.

[Sora]

Every human life is a precious treasure... It's not okay to take something that's not yours to give to another... Is the same principle as stealing... But, you're right... That's only the theory... when we really have to decide, I'm pretty sure we would be more selfish...

[hitsugaya131]

is says in the bible "thou shalt not murder"

that says it all

[Joe Black]

i agree with hitsugaya131, in that there is never a situation in where it is morally acceptable to kill another human being. However, in most scenerios involving nationalism and heroics, one can be blinded to do otherwise.

A perfect example would be the World Wars. Most soldiers that fought didn't want to fight, but they did so "for their country", "for freedom", "for self-defense against thier oppressors", or something along those lines. Ironically, it is because of these "values" that these horrible wars/battles spawn from. Human nature makes us "blind" to think any good will happen from fighting, and throughout time, including today, we still believe it. For example, if another war started involving the world, I too would pull up my arms to fight for my country. (aside the fact the WW3 will be simply advanced nuclear warfare) Hopefully, through a large amount of time, we as a human race, can put an end to such suffering.

[Ichi-Zoro 3]

you have the right to kill unless you're doing it to harm innocents!!!

[Dounick]

you have the right to kill unless you're doing it to harm innocents!!!
the world is a twisted place... someone could be killing someone to save someone.... and while thats happening.... the person who is killing that someone could be killed by someone protecting that person.... and in the end.... there is just millions of people dying becuase one person died.... no one can be saved from just one kill.... because it leads to other people being killed

if anyone has played final fantasy 10 then you might get what i mean....
when you are getting closer to the end of the game.... you come to realize that people are dying and its something like a spiral

people are just going to keep dying, becuase everyones problems cant be solved at the same time

[SmallKid57]

i watched trigun... and when it flashes back to Vash and his brother... and the thing with the spiders and butterflies. i thought the same thing as his brother... kill the spider and save the butterfly... but then when Vash explained how he wanted to save both... i felt sympathy for that... so yea i dont think it's right to kill others to save another. HEY THAT RHYMES!

[Nozomi]

If you had the power, would you stand by and watch as a loved one was about to be killed by someone?

I wouldn't.

[evilMJ]

i think its more than ok.
if its a terrorist why wait until they are even going to kill someone.
ust put a bullet in their heads.

stupid poll..

[airswifter]

It is ok....At certain time, we do certain thing. We can scarifice to save someone you care. Give them a light to live...a better life

[Shinigami_Josh]

i come down to (when its 1:1) who is more important to society the agressor or the victim?

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

I agree with Shinigami Josh. The victimizer (aka murderer, rapist, or mollester) compromises his value as a human being by acting on such base instincts. Letting them live has no benefit to humanity and thus disregards the moral aspect of taking their life. Also, using the Bible as an example not to kill isnt' exactly solid either. For example, in Deuteronomy III God himself orders the Israelites to destroy 60 cities and all of their inhabitants (men, women, children, and animals) so they could live there. A book that so blatently contradicts itself on the issue of life and death is hardly a reliable source on the matter. Sorry, try to find a more consistent source for the debate on this subject.

[Chouji]

See this questions answer depicts on the situation if the terrorist were showing mercy and leting you go but did not help you escape and you had to take him hostage and he died while you were runing then its ok and I think it would be ok if it ment saving some one dear to you but if you are religous i see no way to repent for the deed.

[nikuwadoko]

if it's killing a hostile enemy, then it's ok. but killing an innocent citizen? not okay. I would never consider killing based upon abstract principles to be justified. But then again, no one can define our personal principles. But personally, morality can not be based on stubborn hostility. In the case of war time this applies a lot because of "war tactics"--kill as many as possible, to win victory against the foe. But I can't say much because it's just a war strategy. I'm sure that nobody actually kills an innocent so willingly, it's all out of obligation.

[chiking1]

Well... killing someone hostile is sometimes rewarded (bounty hunters) and sometimes overlooked because it maybe considered self-defense. And so.. the laws suggests that killing someone hostile is okay... and i think its okay too...

[D.L.]

Killing someone is killing someone no matter how u put it. But killing to save someone is honorable because you're risking your life and saving a life. If u didn't kill them an innocent person would have died and a murderer would still be out there.

[7D$]

See this questions answer depicts on the situation if the terrorist were showing mercy and leting you go but did not help you escape and you had to take him hostage and he died while you were runing then its ok and I think it would be ok if it ment saving some one dear to you but if you are religous i see no way to repent for the deed.
:( Why are you grave diggin? very old topics should be left alone lol


Anyways i said b4 in this thread that I would kill a other person to save 10 because you save 10 ppl instead of 1 ^^

[Nemesis0521]

Killing a serial killer is alright to me. Why show mercy by keeping them in jail and giving them food and excersise.

[Reefern86]

Hey if it saves a relitivly innocent person id kill. id also kill for idealism, so whatever. There is a point thought when it doesnt make sence...for example if a few gang members were having a drug fight...id let them both die..i may if help in killing one of them.

[Ciel]

if the person who is going to kill go and kill another, or more, than you just basically let one or more poeple die, instead of kiling one and saving two.

[Asthrun_Itiji416]

everyone has the abillity to kill but to kill one to save another is one different story if it is gonna create chaos then go ahead blow them away.

[Kurai-chan]

if the terrorist or person is showing his intention to kill the innocent, then i'd definitely try to stop him and if needed, kill him to protect that said victim because if i'll not do it, then there is a possibility that he will repeat that action or harm other innocent people.

[Kootje]

If it's a terrorist whoses going to kill lots of people than it's definitly okay! Same goes for a serial killer, when 2 of you're friends are killing eachother then I think best is to stop them(whitout killing one)

[hellrockz]

hu would not stop terroist killing the innocent?i would forbid them from entering the country

[Reklaw X]

I think its okay. I mean if you can keep from killing one and still save the other, thats better.
But always believing you can save one without killing the other is pure naivety.

[Rokusaburo]

It is stated that God will aid you in battle if you fight for a nobel cause. Saving someones life, Is a nobel cause.

[Lex]

Do u think that killing someone etc a terrorist who is going to kill an innocent is sin?
Discuss.
I don't know if that is the right example to use but I will tell you what I believe and what happened to me personally.
I broke my thumb a year back and had to stay home alone. I'm a girl so as you can imagine it's not such a good idea. In my own house I had to chase off two guys trying to break in. I attacked them with a knife, I was willing to kill them only to survive myself. That's what being human is about, the will to live at all costs!
If I had to see a person beating a woman or even a man, child or animal I will take the risk and attack, that's just my own morals, killing should always be the last thing you do. It's not something you should think of first unless you know you will be killed if you don't.
That's my point.

[teddyen]

a complex question...
but i'm against killing. so i'll avoid killing at all cost. but when the time comes over a life and death matter, who knows what we'll do?

[*Hollow*Ichigo]

theres a strong level of dependance here....if the person u kill is more important den the other to u den no...if not den yes if you must save dem...or wait....i cant decide...

[Kzimask]

I actualy dont think any killing are 'polite' or 'nice thing' to do. Saving 'good' people and killing 'bad' people, I meen in that case I think your the bad person since youve 'killed' someone. It is best to stay out of violence.
But I do enjoy violent shows depends on what show it is... XD

[p0rkfri3drice]

if i see someone's life is in danger, and i have a chance to stop it, i will do whatever it takes to save them. yes, even kill someone. i would rather go to hell than watch someone die and have to live with it that i didnt try to stop it. plus, i love beating people's asses =D. if i can find any good reason to kick someone's ass, i will definitely jump on it...sounds messed up huh?

[arancar]

its fine if the one you are killing is a very bad person and the one you are saving is a really good person.

[Mavvy]

Is it a justified thing to do? Yes. Is it a sin? Yes. No matter what.

Even though you're saving an innocent person's life against, in this case, a terrorist, it is a sin. Killing is really serious. You know its a good thing to do and you just try to make up for it and repent.

[Infini]

i wouldnt say its right to do so, but if we where all letting the terrorists have their way.. some world this would turn in to, so id kill the terrorist, mainly cause the terrorist is attacking an innocent individual, and besides that Terrorists never just have 1 target, if they've "completed" 1 target, they have the next one ready to take action to

[~*~Rukia~*~]

Killing another person is always a sin but i think if it was your last resort and it was in order to save an innocent person it would be justified.

[grieversangel]

I say that it's okay if your doing to save someone you just can't live without. If you are kiling someone who is going to kill somenone speacial to you then you are saving others the grief of having to do with the loss of a loved one. If someone is going after someone you love then they might go after someone else and the cycle will continue if nothing is done about it.

[Kootje]

It's plain simple just depends on the situation, a serial killer wants to kill someone you care about I'd kill him for sure but when it's like 2friends of mine trying to kill eachother the sitiuation is diff

[DestinyBlade]

Interesting Topic... Well, after my review of human psycology (cant spell it if its wrong), humans kill others to save the ones more important to them (ex. your girlfriend is kiddnapped, they threaten to kill her unless they get money, what do you do? you got a gun, and even if they outnumber you, you can shoot them and save her. or plan on full-scale battle (you know, call 911))

Me, personally, it would depend on who im saving... Do they have any value (princess-for-rescue-thing, etc.)? Do you depend on them (sensei, parents, etc.)? Are they involved in this (civilians)? If so, how (accident, the 'bad" guys kiddnapped 'em for amusement, etc.)? I dont know really... good question, though. I probably have the heart to kill, but I dont want to unlock that potential unless there is no other choice... (im like Kira Yamato of gundam seed)

[yellow flash]

A quote from Isabell, A character in Suikoden V. "What is evil if not violence? The only thing you can hope for every time you draw your sword, Is that by your act of violence, You take from the world more evil than you bring into it" Of course this is a quote from a video game. But still I think it holds much relevance to the topic of this thread.

[DestinyBlade]

Yes, I agree with ya on that one there. Everyone has the potential to be evil deep down inside... Read "lord of the flies" (strange name, isn't it?).

[Miss M]

It's okey for me to kill someone in order to save another...
It usually depends on the situation you're in or the person you're killing or saving....
But if it's for a love one.... then I won't hesitate doing that....
After all, the person whom you're saving is dear to you.

[aI]

It is never ok to kill someone to save another no matter the circumstances...

The best that you can do to rectify the "Sin" on your shoulders is to claim entire responsibilty for your actions and not make excuses such as he was going to kill that man...

that being said i would most definatly kill another if they were going to kill another person no matter what the situation and if killing them was the only option left to me to do.

[Z-man]

Of course it's ok to kill someone that is going to kill someon. The terrist was probably gonna kill more than one "innocent" person. You probably saved hundreds from that terrorist.

[Karakura Red]

killing is always wrong as i say but if it really is to protect smone then it should be okay.... i still voted that it was wrong thoiugh. But if in example it was a terrerist then if you were a POLICEMAN (i stress) or smthing like that then if you killed a threatening person that could kill many others than i think it may be okay. Killing is still wrong, its bad...

[Ollson]

What qualifies as a terrorist?

Nobody has the right to take action of their judgement to that degree.
What if that "terrorist" is going to kill the "innocent" person because his mother will die if he doesn't?
The "terrorist" may want to kill the "innocent" person because he is convinced that the person is evil, that he's doing humanity a favor.
Just because you have different beliefs, doesn't make either of you right or wrong.
Personal views are never correct and they're never an acceptable excuse to take someone's life.

If you believe in "rights" that is.
If you simply believe that everybody can do what they want because of what they feel and think.
Then it's ok.

Personally, i believe in the first one.
However, everybody has the right to protect that which they believe in.
As much as everybody has the right to fight for that which they believe in.

[Neve]

/moved to informal debates

I'd like to see less one-liners in this thread, please.

[lula m]

who knows who is right or not it completely unthinkble that we coud kill some one.its wrong.
life is the most important thing we have thake it or not isnt our job. keep it is.
we must protect life.
the stronger must protect the weak, and help him to get stronger.

[SpongebobSquarepants]

Personally i feel that killing is just plain wrong. All killing does is make the world a more violent and torn place. I know that we will never become a utopian society but do we really have to kill?

On topic with the actual question tho... I would do whatever it takes to save the person in trouble. Hopefully I wouldnt have to kill the person but if thats the only option then fine. Seriously who do you think should live out of the two? The person who is violent and about to kill someone or the person who is just there(who may or may not have done something to spark the argument and for the purposes of my argument im assuming that the person about to die is just a random bystanded being held up in a bank or something. not the guy that was busted sleeping with the gun-holders wife)?

[Cloudarc]

I would say all kinds of killing is wrong i would always try to look for the way so nobody has to die you may be protecting one life and thier future but you would also be talking one like and destroying a future if in the unlikely event that a life is taken we must bear the weight of that responsibility and look towards the future so something like this would never happen again

[Iro]

I do not agree with killing to save another... you must think of a better way that will cause no harm to others. If i were situated in that kind of situation where i would have to kill my bestfriend to save my brother, i wouldnt think of killing my bestfriend immediately i would think of other possible ways... but if i couldnt i might as well kill myself... it is not their fault that they were positioned in that kind of situation and they have no right to die for someone just to save the other even if they agree to it, it is still wrong. This question can be answered based on a given situation or alternative.

[candyb3ar]

once again circumstances not every thing can be categorised in 2 piles yes and no there are a million in betweens, so really what the point of arguing something when it can have many different forms...but i can assure you that if you were allergic to wasps and one was after you i wouldn't think twice about killing it...(or those pesky frightening butterflys mikey)...*giggles*

[grieversangel]

I do understand that killing is wrong but all of you that say that it's not okay to kill to save someone you love then what you are trying to say is that if your mom or dad or sister, brother best friend girlfriend/boyfriend where about to die in front of you and you had a chance to save them and the only way to save them was to kill the attacker you wouldn't do it???? I mean if you care for someone that much you would do anything or them ...right....right.....I know i would.

[dragoneyes001]

to kill someone to save another is done every day police need to do this to protect the inocent military does it to protect civilians people do it to protect family.

each instance would need to be reviewed to see if there was an alternative but in many cases there just isn't an alternative.

[Kapura-nui]

if your with your Girlfriend or something and some psycho runs at you with a gun, Id dis-arm the gun, then if he got it Id just kill him 0_o.

but yes, it eally depends on circumstance

[Damier]

A real kicker would be if the terrorist wasn't actually a terrorist at all, but merely someone to be pupeteered from behind the scenes.

I don't care about the act of sinning, so I, personally, would kill them in such a situation.

But, sin is sin. There's no bias about it. You're committing a wrong to right a wrong. In the end, it's still a wrong.

[Lucki]

they say that if someone is being bullied and you say nothing and watch you are just as bad as them!!

so if an innocent is about to be murdered and you dont kill or do any thing to save them are you not the same as the killer??

[d2d2]

it is ok because other people would probably do the same thing

[pihing]

Killing is morally wrong because it negates the natural moral law "thou shalt not kill".. but in this case(im an avid fan of situationism), it depends upon the situation. killing can be good as long you do it for others, the motive is good and out of christian love.

[toxxin]

No offense, but I don't think the poll is fair. It's all circumstancial. If a masked man came to my house and pulled a gun on my mother, I would most definatly do what I have to to subdue him, and if there for some reason was a gun in MY hand, I would most definatly use it.

[Munky]

No offense, but I don't think the poll is fair. It's all circumstancial. If a masked man came to my house and pulled a gun on my mother, I would most definatly do what I have to to subdue him, and if there for some reason was a gun in MY hand, I would most definatly use it.

Good point.
But i think the main idea of creating the poll was to see if people saw it wrong or right. I doesnt matter if you did OR will kill a person for the sake of another - that's another topic relating to morality.

[Monkey_man]

well in my opinion it really depends on who you are protecting to and who you are killing if you kill a cop to save a convicted murder i think that i wrong but if a guy is pointing a gun at your child and you have a gun and you shoot him think that is fine

[Riw]

I read an article a while ago (from BBC news, probably) about law enforcement in Iran. There, both civil law and Islamic law are in effect at the same time. Latter dictates that a killing isn't actually a murder if the killer can be shown having been working under the assumption that the victim was "morally corrupt". So, there was a recent case were the supreme court found a couple of men not guilty. They had been killing people: for example a young couple whose sin was that they had been holding hands in a public place. (It's worth noting that lower courts would have convicted these men, though.)

So here comes my point: I think that the idea that people can individually decide whose life is worth more and who is morally corrupt can, in extremes, lead to insanity like this. People shouldn't be killed just because someone thought that they were bad and a nuisance to society - that decision should be left to the state (even though I'm really even against death penalty). So I'm against thinking like it's ok to kill a murderer to save an innocent. Everything is not about point of view and some people really are worse than others but, as I said, it shouldn't be up to individuals to decide who are the bad guys.

However, if someone was pointing a gun at someone else, ready to shoot, the right thing to do would be to try stop the murder from happening. If killing the shooter would be absolutely the only way to do it, then yes, I would find that justified (but morally right or wrong? I can't really say). Still, I'd rather hope it wouldn't be me committing the act.

And if someone was pointing a gun at one of my loved ones, I don't think I'd much think about right and wrong anymore.

In general, I think that a situation where...
- Someone is attempting to kill someone, and is likely to succeed
- There is someone else present who has the means, the ability and an opportunity to kill the killer
- And the only choice left for that person is to really, truly attempt to kill
...is quite rare. Another related question is then, of course, is it right to not do anything even if all the aforementioned points apply?

[warforge]

Mincing words:

Killing is not wrong. To kill to eat...To kill to defend your life or life of loved ones, or innocents.

Murder is wrong. To go out and kill without reason or rational just for the enjoyment of causing suffering. That is wrong.

But Ill be damned if I had a shotgun and some dude was chasing my wife with a knife...He is going to suck on multiple shots to the body till hes swiss cheese.

[Sunshine]

I am against capital punishment, but I can see what they have in mind when conducting it; Save the people which might be murdered by the convicted criminal.
But I still don't think it is right to take his life...

But if it is so wrong to kill then half of americas population would be gone from my point of view.... since the one injecting the poison in the person sentenced to death actually would be a "murderer" to..? should he then be sentenced to death? I know this is not how it goes, but it is still a killing, even if it is sanctioned by the state.

But I wouldn't just stand there if someone was trying to kill one of my loved ones.

[M-50]

Like many people have said before me, it all depends on the circumstance. If someone was threatening near and dear ones then yes I would kill to save another. But if I had a gun and two people to kill just for fun then i would not do that, at least I do not think I would. At least not in my current state, if I flipped I might do.

[Seff vi Britannia]

All i can really say is this.

I don't fear hell. I don't believe in it, so there is nothing to fear for me. If there is something after death, then so be it.

If someone were going to shoot my mum, dad, or sis, i had the power to stop them, i would. Even if it meant killing them. I just hope that i would have the courage to do so.

[MrFondu]

no offense to anyone (i hope) but im not a religious person and i say to kill to save is not a sin but not think about this, if its 1 person going to kill another person, just one, would killing the killer be wrong, because no matter what 1 person will die...

[SteadyChaos]

Most will say that killling to save someone else can never be justified

but i think thre must be Circumstances to which Killing to save anouther can be

[sadozaraki17]

To kill another living being to save another being is not wrong in my opinion; as stated in other posts before me it would depend on who you were going to save from another.

[Artemis]

1 death for 1 life?
depends who.

1 death for multiple lives?
Worth it.

[VampyreLord]

I'd like to see some longer posts here, people. Scorch, steadychaos, sadozaraki, all your posts are a little too short. Try to debate your views a little more and state them a little less :)

[StormsFury]

If it was self-defense and I had to I would, if it involves my children absolutly..but to just go out and do it because I felt like it No..I know that it is one of the worst sins(so it is taught)but if I have a choice of dying myself,or one/both of my kids, I will fight back and than accept whatever comes afterwards, I can justifiy certain situations but not others(ex:serieal murders,terrorists,ect.) and with the way out society is everything is flexable is one way or another, or so it seems...

[Tai Dai]

It is a sin. You don't necesarilly have to kill that person, you can try convincing or turning the person into police. What if that person was your freind, would you immediately kill him? No, you would usually try to prevent the person from commiting it without hurting the person. If you kill someone who was about to take someone elses life, then you take away any hope of him trying to make up for all the mistakes, but if you show them a better path then they could possibly do more good for the community than they have ever done bad.

[Joe Black]

i agree with Sub.Shingami with this one.

Lethal force must only be used in extremely rare circumstance. If there was any one action to prevent the death of another, even the attacker, you choose that action.

Although, persay, you may have 'justification' to kill to save someone else, it might just be a reason to hide true intention, like killing from passion and not reason.

[dragoneyes001]

i agree with Sub.Shingami with this one.
Lethal force must only be used in extremely rare circumstance. If there was any one action to prevent the death of another, even the attacker, you choose that action.
Although, persay, you may have 'justification' to kill to save someone else, it might just be a reason to hide true intention, like killing from passion and not reason.

thats a nice way to look at it but its naive to think it can turn out that way for quite a few circumstances example: just how many wars are currently being fought at the moment? not many military's will set out to capture as a rule it only becomes relevant when a group surrenders otherwise its kill or be killed and your going to kill to support and protect your side.

what I'm saying is that the circumstances are not nearly as rare as you make them out to be even in civilian life there are quite a few examples of kill to protect others the police deal with this regularly then theres protecting family and friends ...etc...etc... sure its not something that every person will face in fact many will never even need to think of it but its far more frequent than you seem to think it is.

[Sushi]

If someone close to me was in danger of dying and I had to kill someone to save them, I would kill. Now, I wouldn't go around killing anybody, but if someone held a gun to my friend's head and I had the means to kill them, they'd be dead. Of course, killing is wrong and it's a sin, but if that was the only option I had I would take it.

[jonnethon]

People naturally become more inclined towards killing the agressor rather than saving the one in danger, but some very few instances may require the extreme. I dont think people should bathe in happiness and glory after taking a life... but yeah, thats my 87 cents.

[CallouS]

I think killing to save another is the moraly correct thing to do. Because, int he eyes of a said god, what would scorn you more; Being selfish and watching the person die, or, striking down upon the attempted-murderer?

[VampyreLord]

Longer posts please everyone, 2 lines is really too short.

Thanks :)

[Neko Bam]

Do u think that killing someone etc a terrorist who is going to kill an innocent is sin?
Discuss.

There is no real awnser to this, it all depends on the ethical teaching you follow.

For example, an Utilist would say it is okay, because if the terrorist kills the victim, the terrorist may be happy (he succeeded in his mission), but it will cause sadness for the victim (he's dead, so he probably isn't too happy about it) and for you (you will feel guilty for not doing anything). So there is more 'pain' (guilt) then happiness.

If you kill the terrorist, the terrorist will be sad (he's dead, not happy), but you will be happy (you feel like a hero = a good feeling) and the victim will feel relieved, thus there is more happiness then suffering.

Somebody who follows the teachings of Immanuel Kant would say that it is NEVER good to kill somebody (yes, Kants teachings are a bit dogmatic). You have the choice: to kill or not to kill, the context of the murder doesn't matter. A good person should choose for not killing, but you may feel guilty for not doing anything afterwards. According to Kant you shouldn't feel guilty: The terrorist is another person with another mind and another responsibility: if he kills the victim he's the one to blame, not you, it is his own personal responsibility.

In most situations I would agree with Kant, but sometimes he's a bit too dogmatic for me.

Longer posts please everyone, 2 lines is really too short.

Thanks :)

:lol is this okay?

[Seff vi Britannia]

You can't really pull the religious "sin" stuff, for those who don't believe in God, they won't be worried by any form on "divine punishment."

Let's put it this way; You walk into a room and a thug is holding a gun to the head of an innocent person. You have the power to kill the thug, but if you don't, he will go off an kill more innocents/commit more crimes.

There is a reason police are allowed to use lethal force - generally people who commit crimes aren't going to have good intentions in the future.

If someone is in a position where they are about to kill another, they probably deserve to die anyway.

[Saithe]

Just tell the guy that Jesus loves him, and he'll put the gun away and you can all sit down and have some tea and talk about how he can be a better person if he switches to decaf and orders a Bowflex in the next ten minutes...


I personally would kill the guy. However, were I a person with a more fragile mind, I might not. I think if you can psychologically handle taking a life, you should do it to make the world better for those who can't.
And besides, if you can just get to the nearest church and do shots with the pastor before God zaps you like a bug, you can be happy that you're forgiven.

(I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but as far as I've always been taught, sin = sin. There is no "greater" or "lesser" sin. All have sinned, and so we're all screwed, no need to determine if you're less screwed or more...)

[FaerieRose]

To kill to save a life is a difficult question because of all the ethical and moral choices not to mention the religious ones too. If my family's lives depended on me doing this task or deed- I would in a heartbeat. Would I have to face other consequences because of my actions? Yes I would because there are laws that say I do. Taking a life to save another is a loaded question in which many people will answer according to their personal and moral beliefs of right or wrong as well as a sense of justice too. Taking a life is just that taking a life because you can't get that back once it's gone. Life is precious no matter whose it is.

[Sono i Lupi]

for a religious or overly moral based person
it seems 100% hypocritical
kill someone to save another?
what makes u an adequate judge of who gets to live or die?
if everyone is equal then why should this person live over another?
but for a normal person in a unordinary situation well
fck, if i was in some situation where i had to choose between letting some i loved die or killing some guy, id bash the shit out of that guy and use his spine as a coat rack

basically u have to ask urself
is ur clean conscience worth the life of another?
and usually the answer is no

[Graffik]

It is quite simple really, yes, if there's no other way to save them.

If terrorists highjacked a plane you were on and were pointing ak47's in everybodies faces, well, wth other choice can you have. Are you going to let a select few get away with the murder of a 100 people etc.? Well if you have the means to stop them, which in this case is to kill them, of course you're not.

It doesn't matter whether you are making the choice of somebody's 'life', if they're using it to end others lives.

for a religious or overly moral based person
it seems 100% hypocritical
1.kill someone to save another?
2.what makes u an adequate judge of who gets to live or die?


I'll start by answering these questions

1. To kill somebody in this case depends entirely on the context, if you're killing to stop this person from killing the person you are saving, okay. Although, if both were innocent, in this case the one who is slated to die, will have to die, you can't sacrifice discriminately, of course, for obvious reasons life isn't applied this way. In the end, it comes down to the individual personally, I will obviously choose a family member or friend over a stranger, despite both being equally 'innocent'.

2. In the case where life is being threatened before you, and power to do something is in your hands, you should do it. Although once again, it is up to the individual, however it does make sense to murder a murderer, instead of watching an innocent person die in the murderers place or in the murderers hands. Since nothing in life can really be outlined by straight thick boundaries, it is always up to the moment and sequence of events. When two innocent people are the only options, you can do nothing of it [if you had to choose one to live, and one to die] but when there is the case of innocent and guilty, it's pretty clear the death of the criminal is beneficient, i.e. you get rid of a threat, and you save a life.

It cannot be placed as wrong or right, unless everything is crystal clear, is there another way to avert the tragedy? If not it's alright, if yes, then the other solution must first be tried and expired before killing can be an option. Though killing would have a higher 'success rate'. Especially if there was a glock in both you and the terrorists hands...

[TuRm0iL]

There is always a 3rd option. For instance, a terrorist has a gun pointed at your friends head. You have say a knife. Hold the knife to his throat. The meaning becomes clear. Everyone is afraid of death, this includes stone-cold killers. He (or she, lets not be sexist about this, woman can kill just as good as men can) will inevetiably back down when his own life is at stake. But I believe it is necessary to give him this chance to stop. If he doesn't, well than he is as good as dead, but this thread doesn't discuss killing as a result of revenge, so I won't go into that.

Of course, you could always argue "what if i didn't have a weapon to threaten him with?" Well than you didn't have the means to kill him, not at least before the other person is already dead.

[Sirius]

The problem is it's often very difficult to decide in a split second who is wrong and who is right. For instance, what if a mobster killed some guys family, and that guy set off to kill the mobster. What if I saw the guy pointing a gun at the mobster and decided to 'defend' the seemingly unarmed person who was begging for their life (the mobster) and shot the guy. Who did I just defend? From my point of view I lacked information and made an erroneous decision.

If the question is as simple as 'is it ok to shoot a guilty person to defend an innocent person' the obvious answer is yes. If some crazed lunatic was attempting to run over a 4 year old and I shot them I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Such clear and obvious situations are rare though...

Also the lives of the majority are not always worth more than the lives of the minority. The lives of 50 seniors at a retirement home are not worth as much as the lives of 49 grade school children. In such a case I would choose to sacrifice the 50 seniors to save the 49 grade school children. Such decisions need to be made based on the situation not in adherence to mindless rules.

[shanyetta]

There is a difference between murder and killing to save someone. Murder is defined as:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

If my loved one or someone innocent was going to be killed by someone else and the only way to save them was to kill them than I would kill them. Is this murder, NO. In the bible (talking about sin), committing murder is a sin, not saving someone.

[Chi]

In the silvia platt sort of way any act done with or without intent is ultimately going to effect another. I have had the displeasure of having to kill men in the service of the Us military. Terms and phrases are used to cover the act of killing from murder when ultimately it is all one in the same. It's just depends on how much you want to sleep at night, that you used one term to dullen the act commited.
Terms such as if you kill one enemy you save 100 allies, or one ounce of sweat saves a gallon of your blood, or he who hesitates in the heat of battle shall meet his maker.
Killing is no different then murder its all the same because they both feel the same. A woman in Afghanistan called me a murder and a butcher because i partook in a raid that saw 15 Afghan men die and others wounded. But i was dubbed a hero with killer instincts by my superiors in the service... I don't see the difference its one big gray blurr.

But to answer the topic question at hand i will in turn ask you another question. In Nazi occupied poland there in the concentration camps Jews were faced with choiceless choices in which a father would have to decide who would live and who would die between his wife and his daughter, of cours he could always make other children with his wife but saving his daughter improves her chance for survival since she's young and healthy, if you were he who would you pick and could you live with yourself. Because if you don't pick one both die...

Killing to save another depends entirely on the situation at hand, if its to save a child then yes it is ok, to protect a woman... yes it is ok or even to protect a man who cannot protect himself then yes it is ok but if its for someone who commited a hainus crime, or a criminal then no i can not say it is ok but i often find lethal force isn't always the best solution to any problems there's always a third option even if you don't see it right off the bat.

[xiphosforr]

killing is wrong either way---but
if you decide not to kill the terrorist for example- then 20 people die, if you kill the terrorist 1 person dies, it just seems to be more fair to spare more lives, also i think people like terrorists deserve to die anyway- if they're willing to kill others for their own beliefs they should be willing to die for them as well.

[ramen_lover]

in one way it may be a sin to kill to save but if you can save them and you dont that would pobibly be a sin

[Pierrot]

I'm not religious so the idea of me killing someone who would willingly cause harm to a loved one being a "Sin" really isn't relevant to me. I'd be doing the right thing in my own mind and I'd be sparing an important life, thats all that matters to me.
At the same time I don't think it can be sugarcoated, taking that life to protect is still a conscious decision, I am killing them and I am aware of it, just because my reasons are noble doesn't alter the fact that It would be murder, In my mind at least.