Can murder ever cause a net positive effect on the world?

[7ronin]

Under the law self defense is not the only excuse. For example, if you saw someone about to kill another person you could reasonably use deadly force to prevent that murder. On the other hand, self defense may not be a valid defense in situations where deadly force would be an over reaction to the threat. Generally though you must be in imminent danger and in fear for your life or the life of another for deadly force to be legal. Often times the distinction is razor thin and the amount of time to decide negligible.

 

[Narz]

Under the law self defense is not the only excuse. For example, if you saw someone about to kill another person you could reasonably use deadly force to prevent that murder.

I could... unless someone saw me about to murder the murderer and murdered me before I could murder the original murderer.

 

[amadeus]

Yes. There are quite a few dictators, criminals, and terrorists I would not mind bumping off personally.

 

[SupremeC]

Yes. If you can't capture the psychotic dictator/serial killer etc., killing him is the best alternative.

 

[usarmy18]

I wasn't sarcastic, but I realize a perfectly pacifist world will probably never happen during my time.

You mean it won't happen ever, right? Man, as a whole, isn't and will never be a peaceful creature. There will always be someone out there who wants to harm another human being. Thus, a perfectly pacifist world will never occur, unless you drug people into being nice. Then that's not being a nice little pacifist is it? Nooooo, thats being a totalitarian thug who brainwashes people into believing his point of view over theirs. Not very nice Mr. Imaginary Pacifist Dictator. This is off topic but I find pacifists rather amusing. Especially this whole imaginary, pacifistic utopia thing. *chuckles*

Can killing someone cause a positive effect? Of course. Say someone would've whacked off a couple of the 9/11 hijackers before they got on the planes on September 11th. Seven thousand plus U.S. citizens and a 100,000 Middle Easterners or however many wouldn't be dead right now. Or maybe a Russian Soldier got lucky back in the eighties and a 7.62mm round pierced Bin Laden's skull to create a wonderful painting on the rock behind his head or something. Killing other people can save many more lives, so which would you rather have? One person dead, or possibly thousands?

 

[C~G]

Yes. There are quite a few dictators, criminals, and terrorists I would not mind bumping off personally.

I'm with you on this one. Even though we wouldn't necessarily bump off the same people.

Just give me time, place, sniper rifle and "Get Out Of Jail Free"-Card
and I say momma goodbye and I'm ready steady to go.

One worthless life of sorry little soulless person in order to save the possible lives of thousands.
I think it would be much more of "indirect murder" not to murder the person in question.

 

[I am the Future]

Yes, but there are many much better ways to go about making the world better than murder. It is only after someone does something stupid that murder even becomes and option.

 

[IglooDame]

Self defense is the ONLY excuse.

And 99,999 times out of 100,000 you don't need to kill a person to get them to leave you alone.

That's a pretty generalized statement you got there, but I don't think it holds up in any case.

And I have trouble with the use of the terms murder and killing seemingly interchangeably in the OP.

Anyway, if someone is going to kill me, and I kill them in self-defense, the world has experienced a net positive: one of two people was going to die, and the non-murderer lived and the murderer-to-be died.

 

[tomsnowman123]

You mean it won't happen ever, right? Man, as a whole, isn't and will never be a peaceful creature. There will always be someone out there who wants to harm another human being. Thus, a perfectly pacifist world will never occur, unless you drug people into being nice. Then that's not being a nice little pacifist is it? Nooooo, thats being a totalitarian thug who brainwashes people into believing his point of view over theirs. Not very nice Mr. Imaginary Pacifist Dictator. This is off topic but I find pacifists rather amusing. Especially this whole imaginary, pacifistic utopia thing. *chuckles*

One can always hope. I'm not just going to completely give up my belief system because people consider it unrealistic.

 

[Masquerouge]

I'm with you on this one. Even though we wouldn't necessarily bump off the same people.

Just give me time, place, sniper rifle and "Get Out Of Jail Free"-Card
and I say momma goodbye and I'm ready steady to go.

One worthless life of sorry little soulless person in order to save the possible lives of thousands.
I think it would be much more of "indirect murder" not to murder the person in question.

But what makes you so sure of the positive aspect? What makes you so sure that killing that guy will result in a net decrease in dead persons? You can't.

 

[C~G]

But what makes you so sure of the positive aspect? What makes you so sure that killing that guy will result in a net decrease in dead persons? You can't.

Ultimately you are right. We never know for sure.

But I'm ready to bet against it and just declare that at least it's one moron less in this world then. At least I might give some of this persons future victims more chance to survive than by letting him to live. Of course there's the possibility of revenge from this person's supporters that must be counted in. So it's not that black and white.

Would like to really know how many wouldn't be ready to kill Adolf if they had a chance and the reason why.
If the reason is that someone else would step up to replace him, that sounds like valid point but if the reason is that killing is wrong, it sounds nothing but excuse to run away from reality.

Certain way I'm not even justifying my possible actions, I just feel I would do so just for the sake of it even if it might lead for worse. Meaning that for me murder in this case isn't even about whether killing is right or wrong but it is just action that may have some consequences.
In other words the inviduals life in question doesn't cost a dime in this case.

 

[CaptainF]

Yes. There are quite a few dictators, criminals, and terrorists I would not mind bumping off personally.

Sounds like big talk to me. I doubt that many people here would be psychologically resilient enough to deal with killing someone.

But yes, killing people can be a net positive. If I kill someone in self defence, the world has experienced a net positive. If murderers/rapists/other such sociopaths are disposed of when they pose a threat to people (In other words, not in prison), we are all good.

Some people are more savage than others. Que Sera Sera and all that.

 

[Warman17]

I always go with "Thou shall not kill". So I dont feel murder can ever cause a net positive effect on the world.

The wording is "Thou shall not murder" not "thou shalt not kill." Meaning killing an innocent is bad. Then we get into the debate of who is innocent and who is not.

Anyways, I think killing a guilty human being like say assassinating a bloodcrazy despot to replace him with democracy is a good thing.

 

[MobBoss]

If someone had killed Hitler and Stalin in the 1920's it would have had a positive
effect on the world.
Killing is only justified when it prevents more killing.

How do you know? How do you know that they wouldnt have been simply replaced by even a worse despot that killed even more people?

Bottom line is you dont. You just simply assume things would be better with those individuals out of the way.

 

[pboily]

On top of that, it assumes you know beforehand which people will become brutal dictators and killers. Short of having a time-traveling device, how the hell would any of our great-grand parents or grand-parents have known in the 1920s that Adolf and Joseph were going to grow into Hitler and Stalin?

 

[De Lorimier]

Little Adolf kept talking about his daddy all the time. You just know kids like that turn out to be damn pricks!

 

[MobBoss]

On top of that, it assumes you know beforehand which people will become brutal dictators and killers. Short of having a time-traveling device, how the hell would any of our great-grand parents or grand-parents have known in the 1920s that Adolf and Joseph were going to grow into Hitler and Stalin?

Well, my point is that for all your good intentions you simply could be screwing the world even worse.

As an example, please by all means rent out and see "The Butterfly Effect".

 

[Hundegesicht]

Yes, of course it can, though ideally there'd always be a better way.

 

[pboily]

Well, my point is that for all your good intentions you simply could be screwing the world even worse.

As an example, please by all means rent out and see "The Butterfly Effect".

I was actually agreeing with you...

 

[Warman17]

Well, my point is that for all your good intentions you simply could be screwing the world even worse.

As an example, please by all means rent out and see "The Butterfly Effect".

Or better yet play Command and Conquer: Red Alert. Tesla coils and chronospheres for everone!