If this was the case I think there’d be a lot more crime than we currently see.
Plenty of times I could get away with committing some crime, but I don’t, because like most people I want to feel like the good guy. I want to feel like the protagonist in my own personal story.
And yeah, if we’re talking about crimes serious enough to have a clear victim, then empathy and compassion would stop me. Hell, I feel terrible if I bump into another pedestrian, I would probably never again get a good night’s sleep if I, say, mugged someone.
Here is the crux of the question: How many people, if given the chance, would push the button to execute Hitler? That is killing a human being, and individuals vary only according to how many human beings they would place within the class of those whose death would be justifiable. If that number is one or more, your are capable of becoming a murderer.
It’s not capacity to commit murder that makes murderers different. It’s the willingness to do so. History tells us, if it tells us anything, that all of us are capable of committing heinous crimes. What it also tells us is that most of us have the capacity to refrain from doing so - whether for ethical, moral, or societal reasons.
I, personally, am unwilling to commit acts of heinous violence. My willingness is subject to change based on a huge variety of stimuli, as is everyone’s. I’m happy to admit that there exist any number of circumstances that could induce me to commit acts of heinous violence. I don’t think they’re likely and do my best to plan my life in such a manner as to avoid them. The thing that differentiates murderers is that they require a whole lot less stimulus to alter their willingness or are unwilling or unable to plan their lives so as to avoid those stimuli.
Yes. Of course there will be people who will swear up and down that they’d never kill anyone, hurt anyone, get in a fight, have an affair, steal anything, turn without signaling, or whatever else, but there’s a breaking point for everything.
Wasn’t there at least one case of a German soldier refusing to participate in a firing squad against civilians and voluntarily joining them before being shot alongside them? Thanks for the recommendation, that sounds like an interesting book.
As to the OP, are we differentiating between murdering someone and killing someone? A police officer (for example) might lawfully shoot and kill someone in the course of their duty but that isn’t murder.
Personally I believe practically everyone is capable of killing under the correct circumstances, thankfully fewer are capable of murder.
Using “murder” as a legal term, it’s not murder. But the issue here is one’s own sense of the sanctity of human life and the bloody hands that might arise from taking one. The OP, I think, speaks to the question of who is willing to kill a person, even if it is legal to do so. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin when it was legal to do so. Would you have, in the same circumstance? Does the fact that it is legal, by itself, make it OK, and exonerate you in your own heart and soul from any moral responsibility for the act?
What kinds of things are “legal”, but you would not do them, as a matter of conscience? Not murder, just everyday things.
Its a pretty major distinction and not just legally, apparently even considering the commandments a more accurate translation is ‘Thou shalt not murder’, not, ‘Thou shalt not kill’.
Although I certainly hope it never comes to it I’ve no particular moral qualms with the concept of having to kill someone in the defence of myself or another, but it would need to be a high bar of necessity for that, literally kill or be killed.
It seems to me that your question is ‘Are people who are exposed to EXTREME deprivation or abuse the same as the rest of us?’
I would think that for the most part that people are the same, it may just be the way people respond to stressful situations that would bring about differences. Of course I am not a shrink…