Maybe, but you just embarrassed those guards in front of the whole town, and what sort of example to the kids would you be then? Keep your hat white and take your hanging like a man.
On a one-by-one basis.
Consider a slightly different scenario: a mob of people has decided I’m a witch and is coming to burn me at the stake. I’d be willing, in the abstract, to kill every one of them if that’s what it took to escape. Each one of them had made their choice, and in each one-on-one decision, I’d come out on top.
But if there was another poor schmuck that they’d brought along to burn, and if my escape depended on killing him, I wouldn’t do it. In that one-on-one decision, I couldn’t justify the killing.
I think I’ve explained well enough that you can answer your own questions. The “how many” question is the wrong one to ask, though. A million guilty parties; not a single innocent party.
I agree with Trinopus. Nope. You can’t ethically kill innocent people to avoid your own death.
Look at it this way. Through no fault of my own, I’m about to careen off the side of the mountain. The only way to stop my own fall is to bump into someone else, who will certainly fall to their death instead. Ethical? Nope. Might I do that anyway? Um … well, only if I thought that maybe that innocent bystander wouldn’t actually have fallen (or at least, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!)
Perhaps you say there’s a difference, because the innocent bystander isn’t contributing to my death, but the guards are. I say they’re still innocent, until such time as we recognize that the death penalty isn’t what civilized societies should do. Until then, they’re just doing their jobs: jobs that society deems needing to be done. Not murderers, not complicit in murder, and not responsible for my death sentence.
Of course, if you voted for anyone who’s pro-death-penalty, you’re a participant, and lose your high horse here.
I disagree with you in any case, but it’s a matter of values and I see where you’re coming from.
The purty schoolmarm ain’t gonna be impressed with that. And I have to go find Snakelips and shoot the gun out of his hand, then sing a song to my horse.
Hmmm I have my doubts about any kind of afterlife so I want to stay alive for as long as I can, even if its a small one if I think there is even a little chance that I might be able to escape I would kill the guards if it couldn’t be avoided.
I also totally reserve the right to change my mind at a moment’s notice. My theory about folks harboring institutional guilt isn’t one I’m entirely comfortable with; my main comfort comes from the fact that it’s such a ridiculously implausible hypothetical :).
If I kill a guard and others pounce on me, what happens? Do they still execute me and say, “Oh, btw, that guy killed Joe when we went in the cage to get him.”
Or would they then have to put me back in a cell and try me for the murder of the guard, which would buy me some time?
Not only do I think it ethically justified, I think that if there is any realistic chance of success, it is a moral obligation to kill them all. This isn’t a game; this is life and there are no innocents.
IMO the responsible person is the actual criminal who has forced me to such acts. After all, I am in mortal danger and he or she is forcing me to kill in self-defence.
This is another reason I’m against the death penalty.
It depends. Are they stuck in a burning car?
That. Nobody is obligated to participate in an execution. And even if they were, it still wouldn’t be my fault.
So, yes. I believe it would be morally OK. Just self-defense.
Many, I suspect, even though I would need to be in this situation to know for sure.
Regarding the journalist, priest, etc…Either they don’t try to stop me, and there’s no reason to kill them, or they try to, and it’s still self-defense.
I disagree. They definitely are. Not only do they support death sentence, knowing that it might result in the death of an innocent, but they actively participate in the execution. I already consider them morally guilty, in fact, and I’m not on death row.
If you endorse my killing and actually are actively trying to get me killed, you’re definitely fair game, as far as I’m concerned.
Interesting. That is a good question. I can’t see them carrying on with the execution. Family members of the murdered guard/priest probably wouldn’t appreciate not having their day in court.
Has this ever happened?
I doubt exactly that’s happened, but there must be people in prison for murder who later killed someone. I assume they go on with the original execution and only have another trial if there’s time – after all, they can’t kill you twice. But I don’t know for sure.
My answer to the original question is, if you’re guilty, you shouldn’t resist. Likewise if you have no chance of escape (which is essentially 100% certain in the real world, unless you have a lot of backup plan).
But if you could escape (say, a sympathetic guard agreed to smuggle you out somehow, but couldn’t get into death row) – it’s a moral grey area with no good answer. From a utilitarian perspective, one life is less than four lives, so don’t do anything. But I think it’s futile to ask people not to defend themselves in that situation, just as if they’re attacked by someone well-meaning but mistaken.
This is over-complicated. If you’re fighting for your life, you’ll stab to disable, which will have a good chance of killing whether you want it to or not, there’s no need to assume you deliberately try to kill them afterwards.
It is profoundly immoral, it’s killing innocent people so as to secure a benefit to oneself. Few things are more wrong than that. Arguments that the guards are so tainted by the job they are carrying out that their lives have no value is monstrous dehumanization.
Also, important note: execution is not murder, murder has a specific definition. It is not interchangeable with “killing”.
Isn’t this exactly what the guards in question are doing in the OP’s hypothetical? They are party to the killing of an innocent man (you) in order to secure a benefit (employment) to themselves. The moral calculus does not change just because they are agents of the state, though the legal equations do.
As to the OP: It is right and moral to resist those who are trying to take your life. This holds for all variants you propose.
No.
The guards don’t know the man is innocent. They know only that he received a fair trial, and multiple appeals.
It does, in that killing people because of the actions of others is evil. There’s no such thing as collective guilt.
Say Bob is playing pool, when Gary bumps into him and spills his beer. Bob cracks Gary on the head with the pool cue, and kicks him in the ribs for a time. Gary produces a concealed handgun and points it at Bob.
Is it right and moral for Bob to kill Gary with a blow to the head?
Or, say Bill kills several rival gang members, a crime for which he’s confident he’ll receive the death penalty. There’s a single witness to the crime, without which Bill is certain he’ll be acquitted. Is it right and moral for Bill to murder this witness?
Personally, no, it’s not morally OK - because all killing of people is not morally OK, IMO. Never mind what the circumstances of my incarceration are, I wouldn’t kill anyone to get out of it.