Can murder be justified?

[† Ferocia Coutura]

Is murder ever justifiable, even when its not self-defense? I pose to everyone this question; If you knew the holocaust would happen and you saw Hitler as a baby, would you be able to kill an infant, even if that infant would grow up into a monster?

[Avith]

Is murder/killing justified? Legally obviously almost never (except on the battlefield and sometimes in defense). In terms of my personal belief, very rarely, but yes I think so. I certainly belive killing in order to protect one's self or others sometimes is acceptable, although it would be my last resort or to only be done under extreme conditions.

Would I kill baby Hitler? If I could get away with it and not get killed myself or end up in prison, then yes.

[DuLake]

That's a tough one. I don't suppose I can take him and raise him as a Jew can I?

Personally, I'm opposed to the taking of life in pretty much all forms (with exclusions for self-defense and pedophiles (I'm not going to try and justify the second exception, as my view is based largely out of disgust)), so I, on principal, would say no, I wouldn't kill baby Hitler. However, in light of the Bin Laden execution, I'm kind of in a difficult spot. Death was the only logical way to handle Bin Laden. If you brought him back alive, it would have been a much bigger, and much more prolonged, incident, and you probably would've had to kill him later anyway. That seems like kind of an unethical turn though, as it's an argument of convenience. As it seemed, I was glad he was dead, I just didn't want to pull the trigger. I think it'd kind of be like that if Hitler were a baby and his life was set on course, as despicable as I would find that act. Still doubt I could go through with it though. I'm not entirely sure preemptive justice is still justice.

[Krogothwolf]

Well, considering Murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" I'd have to say no, since it's all premeditated and you plan on killing that person. There is no reason to go into a situation with "I'm going to kill this person." in an unlawful environment.

The Bin Laden example is a poor one because, since a governing body deemed it a lawful act it isn't actually murder.

The Baby Hitler is even a worse one because you're committing infanticide and saying that there is no way to alter the path Hitler takes and can't be changed, which is a whole argument of fate and preordained stuff.

Self Defense isn't generally considered Murder because it's not premeditated.

Taking a life is justifiable in the end, as there are numerous situations were it is the only course of action to take. The murder of someone isn't because as it's describe, it is an act of Malice Aforethought.

[DuLake]

Well, considering Murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" I'd have to say no, since it's all premeditated and you plan on killing that person. There is no reason to go into a situation with "I'm going to kill this person." in an unlawful environment.

I honestly can't entirely agree with you. I mean, you're factually correct, but using a legal system as a sole source of ethics is kind of hit or miss. I'm not going to bullshit you with Nazi examples (it's become a cliche), but just because a government permits something doesn't make it automatically moral. I mean, ethical beliefs are all kind of relative I suppose, but I would still like to think we can try to find some things we can agree on regardless of what is punishable.

The Bin Laden example is a poor one because, since a governing body deemed it a lawful act it isn't actually murder.

The Baby Hitler is even a worse one because you're committing infanticide and saying that there is no way to alter the path Hitler takes and can't be changed, which is a whole argument of fate and preordained stuff.

Self Defense isn't generally considered Murder because it's not premeditated.

Again, spot on on the legalities, but I'd like to think we can consider possibilities outside of what the law books say (isn't it that sort of thought that conceived of laws in the first place?).

Also, while it is a bit cliche, I support that baby Hitler as a thought experiment. It's obviously an impossible circumstance, but it makes us reflect on our contradictory values (We all want Hitler dead, but we don't want to kill babies. Also, would it be easier if he hadn't been born and it were an abortion?). Not that that's a criticism of Kro, but just felt like throwing a little affirmation at Honey. lol

Taking a life is justifiable in the end, as there are numerous situations were it is the only course of action to take. The murder of someone isn't because as it's describe, it is an act of Malice Aforethought.

So you're saying it's the malicious intent to kill that defines murder? I could dig that. Though I would wonder about conflicts involving malicious feelings and, say, self-defense. Hypothetically, what if I were an abused child and killed my despised abuser out of self defense? It would seem that the self-defense would override the malicious intent. Maybe it would be better to say "avoidable manslaughter" is murder; a killing that didn't need to happen for a given reason. Still fuzzy around the edges though. I don't know, just some thoughts.

[Lokisson]

Taking a life in war isn't murder (there are a load of books of legal/ethical precedent here) ... however, this does not say that murder cannot be committed during times of war. If discovered it is both ethically and legally wrong and likely to get you in all kinds of trouble. (I'm doing a degree in Defence Studies ... military papers essentially)

Do I have issues regarding murder? Could I justify ever having to do so? Sadly, yes, I could. Even without recourse to the "self-defence" claim. Sorry, I'm not the most moral of people and have known this about myself for a long long time. Without any problems at all I can think of over 20 people I'd happily see dead and not lose a nights sleep over it. Hel, I'd probably sleep better for a change.

[Krogothwolf]

Its theUnlawful with Malice Intent and Premeditation that define murder as what it is. Which is what makes the whole "Is murder justifiable" argument in the end a bad place to begin since you're asking if that is justifiable. It's better to ask if take a life is justifiable as it opens up more arguments for what parts are. I feel that going into a situation saying "I'm going to kill this person." That isn't an enemy combatant. isn't justifiable, it isn't. You should be going into a situation thinking there is another option available.

Examples of killings based on Government orders for the slaying is in the end written based on history as the saying goes, The victors write the history. In the end though, it's more of the men in charge ordering their forces to kill people and them following orders so it's dicey. Obviously raping/pillaging is wrong and would be seen as murder and isn't justifiable. As is concentration camps. But its hard to pin the blame on soldiers who are following orders as they are trained to follow orders without questions.

I'll never get behind killing Baby Hitler or even Hitler should never been born. It's not something I can agree with regardless of what it grows up to be. I'm a firm believer in the Nurture over Nature debate.

[DrumRoll]

depends how hungry you are:)

[† Anras Rune]

depends how hungry you are:)

lmao! YUMMY!!

Anyhoo, jokes aside, I have no qualms in the idea of taking a life out of neccesity. Also, my "neccesity" is probably different to others. Let me clarify. I do believe that certain individuals do not deserve another chance, as long as they are mentally sound or sociopathic then if they commit a crime that imo grants euthanisation (I use euthanisation, cause to me murder is intentional infliction of lethal harm for malicious reasons, whereas in this case it would imo be more similar to removal of a threat to people, and/or a service to humanity) then they shouldnt be allowed a chance to repeat said offence. For example: DuLake mentioned pedophilia, which most relate to mental health problems and the likes, when in most cases this is just psychologists bumping their gums. Not every pedophile is mentally unsound, in fact most are completely sane individuals. Imo killing a repeat pedophile, or someone who did so with intent is justifiable.

Another example, to show my differing opinions. If in say 20 years time, I have a teenage daughter/son, who is raped, or hurt badly by someone, then I would do anything in my power to make sure said man/woman dies. Suffers first, then dies. As gruesome as it sounds, I have no faith in the current legal system of my country, or the country I live in. Thus, vigilantism would be the only way I could sleep at night.

As to the Baby Hitler question. No, as it would be paradoxical, and I don't like paradoxes...XS

To the Bin Laden question, I would have gladly pulled the trigger myself.

[olympic119]

unfortunatly you cannot take someone's life for a crime they have yet commit, but one can only hope we can teach the importance of life life of oneself and the lives of others, and no matter how dark things get the goodness of people will always shine through and prevail.

[Bluenoser]

Hmmmm.

My first take on this is to agree with something Krogothwolf said in this first paragraph of his first post specifically: "Well, considering Murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" I'd have to say no, since it's all premeditated and you plan on killing that person." This question is poorly worded because in essence the question is asking whether a legally defined form of killing/homicide is acceptable when that legal definition goes a long way to making it inherently an unacceptable act to begin with. I would have been far happier with a question that asks whether is homicide, or killing ever acceptable instead of murder. Yes, this is a point about semantics, but semantics are important, especially in questions like this one IMHO, because they define the parameters. So when one asks is murder ever acceptable, one is asking whether any form of killing that our society has already defined as unacceptable in its legal/social codes is an acceptable choice, and that is a very tightly defined parameter and one that forces having to consider the legalistic view within it as well, something I noted has already caused some concern within this discussion. That is my first reaction to this question.

Now, to the heart of the question as I believe it to have been meant, when is killing ever acceptable regardless of the views of our society, as in the killing a child you know will become Hitler thought experiment, leaving aside the issues with causation/paradox and accepting the premise that the child is destined to become such a monster regardless of changing the rearing (both of which I have to accept as parameters for this question to have any meaning I might add, which I suspect some will have problems doing and I have to say with fair cause IMHO). I would accepting those qualifications have no qualms about killing said child. The problem with this question though is that it goes so far outside the realm of possible (not just for the time traveling but also for the acceptance of nature/destiny being inevitable, a much more slippery aspect I would suggest than even the time travel aspects) that to answer so really has little meaning/worth.

Do I think there are times where killing is acceptable outside of direct self defence? Yes, I do, I don't like it though, and I really have issues with the inherent aspect of playing God one does in deciding when something meets this threshold, but that doesn't change the reality that I do accept this as true of my worldview. I don't have any simple clean cut parameters that define it though, this is one of those things where I believe it has to be circumstance/context specific as in where in one case I might find killing is a necessity/positive benefit yet another that on the surface looks the same is not. I can't give simple examples or a rule of thumb on it beyond this: I have to be unable to see any less extreme solution as having a viable chance of preventing further harm/damage (because for me there can be no good reason for killing that does not have this at its heart outside of direct basic survival aspects which I think most people would already agree is something they would see as acceptable killing whether it is self defence or self preservation) than execution, because once you kill someone there is no take backsies (yes, I know, a colloquialism, couldn't help it) to that decision.

This is a really difficult question to give a more than knee-jerk answer to when you get beyond the semantic issues with it for me, this is about as good a response I can give for a short response (a long one would be a bit more detailed and extensive, more like an essay, and forgive me but I am not in the mood to do so right know even if I thought that would be desired which I am far from sure of).

P.S.

Yes, I know I have a long winded verbose manner of writing, I can't help it, it is the way my brain processes, I am just as bad verbally too I'm afraid. I have severe ADHD but am considered high functioning, I was so bad I was being treated for it in early childhood, which for someone of my age was unheard of since back in the early 70s few medical people believed this disorder even existed, they called it clinical hyperactivity back then. It took the new imaging technologies that enabled detailed examination of the human brain that started in the mid 80s onwards that finally got this disorder any respect as being a real one with a functional basis in the neurological structure of the brain. Which in turn led to the massive overdiagnosing of it by educators and GPs looking to explain to parents why their kids were too much for them to handle, something that did a massive disservice for those of us who have it not to mention to all those wrongly diagnosed and treated for it (especially those that were bipolar instead since what worked for one tend to be very damaging for the other between these two disorders). I add this here because I am starting to post in serious threads now and this is something I have taken more than a little grief for over the years in the online world so I have learned to simply put it out there from the outset. I much prefer being critiqued for my content and not my volume.

[Shinigami King]

TBH, this is a one of the sole topics that Death Note touches, legally speaking, never, but morally it solely depends on where you stand for me it's a yes.

[† Ferocia Coutura]

For me, if it means saving the lives of the innocent, I could and would murder Hitler. I would feel sick and horrible about it, but I feel I could possibly get over it one day.

As for the definition of murder, I literally mean any form of killing someone other than self-defense. ANY form of inflincting death upon another human being.

[Leviathan87]

yes no doubt in my mind, i could kill baby hitler. rapeists and murders, shouldnt even live... sorry to sound so harsh....

[Libitinarius]

I could definitely go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby. Anyone who purposely takes the life of another deserves to die, while some deserve to die slowly. Although honestly, if I had the capability of going back in time to kill him in the first place, I would wait until he was a bit older so he could fully appreciate my knife collection.

*Edit* Although there are acts worthy of killing a person over who didn't commmit murder themselves--such as Rape, molestation

[VolvoKing]

To kill baby Hitler that would be a tough one. It would change history and things would be different such as my parents wouldn't leave there countries and meet in Canada and thus I wouldn't be born or a lot of other people be born for that matter. Would it be worth the sacrifice? But how many people died compared to how many were born since WWII.

[Scott]

Would I be able to kill Hitler as a baby knowing what he would turn out to be? Yes. I could. No guilt. I would want to be able to get away with it though.

And that should say everything really about my opinion on the thread topic.

[Monad-Gnostis]

This is one hell of a thread, Murder is murder, when one person takes the life of another, but thats only when you do it in a civilized area, I know half of you must know that doing it in battle means difference.

[Catwoman]

No, I'd never take a life of another person. I believe that some things happen for a reason weither we think it is right, wrong or simply see no answer. If it wasn't going to be Hilter, it would have been someone else. If we killed all the people who were power hungry enough to take a life, there would be a lot less people in the world. If we removed all the bad then there would be no good. Jealousy, greed, anger. Basic emotions and events create these 'monsters'. Murder will always be around but I will never have any part of intentionally taking a life. For that would make me a monster too. I would see no justice in doing so. (Yes, that means even if the person took my family away from me. I wouldn't kill them.) However, punishment is completely different. I wouldn't torture a baby Hilter, but an adult... yes.

I draw the line at becoming a murderer though.

[solidgenisis]

Murder under some circumstances could be considered justified in my opinion. However this would only be justified if the person being killed had already committed their crime. a life for a life is justifiable. Killing an infant for something that has yet to come to pass is not. Besides, killing babies is something that is frowned upon.