Justifiable Homicide: What Is Your line

  • Thread starter Thread starter IcedEcliptic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of justifiable homicide, distinguishing it from murder. Participants explore personal beliefs about when killing another person might be considered justifiable, citing scenarios such as self-defense, defense of family, defense of strangers, property protection, and defense of country. Some argue that there are always exceptions and emphasize the complexity of individual circumstances, suggesting that personal choices often outweigh legal definitions. The golden rule is mentioned as a guiding principle, where individuals consider if they would find it justifiable to be killed in similar situations. The conversation also touches on the psychological aftermath of killing, with some expressing that it may be easier to cope with the act of killing in self-defense than to live with the consequences of inaction against a threat. Legal implications are acknowledged, highlighting that laws vary by location and can influence perceptions of justification. Overall, the dialogue reflects a nuanced exploration of morality, legality, and personal ethics surrounding the act of killing.
IcedEcliptic
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Justifiable Homicide: What Is Your "line"

Hello, let me be clear with this question, I say homicide, not murder (the crime). When is the killing of another justifiable TO YOU? Where do you draw the line? Self defense, defense of family, defense of a stranger, defense of property, defense of country or ideals?

You can have more than one answer, but please share the conditions under which each apply. Do any here believe the answer is "never, for any reason." ? This is not a trap, I just wonder what a group of bright and thoughtful people from many walks of life and different countries believe.

To be clear, I am not speaking of legal definitions, but personal choices.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


This is indeed a tricky question as "justified" could mean purely rational, or could mean feels right to you and you would not be left emotionally troubled.

But perhaps the best simplifying answer - on a personal level as you specify - is to apply the golden rule. "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do."

So if I would think others were justified to kill me in some situation, then so would I be to kill them.

This would seem to cover soldiers at war, euthanasia, and other cases quite well.
 


I would draw the line at people who phone me at inconvenient hours. If someone comes to kill you, it would seem reasonable for you to kill them first if you could, or to assist someone else who was in that situation. This means that even if all abortions were made illegal, some would still be allowed under this definition.
 


Killing other people for any reason just seems like the dumbest thing too me. It's worse then killing your self in ways however if I got into a situation where it was either I die or someone else does I would probably do what I needed to live.
 


IcedEcliptic said:
Where do you draw the line?

I don't.
There are always exceptions.
And most people don't know what they are capable of, or what they can accept and live with, until afterwards.
 


IcedEcliptic said:
Hello, let me be clear with this question, I say homicide, not murder (the crime). When is the killing of another justifiable TO YOU? Where do you draw the line? Self defense, defense of family, defense of a stranger, defense of property, defense of country or ideals?

You can have more than one answer, but please share the conditions under which each apply. Do any here believe the answer is "never, for any reason." ? This is not a trap, I just wonder what a group of bright and thoughtful people from many walks of life and different countries believe.

To be clear, I am not speaking of legal definitions, but personal choices.

Killing another person doesn't even need to be justified. Let's just say it;s better to have his mother cry at a funeral then mine :P

defense of family , even extended family
defense of self
defense of property (yeah, a thief entering a private property should be gunned down like nothing. Or hanged like they did with cattle and horse thief)
defense of country
as punishment - legal homicide is a example in places where death penalty stands

All the above situations are covered by law. Self defense, Emergency state laws provide ample provision (but which do variate from place to place) to allow humans to commit homicide without legal repercussions.

not justifiable for defense of ideals. His ideal might be different than yours, but there is nothing bad in this.
 


This is not what I expected, but I say this in a good way. When I am home from work I hope to contribute my own view.
 


IcedEcliptic said:
You can have more than one answer, but please share the conditions under which each apply.

You can't totally leave legals out of this question. If you kill somebody, you must be sure that you will survive the legal aftermath which follows. You may be tried, the circumstances are not always crystal clear and many of the scared lambs of the society will want your skin for killing even in self defense. Lambs are innately scared by wolves. And if you kill, you become a wolf in the eyes of many, regardless of circumstances.

As I said, it's fortunate that there are enough legal provisions for a bona fide man to kill somebody to defend his life / family life or in some cases his property.

As for surviving the psychological aftermath of killing, well, I can only speak for myself, but I believe it's easier to cope with killing somebody than with living with the knowledge that somebody killed your wife, raped you children and you could do something. You could take the garbage's life before he touched your life.

An interesting reading is "On killing" by Lt. Col Dave Grosmann. It exposes his own theories on killing and it;s psychological cost. I don't agree with all he writes in the book, nonetheless is a great read. What I agree with is that both the reluctance humans may have against killing, and dealing with psychological costs are trainable skills.
 
Back
Top