My gut reaction is, no of course not. I’m a religious person and take the 10 commandments pretty seriously. In the Bible translation I study the sixth commandment says “Thou shalt not kill.” It doesn’t say “unless it’s deserved” or “unless you think it will make you feel better”
The people who I loved and respected most in the world are the ones who taught me to value the Bible and its lessons (recognizing that it’s not everyone’s thing - just pointing out that it’s important to me) and would be sooo disappointed in me if I were to become a vengeful murderer, even if it was their murder I was avenging. That fact would keep me from killing the person.
Well, that and the fact that I wouldn’t be capable of killing another person. If I started to run him over in the car and he started screaming I wouldn’t handle that at all well. I’d probably end up only injuring him, and then getting sued for his medical costs and “pain and suffering”
…except perhaps if that person was in the act of hurting my child. In that instance I wouldn’t be trying to kill him I’d be trying to save my son. At the same time I wouldn’t try too hard not to kill him.
Now, if I was walking through the mall or airport and saw this murderer clutching his chest or left arm and gasping for air, would I do CPR? Hmmm. At the same time I was learning all those commandments the whole Golden Rule thing was emphasized as well.
I’ve said (and possibly posted on these boards) before that I flat out did not get the death penalty until my son was born. I still oppose it intellectually, but now better understand how we ended up with it in the first place.
Never’s a big word. You don’t allow for self-defense or defense of another? I’m mostly anti-death penalty too, but I’d kill to protect my wife, siblings, father, or nieces & nephews from harm. In your view, would that make me a murderer?
I’d run him down like a dog if it was one of my sons and my wife was still around to care for the other one as I did my time in jail. If it was my wife who died…I dunno. It depends on how old my kids were, if I was needed to care for them. I have always viewed each human being as having innate worth, but I believe that by our actions we can purge ourselves of that worth. Killing anyone in cold blood to avoid the reprecussions of one’s actions pretty much breaks the bank in my book, and the person becomes worthless. Also, in the scenario from the OP, you’d be looking at vehicular manslaughter at worst, I can do a couple years in the jug to avenge my loved one.
For all of those who responded with “Absolutely not, murder is murder, two wrongs don’t make a right, never ever is killing someone okay to do, etc. etc.”
what are your feelings on military personelle who run operations with the intent on killing the enemy?
It’s not all killing in self defense. Plenty of these operations are offensive manuveurs.
It would seem to me that if you held the opinion that killing another human is wrong in all circumstances, then you would not believe in having a military of any sort.
There are plenty of people who don’t believe in having a military of any sort.
The killing done by the military is something they, the soldiers, do. This is a poll about what we ourselves do.
Of course, I’m not seeing the point of this poll anyway.
I would definately, 100%, get out of my car, and beat this person senseless. Within inches of their life, and I would make damn sure he could never walk again. Why give him the easy way out by killing him? I’d rather submit him to a life of not being able to move his arms or legs. Got an itch buddy? Too bad you can’t scratch it eh? Sucks to be you. That’s what you get for murdering an innocent child.
The way I see it, I would rather kill a murderer than let him live in jail, where we have to pay our tax dollars to keep him alive. I’d rather see those tax dollars used to prevent other kids from growing up to become murderers. Not sure how you’d do it, maybe open a boys & girls club or something?
Unless I was damn sure he was going to get raped every day and his life was going to be hell, which would be better than giving him the easy way out, I would rather see the person die, not only to save tax dollars, but to keep him from ever doing something like that to someone else again, and maybe prevent someone else from doing that later in their lives.
Yeah, I’m with you on that. Actually, after torturing him for a very long time, if I could figure out how to I’d try to permanently paralyze him as much as possible. I don’t really have the anatomical knowledge but I could probably figure it out. If there was a way to sever the pathways between the brain and the motor neurons, that would be ideal. Preferably he would be able to breathe on his own, but not speak (is this possible?) I would want to try to replicate the conditions of locked-in syndrome if this is possible.
I really would not want him to die, and I certainly wouldn’t want him to “rot in prison” (meaning, he would be able to live the rest of his life among like minded individuals, have access to drugs and sexual partners, and probably grow to enjoy himself, all while being fed, clothed and cared for by taxpayers.) Ideally, I’d try to set up some kind of situation where he’d be taken to a hospital and have to spend the rest of his life there, completely immobile. I wouldn’t want him to have to be put on life support or a ventilator because then there’s a chance that he could be taken off of it and die.
Yeah, I’m not a very kind person when it comes to guys who kill my family. The most I could say is that I’d be afraid of the legal consequences.
Of course, in real life a scenario like Gus’s is much more realistic. You’ve got a prime suspect, but you can’t really be sure they’re the perpetrator, and you can’t murder the suspect without setting yourself up to go to prison. Or the killer is just plain psychotic and out of his mind.
If I was sure of the identity of the perp, and he wasn’t crazy, and I was pretty sure I wouldn’t go to jail, of course I’d get rid of him. Not even so much out of revenge as that I don’t want to live in a world where people get away with that sort of thing. Evolutionary psychology. And besides, if he’s the type that’s gonna slaughter my loved ones for fun, it’s pretty much guaranteed that he’s going to kill some other innocent person later.
As for not killing because it’s wrong, well, we’re all gonna be dead for the same amount of time: forever. Life doesn’t have infinite value, not my life, and not this scumbag’s life.
But of course, in real life I don’t imagine that such a stacked scenario would ever present itself. There will always be doubt, the guy’s probably out of his mind, if I’m sure he’s the perp it’s pretty likely that he’s going to be convicted, and so on. But in the abstract, I don’t have a problem with taking justice into my own hands. I mean, I support the cops and the prosecutors who enforce justice for me. The law enforcement system derives its authority from me, from our authority to enforce justice. We usually delegate that authority to the justice system for prudential reasons, and it’s usually a bad idea to take the law into your own hands because it’s so easy to make mistakes that you can’t undo. But the cops and the judge and the jury only have the power to punish this guy because we give them that power. And if I were convinced that killing this one particular scumbag was justified and prudent, I’d feel obligated to do it.
I’m someone who says, “absolutely not, murder is murder, two wrongs don’t make a right,” but I do not say, “Never ever is killing someone O.K.” I do believe that there are circumstances in which killing is necessary – they include self-defense, the death penalty in certain circumstances (but only when the killing is performed by the state after a properly conducted trial and conviction), and military actions (which are a form of longterm self defense). An individual military action may be offensive, but if it is ultimately undertaken as an act of self defense, it may be tragic but justified. I believe the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall into this category. On the other hand, I have opposed the current war in Iraq from day one. There is a fine line in the case of military actions, and I do not envy the people who have to make those decisions.
I would hope that in the case of my personal defense, or in defense of a loved one, I would be able to take whatever action was necessary to save their lives. But the OPs example has nothing to do with that. I think my reason for rejecting vengeance is my own self-interest. In my personal experience, vengeance does not make me feel better. It makes me feel worse, like a lesser person. OTOH, treating people kindly and with respect, no matter how badly they have treated me, makes me feel like a better person. For me, knowing that the killer was free and healthy would be preferable to spending the rest of my life under the burden of guilt.
I like to think I would let the killer live, and maybe even call an ambulance. But it would be hard not to break both arms and legs and drag him into the woods to slowly bleed.
The reality is that I would probably help the person and then, an hour or so later, think, “Shit! That was my chance to finish him off! Fate handed me an opportunity to dispense justice and I blew it!” But then I would realize that I took the high road and demonstrated an impressive example of pure humanity. Then I would brag about never having thought about finishing him off.
If I did, I’d be dead by my own hand in less than a year.
Because there’s no such thing as truly being certain. That I was right or that the cops would never catch me. It would eat me up inside. And if my family wasn’t there to help me through it…
I might do it. I wouldn’t be able to survive the experience.
I would help him begrudgingly, because that’s the code of ethics I live by and no piece of shit murderer is going to change it. His code of ethics allows murder; mine doesn’t. He has to live with his actions, and I have to live with mine.
Now there’s a fun question for you. I was one of the ones who responded that murder is murder and that I couldn’t take a life as it runs counter to my ethical beliefs.
My short answer is “That is exactly why I am not a member of the armed services”.
A longer answer would run something like this: It is against my personal ethical and moral beliefs to take another life. This doesn’t mean I would never do it - after all, people in general are fallible and do things that run counter to their personal ethical and moral codes. Stealing is also against my personal moral and ethical code - but I would steal to feed myself or a loved one if we were starving. There are situations under which I can envision myself taking another person’s life. It happens that pure vengance (the situation envisioned in the OP) is not one of those situations. It may well be that the situation you describe is one under which a person could allow themself to take another life without having it conflict with their personal ethical and moral beliefs - I can see that. It does conflict with mine - so I won’t put myself in that position.
Also please note that my moral and ethical code is mine alone - personal to me. I do not insist that everyone else share it. I do not insist that it is the One True Way. I readily admit that there are other, equally valid, moral and ethical codes one may live under. It happens that I don’t believe that they are correct - but I’m aware of the fact that my belief that they aren’t correct is my own personal opinion, rather than a fact. In other words, I accept that reasonable minds may differ about what is and is not morally and ethically correct.
The problem with moral and ethical systems is that choices so often come down to an analysis of “which moral precept is more important”. For example: Is it more important to hold fast to your moral and ethical duty to protect one’s self or loved ones from physical harm or to hold fast to your moral and ethical duty not to harm another person - if someone is aiming a loaded gun at your child, is it more ethical to brain them with a chair (causing physical harm to another but allowing the child to be harmed) or not to brain them with a chair? I know which way I’d make that judgment call, but I accept that it’s possible to disagree with me and still be an ethical and moral person.
In the case of soldiers during wartime, I essentially accept that they disagree with my analysis that my duty to refrain from taking another human life trumps my duty to support and defend my nation of birth and citizenship. The fact that they chose a different order of precedence for their perceived duties doesn’t make them not moral and ethical people.* There are ways to support and defend the State without serving in the military, and I choose those methods for myself. To me, that means that it is my ethical and moral responsibility to (at a bare minimum) refrain from thinking or behaving badly towards people who chose to serve their country in a fashion I find to be counter to my personal ethical and moral code (specifically by being part of the military where it may be required of them to take another human life).
I’m not an idiot - I understand the necessity of having an armed military, given the socio-political climate and the United States’ position in it. I deplore that necessity, and wish the need for an armed military could be eliminated. The requirements of necessity do not always march in lockstep with the requirements of an ethical and moral code - that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to a world where “necessary” and “morally and ethically correct” are synonyms. But they aren’t, so we do the best we can and choose the course we think is best. For me, that’s not serving - but I’m okay with the knowledge that other people disagree with my call on which moral and ethical good takes precedence.
*Note: I’m aware that many people who enter the military aren’t necessarily doing it out of a perceived duty to serve and protect the State. Lots of them do it to earn money for college, or learn job skills, or have a job even, or just because they can’t think of another life path that suits them - this is not the point. They have taken up a duty that I recognize as a valid and important one for whatever reason, and by doing so have placed that duty higher up the food chain than the duty to refrain from taking another human life. Or maybe they don’t think taking another human life is morally and ethically wrong under any circumstances - if that’s the case, then they are an unethical and immoral person in my view. I just don’t think you’ll find very many members of the armed services who don’t think that killing people is wrong as a general rule. It’s my belief that they view that possible requirement of their service to their country as an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence - a justifiable exception to the general rule, if you will.
Since I don’t recall the OP stating that this imaginary killer is an unloved friendless orphan, when the hell does this “justified vengeance” stop? You’ve already established what the rules of the game are-whats to stop the family and/or friends of this killer from playing by the same rules? There is grave doubt that legal violence is a solution to unlawful violence-what makes some of you think that unlawful violence is? You may think you could get away with it, but isn’t that what the imaginary killer thought too?
Oh hell ya…You kill my wife or child and I know you did it (you said in front of me) and you get off…you better run and hide.
In real life, my dad was beat up pretty severely by 3 men. He wouldn’t tell who they were. My sister knows who they are and confesses that one is still alive, but won’t say who it was because she fears that my older brother and I would visit him, even though it happened 30 years ago and he is now an old man.
Aangelica, that’s about where I stand, too. I don’t support war, but I do support soldiers. When I say things like that, though, someone usually comes along and says something like, “Well, there always comes a time when the only solution left is war.” I don’t believe that, either. I think there’s always a better option than war; we’re just not mature enough as a species to find it.