Is it ethical to kill a sadistic criminal who hasn't actually killed anybody?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@MrDibble

I think my stance on this is evolving - it’s OK…-ish for someone else to do that, as long as they’re of the considered opinion that defensive killing is moral. I’m still not happy about it, I wouldn’t do it myself, but a moral stance that doesn’t at least acknowledge that people differ strongly in their view of defensive violence would be far too rigid, I think. But I’m still not comfortable with me directly providing the tools for them to do this, hence my answer to the OP. If the cops had their own Roddenberry-killer-device, they can do what they like with it, but that wasn’t your hypothetical, which involved some action on my part.

Well, presumably you wouldn’t be working for a business called Evil Enterprises. Though I suppose you might be willing in theory to do hookerbot maintenance, the weapons-dealing, war-formenting, and targeted-assassinations divisions would give you pause.

[Anaamika]

Rabid dog. Put it down.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

You know I think Roddenberry should be killed, right?

@Skald_the_Rhymer

No, I mean justify it morally. And, yes, legally justified murder is a contradiction in terms.

I’m having trouble figuring out how these two posts work together. A moral definition of murder would surely be something like, “a morally unjustified killing.” Are you defining murder in a different fashion?

I certainly agree that this would constitute killing, but I think it’d be morally justified killing and not therefore murder.

[Dan_Norder]

@Chronos

He can choose to stop his attacks and continue to live, or he can choose to commit suicide by cop. It would be regrettable if he chose the latter, but it would be his decision.

I was going to say this, except without the giving a public announcement warning that his life was at risk. If he’s choosing to use advance technology to torture people he has to accept the potential that the same kind of technology could be used in other ways to his detriment. Whether he explicitly knows his next attempted attack will cause his own death or not, he’s still responsible for his own actions. So in my mind it would be regrettable if he didn’t die at this point, because you know he’s the type of person who would just sadistically torture people some other way even if he stopped this one way.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Dan_Norder

I was going to say this, except without the giving a public announcement warning that his life was at risk. If he’s choosing to use advance technology to torture people he has to accept the potential that the same kind of technology could be used in other ways to his detriment. Whether he explicitly knows his next attempted attack will cause his own death or not, he’s still responsible for his own actions. So in my mind it would be regrettable if he didn’t die at this point, because you know he’s the type of person who would just sadistically torture people some other way even if he stopped this one way.

I kind of agree. Surely the police have a policy on providing warnings before they shoot someone, right? If someone has a hostage, and there’s a sniper on an adjacent roof, do the police have to provide any sort of warning whatsoever telling the person that there’s a sniper on the adjacent roof, or can the sniper take the shot without the criminal ever being the wiser?

My impression is that if someone has chosen to commit a serious crime like torture, then the police may use deadly force to stop the crime, and if notifying the criminal about the potential for deadly force would impair its ability to stop the crime, no such notification is necessary.