I thought the point of the hypothetical was to question how you would react to a situation where you did something morally wrong.
It seems like you’re saying that if someone harassed you enough for you to kill them, then the killing must have been morally justifiable.
Re-reading the OP it looks like the killing is more morally ambiguous that I thought. I can see situations were such a killing would be justifiable. This whole question really depends on how you felt about the act of killing in the first place. If you thought you had a right to kill the guy, then I can see how it would not make sense to turn yourself in.
To me, it doesn’t matter at all whether the crime was justified or not.
If I committed a crime, maybe what I did was morally wrong, maybe not. Making the prosecutor prove his case is never wrong. I might feel guilty about what I did, but no way am I going to submit myself to punishment I don’t have to. We have an adversarial legal system in this country, and it’s expected (required, in the case of the defense lawyers) that we do all we legally can for the benefit of our side. No way am I going to help the prosecutor because I know I’ve committed a crime.
I assume that I had exhausted all legal means of stopping my “victim” from his attacks on me and my loved ones. If the government cannot bring him to justice, I am morally REQUIRED to do what I can to stop him, as an act of self-defense. And if I’ve exhausted all non-lethal means, if killing him is the only way to stop him, then that’s the only option open to me. The alternative is to passively allow him to continue attacking me and my loved ones. Only a crazy person would choose that.
And I hope I’ve got lots of evidence of his attacks, to justify self-defense.
I agree with the others. This is a clear case of ‘he needed killin’ despite the legal risks involved. Once those are gone, sweet!
One of my favorite movies is Sling Blade and the ending is roughly similar to this scenario except that Karl gets rewarded for his second killing by getting sent back to the institution that he viewed as his true home. It is a feel-good movie with a wholesome message.
Physical violence is greatly overrated as a sole justification for physical retaliation. Other forms of abuse can be just as damaging or much more and may require actions up to and including killing to stop it if that is what it takes.
As I understand it, if you are a Catholic and confess to murder or other serious crime in the confessional, you can only receive absolution if you are truly contrite, as shown by being willing to confess the crime to the secular authorities and accept your sentence. If you are not willing to do so, you will not receive absolution, because you are not truly contrite.
You know, this is a tough one. Yes, all things being equal, I think people should own up to their misdeeds and take their medicine. But it seems like in this case, the legal system has failed so utterly that I don’t think it aligns at all with morality – not only did it apparently fail to protect me from the blatant misdeeds of a repeated (if nonviolent) and unrepentant criminal, it also charged me with murder, though I didn’t have murderous intent (maybe manslaughter).
I guess I just can’t see myself going to the point of violence, but presuming I just woke up one day knowing this happened and I did it, I have to say I’m going to opt out of prison. So what would the purpose be of going to jail? I’ll ruin my life, no longer contribute meaningfully to society, live off the government, and… for something I never intended or wanted to do? Something utterly out of character that occurred when I was repeatedly and persistently provoked and threatened? Doesn’t sound like justice to me. Sorry, but actions that are going to put my loved ones in prison (e.g. planting child porn) don’t have some major moral distinction from violence in my view. That’s not embarassing me or my loved one, that’s taking away freedom and ruining their life irrevocably.
Further, at the risk of sounding like a special sunflower here, I’m in frail physical condition. I am (hopefully temporarily) disabled and I need a lot of special gear, as well as treatment and physical therapy (going out on a limb here but I’m guessing prison care isn’t quite as nice). An American prison environment would eat a weakling like me for breakfast, and I’m not willing to throw myself into those conditions for the gross sin of – what seems to me – defending those I love when there was no other help to turn to. The idea of prison in my state is terrifying and I would subject myself to that… why exactly? I’m not going to get rehabilitated because I’m a perfectly good member of society now, and me being in prison helps exactly no one. So yeah. Count me straight out of that one.
The Option 1* I *see is " think a person in this situation is morally obligated to plead to a lesser crime; I’d so do. " My bolding.
I disagree. Some people just aren’t going to kill another human being. Maybe when I was 16, but not now, not for anything.
I disagree. I’d rather die first than kill another human being.
I’m not saying I couldn’t be broken down psychologically by torture and brainwashing to do it, but as far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t be me anymore, then. Not the “driven to it” I thought you meant with the OP.
And before anyone chimes in (Not you, I know) this includes Hitler, Pol Pot, the hypothetical rapist of my wife or murderer of my children, etc, etc.
The only exception is if someone asked me to help kill them because they didn’t have the ability to do it for themselves i.e. assisted suicide. I’d be OK with that, because I don’t consider that murder.
I’m guessing you adhere to the Stinsonian interpretation of “Karate Kid”, in which Johnny Lawrence is the hero, wronged by Daniel-san in the climactic scene of the movie?
I’m sure there are dozens of reasons to reject Catholicism, but the Church’s position on what true contrition means is not one of them.
And yes, I realize they’ve frequently been hypocritical on that issue in regards to the priestly sexual abuse scandal. That doesn’t change the fact that their reasoning is correct.
It’s fairly insane to insist that someone has to undergo suffering in order to purge themselves of guilt — apart from the fact that God, by their beliefs, has the entire and only power to Forgive/Redeem/Punish/Say ‘Forget the whole thing’/Induce the person to make reparations etc. etc.; it brings them perilously near those little oddballs who slaver over punishment in prison or execution in order to make them pay.
Contrition may exist without punishment or repayment: like love, it is in the heart. The RC’s argument seems designed to satisfy their relationship with civil authorities rather than their relationship with God.
Then again I take no cognizance of morals nor guilt.
[ Of course the law is entitled by it’s rules to insist on penalty. ]
For you to submit to secular authorities, don’t they need to be morally above reproach? In the US, the “justice” system is anything but. Punishments are not based upon evidence or the chance that someone will reoffend with X months of punishment. Minimal to no effort is put into rehabilitation. Released felons are not welcomed back into society, having done their time, but instead actively discriminated against and are frequently unable to find any lawful employment.
Moreover, the penalty you’d face if you were to confess would depend entirely on the whim of the prosecutor and judge. No-one will sit down and figure out a fair punishment, it’s all political. It’s how it looks to the public (since in most states judges and prosecutors are elected by the public). Also, in the U.S., it has the highest percentage of people in prison being punished of any nation in the world. Does it seem likely to you that the “land of the free”, the wealthiest nation on earth, has more criminals, or that the justice system is in fact irredeemably corrupt.
I think the later is overwhelmingly true. You’ll just have to live with what you did.
