This question was inspired by rolling girl's "What Would You Do?" thread.

Imagine that you are witnessing a person brutally murdering everyone you saw for no apparent reason. They continue moving from one person to the next, executing them in a shameless fashion while you watch. You see one moment of opportunity where you can kill the person. Would it be moral to kill them despite the fact that the taking of life is considered immoral? I am not asking what you would do, just what is moral. Please be descriptive when answering by giving an explanation that fully answers the question presented. I would appreciate answers that sight a philosophy that elaborates the position you take although not doing so would be fine too.

I want to get a feel for what is generally consider moral by asking this here where you don't have to be fearful of rejection since we can neither see nor touch each other physically through the internet.

I put it here because this deals with that people personally consider to be right or wrong contrary to established social norms.

1.I INSPIRED A THREAD!?
2.Well, fuck, this is a hard question.Considering it all, I would kill the person.Greater good you know? I mean, either 1 more person dies, or they kill countless others.

My moral values are just, "an eye for an eye," you could say. If you steal, your possessions should be confiscated. If you vandalize, your home/possessions should be destroyed in return. If you hurt one person, you should be hurt. If you murder one person, you should be killed as they were. If you murder more than one person, you should be tortured and killed. If you're a major mass murderer, you should be tortured continuously and kept just barely alive until you die of another cause. Note the difference in where I used "murder" and "kill". If you murder someone, you're purposely trying to take away their life in a fashion that is against moral restrictions. If you kill someone, you're within moral restrictions to do so. Therefore, in my opinion, you're not a murderer if you're killing a murderer; you're a killer. In addition to this, if you commit manslaughter--killing someone on accident or for another incidental or morally proper reason--I don't believe you should be punished.

My ideals (obviously) are against society's rules, so they're rarely followed. However, in my ideal society, this would be my moral code.

In the situation you presented, I believe the man should be killed. If the situation is dire like that, my ideals couldn't be followed, but at least he could be stopped so he doesn't murder anyone else.

Yes rolling girl, you inspired a thread.

>>2 and >>3 both follow ideas of consequentialism. It can stand to reason that an action should produce equal, if not better consequences than already established. The opposite of that would be deontology which is a theory that states society has rules that cannot in any situation be violated. The means justify the ends as opposed to the ends justify the means. Don't steal, don't kill, don't murder, don't violate others right, etc. etc. The violation of such rules would be considered an immoral act. My question is then, is this true? Why or why not? Are there situations where this is true? Are there situations when this is not true?

>>5 This is related....How?

>>6 Good question

>>6 and >>7 never mind

>>4 What do you mean? What is "true"? There are people who have such morals, so, yes, in their eyes, it is immoral.

I follow my own rules. In general, they coincide with the simple rules of society, so I'm all good. But if I'm in a situation where my rules don't follow society's rules, I would follow my own anyway if the situation was important and simply face the consequences later.

>>9 What I mean is, is this the general norm. When discussing concepts of morality truth is accertained through acceptance. So the question is, is this what is generally accepted, or is it something else. The rest of the questions follow this original.

to kill a person just because they killed isn't always right.. but in this case you would be killing somebody to prevent further death, well i cannot see that ever being wrong. and from previous comments on this thread.. i have to say torture is never right, sure if you need to kill somebody to get them out of existence then do it, but to torture them? there is just no need in my eyes

My views on things like this are almost primal. I believe in survival, the advancement of one's species, and the necessity of an action. If a person is going around killing people for absolutely no reason, then I see that person as a hindrance to progress. That person is an evolutionary set back and has no right to exist. I would kill this person, without a second thought. In my mind this would not be wrong. It would be done out of necessity.

Bump

>>10 Well, what is accepted depends on where you live. From country to country, first world to third world, and, Hell, even city to city in some cases, morals differ. There's not one answer to what is acceptable. In modern America, what is accepted generally coincides with the laws. If a law is being debated, that means that the moral ideals are starting to change amongst the people. The social norm for morals in modern America, therefore, would generally be as the laws state.

>>14 If social norm is predicated off of societies laws, there where is the line drawn between who's laws are more moral, or more correct?

State versus federal, local versus district, region versus territory; all of these are examples of where laws differ. What is the deciding factor when they combat? Is there a tendency for people to favor one over the other, and if so what is it? This places importance on human nature and tendency.

>>14 >>15
I left off that it also has to do with what is needed versus what is wanted. Is the individual, or smaller group fighting for what they want, or is it a need when it comes to laws. Are bigger communities pushing for laws that give them favor, or are their actions benevolent in that, the consequences provide benefits for smaller, community bases locations.

This is why i love animes like Code Geass and Death Note...
>>1 Morality is such a delicate thing. You wanted to know what people feel about morality on here, and as a part of the Dollars, I'll quote Mikado and say "...that fact that murder is wrong!" during the epic cell phone scene in episode 11. Killing in cold blood is never forgivable. Whether you kill the murderer or not is up to that person. I personally would kill a murderer in vengeance and face whatever consequences for taking another humans life. Not to be a hero, a hero saves lives, not takes them. I'd do it because i personally feel that people who will shamelessly take the lives of innocent people do not deserve to live. Whether that's moral or not... i don't know...

Well there are two laws that exist in our universe that are necessary for us to obey if we want to live peaceful lives. The first is "do all you agreed to do" and the second is "don't encroach on other people or their property". Now if someone were to be killing your family he would be disobeying the second law. Thus it would be the right thing to stop him.

This is hard to explain in words. Moral is not really something that you can explain in words, but it's more of a feeling. It is a gut instinct and emotion of what's right and wrong. Considering the situation, I'd kill the guy.

No matter what you do, you'll disagree with it, so you take emotions out of the equation and look at it logically. What wold be worse? If you killed that one guy, then you only have one life on your hands. If you don't kill that guy, then every person he killed after that point's life is on your hands. If he kills you, then your life is on your hands too. Basically, not killing that guy is the equivalent of killing every other person from that point on.

I explained my reasoning because it has to do with m view on moral. In some moral situations, you can let your emotions control you and know you did the right thing. However, in other moral situations you have to push emotions aside and think logically or else you'll freeze up.

The situation then becomes a forked road with two ways to go. You can go right or left. Now you have to think about the future of each choice.

Let's go back to the situation you have provided. If you let your emotions control you, you freeze up because both options are considered "wrong". Now take emotions out of play. You have two choices. Left is not doing anything and letting the chance pass by. Right is killing the guy. Now look into the future of each action.

If you go left, he will kill more people. Let's say you go left and he kills ten more people. You are now indirectly responsible for those ten deaths because you had a chance to kill the guy, but you didn't. You let him live to kill more people.

If you go right. The guy is dead. Yo are directly responsible for his death because you killed him.

Now some people would want to look at the type of person that died, but "good" and "evil" are just a perception. My definition of "good" and yours can be different. As well as out definition of "evil". Therefor that is not logic. Logical thinking is only looking at the numbers and algorithms. That way perception can not intervene and cause different views. Perception is only relative and differs from person to person. You can not depend on it to guide you.

So let's look at the numbers. You are responsible for ten deaths for going left, but only one for going right. Which one could you live with yourself more for? Could you live with yourself thinking, "I am the reason why those ten people are dead"? Would you feel better thinking, "I am the reason why that one person is dead"?

I got this concept from the book "Eragon". Specifically when the rider training him asks him how he can defend his actions when he is killing so many people. Eragon had to think of it in the way I have just showed you. Would he rather be responsible for the deaths of Galbotrix and his followers, which could be a few hundred? Or would he rather feel responsible for the many deaths that Galbotrix have caused because Eragon did not stop him? For those of you that haven't read Eragon. Galbotrix was killing off way more than Eragon would have to kill. Looking at the numbers. He would be responsible for more deaths if he did not kill Galbotrix and his followers. Both numbers are large and in the hundreds or thousands.

Yes, I believe it is. If you think about whats best for the majority then, you will see that even though your killing a person, your killing this person to save the lives of many. Someone who can shamelessy murder others I don't believe deserves to live but, to kill that person would make you just as much as a murderer as they are but, your reasons for killing that person are justified. Yet that wouldn't change the fact though that your a murderer for killing a murderer.

Well, my idea of morality is doing what your own conscience tells you to do. If there are laws that go against what your conscience says than break them. Also, you should only act on an informed conscience, that is, one that has factored in all the consequences of actions you will take and why you want to do that thing. Acting on an erroneous conscience, or uninformed conscience, would be like driving from Mexico to Canada without a map or ever taking that trip. It just doesnt work.

Thats just my opinion on morality.

I live for information. Every person this murderer kills represents a huge loss of order to chaos. I would stop them from increasing chaos, while trying to conserve information in the process.

In other words, I can justify hurting them as much as it takes to get them to stop hurting others. If that means I must kill them, so be it.

"Murder" is not a relevant concept to me. If you destroy information, I will stop you. It's simple.

I firmly believe morality is an opinion that varies from person to person. What one considers moral, another may not. It is a conflicting idea, but having said that, there are standards society deems to be moral or unmoral as to get a better understanding from communities as a whole.

As for me, murder can be seen as a two sided coin. You are either a monster or a hero, depending on who views it. The scenario mentioned: Kill him. Be praised for your courage by some, and criticized by others.

so when staring evil in the face do you commit evil to stop evil from happening or do you stay righteous and just (good) even if it means you or others could still be hurt by said evil

sounds to me like most people in this situation will commit evil to stop evil and i can't really say i'm much different but it would depend on what constitutes as evil to you

i wouldn't kill a murderer cause then i'm simply another killer. You don't know the murderes motives for killing these people so wouldn't it be more apropriate to find out first and act acordingly after. If you imobalize the murderer so he can no longer kill, either because there is no one around to kill or by simply removing a limb so they either can't kill or can't walk in any case the murderer is unable to kill and you didn't have to kill either. Once that is done and the murderer is immobalized that would be the time to find out why now if it is sensles killing let him sucumb to his injury and justis is served but say the killer had a reason and it wasn't as random as it looked, like all those people where involved with the murder of his family then by what every one else is saying he was just in killing them cause they killed first in an immoral fashion.

and also keep in mind he may have been killing people but what if someone still loved him (i know it seems messed up to love someone who kills but what if) then if you kill the murderer wouldn't that give the one who loved him the right to bear a grudge against you and kill you for killing him and wouldn't that just be an endless cycle of death with no hope of understanding eachother

just my opinion

wewer

Morals is just basically a 'code of conduct' so to speak. It's each person's code that they try to live by. May it be BAD morals to some, or GOOD morals to another. All it is, is a code people use to talk by, think by, and act by.

Let's call it chivalry.

Kubtvrcx

>>22

This Anonymous is a computer apparently.

My choice would be simple: stop him at any cost, but if lethal force is not required, then do not use it. Only if it becomes necessary to end his life would I take such a drastic step. I don't see the purpose in personally ending his life, even if he killed someone dear to me. The people dear to me would not want me to mess up my own life by killing in their name.

Now do I condone something like capital punishment? Can't really say. I've conflicting feelings over whether or not someone's life should be forfeit for taking another life. Life in prison would certainly do just fine, but there is something fundamentally unsettling about reading all of these comments about casually snuffing out a living person.

It has been so long since I have been on this site. I was back on when what flooded the main thread line was talk about the identity of the dollars and what out purpose was as useres of this site. My absence can be attributed to a combination or work, personal issues ranging from family, friends, the future, the past, and lastly myself. I don't know what replying to this will no after so long. It has been so long that I have even forgotten my tripcode. I feel as though I typed in the right one, but it doesn't look the same at all. Do they ever change what the code generates? Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

I am glad to see my thread was read and thoroughly discussed. A lot of replies caught my eye, and in this short reply I will do my best to reply despite it having been so long.

The first was logic versus instinct. >>19 And while I do believe that the situation provided gives merit to the claim, the act of placing logic over instinct is a moral response. In fact, there are multiple fields or study in philosophy dedicated to that sole concept. But I digress, the point i wish to make is that either (a) you have adopted a form of thinking that places logic over generalized notions of morality (despite is being a moral philosophy) or (b) your gut instinct places it in a higher esteem as to generate a response that can later be rationalized as being moral. It has often been said that killing is easy, it's living with yourself afterwards that's the hard part.

In the situation I provided, I geared the question to understand a generalized notion of how we come to understand what morality is. By definition, it is the voice inside ourselves that tells us right from wrong. How we learn what's right and wrong is left to those around us. Therefore, we merely mimic what we have observed to be true or right. For all we know, what we have mimicked is flawed. But at a deeper level, morality adopts a more comforting role rather than a guiding one. It seems to be how we continue to live despite knowing that we have and probably will do immoral acts. Our perception of identity is the third role I have identified. We often times define our selves by our principles. The ones we've chosen to adopt as well as the ones we have forfeited.

With these three interpretations of morality in mind, what other areas can we find ourselves in with further discussion.

If the death was necessary to stop the person, then yes. If not, then they should be stopped using ONLY the necessary force. Capital punishment is only really revenge, and revenge just leads to hate, which spawns more revenge, and so forth. If the murderer had to be killed to stop the massacre, then so be it. If they could be stopped using non-lethal force, then they should not be killed. The authorities should deal with them from there, and it would be better if they could realise what they had truly done, but they'd have to live long enough.

I don't really care much about what people think is moral, but if killing that guy would save the lives of a lot more people, I personally think it should be done. Although I doubt I'd be able to do it myself :/