"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

[Dr. Zaus]

I see. What's your point?

Then it is likely that the outcome of such a situation will be an individual's death. At this point we must ask, who's life is more important, the criminal or the victim.

Did the criminal know that he was running such a risk when he started, if so this outcome is something the criminal chose; being killed so he couldn't identify the home invader is, otoh, not something the home owner chose.

This means that the criminal has already decided by virtue of risking his life that he does not value it as much as the person that is not invading homes.

Therefor when the criminal forces us to chose between his continued existence and our own we needn't worry about the relative value of the two lives because the criminal has already indicated, by virtue of bing a home invader, that he feels his own life is not as valuable as you feel your life to be.

Thus killing the criminal is the outcome that serves the greatest individual utility; that you removed a murderous home invader from society makes for greater societal utility; that we know the criminal has no compunction about violating the law and does not want to get caught tells us that he is likely to force such a choice.

 

[FallenHero]

They absolutely could be dangerous assumptions to make, the same as pulling out into traffic could be a dangerous assumption to make if there is a blind spot around the corner, but unfortunately making dangerous assumptions that may affect our lives are common place. Making assumptions that validate a choice to end someone else's life is not.

Don't dodge the issue. I'm not arguing whether or not it's a common assumption. I'm asking you why you believe that the above assumptions are safe to make in your mind. Because in the above example, you made them, clear as day. Now I am asking you to justify why you chose to ignore valid, well reasoned assumptions, no matter how rare a person may have to make them, in order for you to willingly enter a highly dangerous, life threatening situation that has a very high probability of going wrong for you.

This situation is unique as there is a man in your home at night, who forcefully entered it without your consent, in order to commit a crime. And you don't know which crime(s) he is willing to commit. Comparing it to a decision to make a left or right hand turn diminishes the overall scope and value of the situation.

How about instead of one word or one sentence answers, you walk us through, in detail, your thought process as you work yourself through the scenario I gave you. From the point you hear the glass break, to you walking downstairs, to see the person. Every detail. If you cannot explain your entire thought process, then we can't have any sort of reasoned debate, now can we?

 

[bfdd]

Whilst that is a fair assertion, we aren't purely logical creatures.

So I disagree morality is what drives society, morality (for me) is based on what is best for the greatest number of people, or for the most valuable lives. This isn't emotional, this is logical. Morality is not pure emotion, it can be logical. There are more logical moral theories than I care to name.

No it isn't. Morals are emotional. Any value you assert above basic survival instinct is an emotional reaction. I'm not arguing against morals here. I'm arguing that your very logic can be used to justify any killing and that those values are based on heavily based in your morals. So please admit you're just flat out wrong about the logic to killing and then maybe we can have a moral discussion in which you will never win because you will continue to try to argue logic.

 

[HAL9000]

Then it is likely that the outcome of such a situation will be an individual's death. At this point we must ask, who's life is more important, the criminal or the victim.

Likely isn't good enough to kill someone.

Did the criminal know that he was running such a risk when he started, if so this outcome is something the criminal chose; being killed so he couldn't identify the home invader is, otoh, not something the home owner chose.

This means that the criminal has already decided by virtue of risking his life that he does not value it as much as the person that is not invading homes.

Agreed, but just because someone values their life more than yours doesn't give you the moral right to kill them.

Therefor when the criminal forces us to chose between his continued existence and our own we needn't worry about the relative value of the two lives because the criminal has already indicated, by virtue of bing a home invader, that he feels his own life is not as valuable as you feel your life to be.

If he is forcing you to choose then I agree. If not this point is moot.

This killing the criminal is the outcome that serves the greatest individual utility; that you removed a murderous home invader from society makes for greater societal utility; that we know the criminal has no compunction about violating the law and does not want to get caught tells us that he is likely to force such a choice.

Who says he is a murderous home invader? Also you have no right to be punishing criminals, you are not a judge or jury. Street justice is not the way to go.

Again likely. Not good enough IMO.

 

[MikeMike]

Likely isn't good enough to kill someone.



Agreed, but just because someone values their life more than yours doesn't give you the moral right to kill them.



If he is forcing you to choose then I agree. If not this point is moot.



Who says he is a murderous home invader? Also you have no right to be punishing criminals, you are not a judge or jury. Street justice is not the way to go.

Again likely. Not good enough IMO.

sorry, you died... you didn't make a decision fast enough... If someone is in my house, here is what is going through my head...

kill or be killed.

 

[bfdd]

Then it is likely that the outcome of such a situation will be an individual's death. At this point we must ask, who's life is more important, the criminal or the victim.

Did the criminal know that he was running such a risk when he started, if so this outcome is something the criminal chose; being killed so he couldn't identify the home invader is, otoh, not something the home owner chose.

This means that the criminal has already decided by virtue of risking his life that he does not value it as much as the person that is not invading homes.

Therefor when the criminal forces us to chose between his continued existence and our own we needn't worry about the relative value of the two lives because the criminal has already indicated, by virtue of bing a home invader, that he feels his own life is not as valuable as you feel your life to be.

Thus killing the criminal is the outcome that serves the greatest individual utility; that you removed a murderous home invader from society makes for greater societal utility; that we know the criminal has no compunction about violating the law and does not want to get caught tells us that he is likely to force such a choice.

I love you, but he still won't get it.

 

[FallenHero]

Likely isn't good enough to kill someone.

Oh really?

I am a police officer. I see a man holding a gun against another persons head. It is likely that the person being held hostage will die unless I kill the man with the gun first. Under your logic, the hostage will likely die. But that is ok right? The criminal survives!

 

[bfdd]

Oh really?

I am a police officer. I see a man holding a gun against another persons head. It is likely that the person being held hostage will die unless I kill the man with the gun first. Under your logic, the hostage will likely die. But that is ok right? The criminal survives!

He doesn't understand logic. The mods need to start giving him infractions every time he brings logic up because it's seriously just trolling.

 

[MikeMike]

He doesn't understand logic. The mods need to start giving him infractions every time he brings logic up because it's seriously just trolling.

sorry, its 6:42, I will answer the prior posts in the morning...

 

[HAL9000]

Don't dodge the issue. I'm not arguing whether or not it's a common assumption. I'm asking you why you believe that the above assumptions are safe to make in your mind. Because in the above example, you made them, clear as day. Now I am asking you to justify why you chose to ignore valid, well reasoned assumptions, no matter how rare a person may have to make them, in order for you to willingly enter a highly dangerous, life threatening situation that has a very high probability of going wrong for you.

I made those assumptions based on the data I had available, nothing outside of what I knew at that instant was available to me, so I made a judgement based on the facts at hand.

This situation is unique as there is a man in your home at night, who forcefully entered it without your consent, in order to commit a crime. And you don't know which crime(s) he is willing to commit. Comparing it to a decision to make a left or right hand turn diminishes the overall scope and value of the situation.

How about instead of one word or one sentence answers, you walk us through, in detail, your thought process as you work yourself through the scenario I gave you. From the point you hear the glass break, to you walking downstairs, to see the person. Every detail. If you cannot explain your entire thought process, then we can't have any sort of reasoned debate, now can we?

- Head downstairs, curious as to what is going on
- Confronted with man
- Assess is this a person I know or have invited into my home?
- Answer no?
- Conclusion: he is a criminal breaking and entering, this is fact.
- Is he evidentially a threat to my life?
- Conclusion: unclear at this point.
- What is he doing?
- Holding household item, after breaking and entering.
- Conclusion: Thief
- Consider Action to take?
- Conclusion: Prevent thief from stealing, ideally have him arrested or at least get him out of the house.
- How to do this?
- Weigh up potential threat to me.
- Is hand to hand combat a viable option?
- Conclusion: Yes
- Engage in hand to hand combat with the sole aim of restraining or ejecting thief from house.
- Consider nearby weapons in the event the hand to hand combat escalates

No it isn't. Morals are emotional. Any value you assert above basic survival instinct is an emotional reaction. I'm not arguing against morals here. I'm arguing that your very logic can be used to justify any killing and that those values are based on heavily based in your morals. So please admit you're just flat out wrong about the logic to killing and then maybe we can have a moral discussion in which you will never win because you will continue to try to argue logic.

So you are asking me to tell you that morality can't be logical. Thus throwing away my entire moral system in favour of nothing? My answer is no. Morality can be based on logic. Mine is for the most part.

 

[HAL9000]

sorry, you died... you didn't make a decision fast enough... If someone is in my house, here is what is going through my head...

kill or be killed.

Did I? Damn.

Oh really?

I am a police officer. I see a man holding a gun against another persons head. It is likely that the person being held hostage will die unless I kill the man with the gun first. Under your logic, the hostage will likely die. But that is ok right? The criminal survives!

The difference there is that, the person is making a definite absolute, undeniable threat against the persons life. Whereas in the situation about the "likely" parts were "he is likely to make a threat to my life"

He doesn't understand logic. The mods need to start giving him infractions every time he brings logic up because it's seriously just trolling.

1 + 1 = 3 doesn't it?

 

[HAL9000]

sorry, its 6:42, I will answer the prior posts in the morning...

That's what I'm doing now. G'night. I've answered all posts to this point.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Likely isn't good enough to kill someone.

Some level of likelihood must be. Is it when you see him armed? Is it when he threatens you? Is it when he attacks but fails to harm you? Is it when he non-mortally wounds you?

Given the lack of legal compunction the criminal has and the relative benefit the criminal would receive from my death there is no logical conclusion to be drawn but that the invader intends to end my life. This is the only rational choice for a home invader that has thrown out morality in favor of personal benefit.

There is no certainty of the murderous nature of the fellow until he has actually murdered you.

I did not say that wild west justice was always right, I said the greatest societal utility was served by eliminating a murderous criminal. I didn't say that someone not valuing their own life justified their murder, I said that the greatest individual utility was served by preserving the life of the person that valued their own life more.

This is an argument from utility; you have yet to offer a consistent ethical theory explaining why we should value the life of a home invader over our own safety from being killed by the invader.

 

[MikeMike]

- Head downstairs, curious as to what is going on
- Confronted with man
- Assess is this a person I know or have invited into my home?You have to determine after hearing a broken window/etc if you invited a guy into your house??? really? holy fuck
- Answer no?no shit, this is step 1
- Conclusion: he is a criminal breaking and entering, this is fact.
- Is he evidentially a threat to my life?
- Conclusion: unclear at this point.uh... He is in your home he is a threat to your livelihood
- What is he doing?
- Holding household item, after breaking and entering.
either you are dead by now, or he is gone
- Conclusion: Thief
- Consider Action to take?
- Conclusion: Prevent thief from stealing, ideally have him arrested or at least get him out of the house.
- How to do this?
- Weigh up potential threat to me.
- Is hand to hand combat a viable option?So you have x-ray vision and know that he has no knife, no gun, no guys outside waiting, etc?
- Conclusion: Yes
- Engage in hand to hand combat with the sole aim of restraining or ejecting thief from house.
- Consider nearby weapons in the event the hand to hand combat escalates


.

you live in your own world dude... You should ask your psychiatrist this question.

 

[FallenHero]

I made those assumptions based on the data I had available, nothing outside of what I knew at that instant was available to me, so I made a judgement based on the facts at hand.

- Head downstairs, curious as to what is going on
- Confronted with man

Simple enough of a start, let's see how this progresses....

- Assess is this a person I know or have invited into my home?
- Answer no?

Why the question mark? I will assume typo, and that is being generous.

- Conclusion: he is a criminal breaking and entering, this is fact.

Yes, a criminal that has so far, broken into your home.

- Is he evidentially a threat to my life?
- Conclusion: unclear at this point.

Very unclear. It can go either way really.

- What is he doing?
- Holding household item, after breaking and entering.
- Conclusion: Thief

I'm curious again, as to how you jump from "unknown threat to my life" to just a "thief" without any additional information on the subject. You don't know his criminal past, or his current intentions. You don't know if he is on drugs or not...I could go on.

Why do you assume best case scenario?

- Consider Action to take?
- Conclusion: Prevent thief from stealing, ideally have him arrested or at least get him out of the house.

Logical, ideal, but logical

- How to do this?
- Weigh up potential threat to me.
- Is hand to hand combat a viable option?
- Conclusion: Yes

Viable does not always mean best option. Again, you ignore assumptions that could easily end your life if they are wrong. Why?

- Engage in hand to hand combat with the sole aim of restraining or ejecting thief from house.
- Consider nearby weapons in the event the hand to hand combat escalates

Another problem. You aim to restrain or eject...not to win. You ever try to restrain someone who is actively resisting your efforts? You know how quickly a situation can escalate? Your reasoning and your "force continuum" will get you killed. You cannot rise to merely match your assailants level of aggression. In order to win, you have to exceed his or her level of force. Law Enforcement has learned this because thousands of us have died as a result of merely rising to another persons level, rather then exceeding it and ending the fight swiftly.

Why do you chose to ignore assumptions that are inherently more dangerous to make then any others you consider on a daily basis?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

You are annoying. Ш цшыр ещ лшдд нщгю Break that for me please.

 

[MikeMike]

You are annoying. FOREIGN LANGUAGE Break that for me please.

be careful, threatening his death will get you infraction points.

 

[HAL9000]

Some level of likelihood must be. Is it when you see him armed? Is it when he threatens you? Is it when he attacks but fails to harm you? Is it when he non-mortally wounds you?

Given the lack of legal compunction the criminal has and the relative benefit the criminal would receive from my death there is no logical conclusion to be drawn but that the invader intends to end my life. This is the only rational choice for a home invader that has thrown out morality in favor of personal benefit.

There is no certainty of the murderous nature of the fellow until he has actually murdered you.

But you can be certain of a murderous threat. Like aiming a gun at you for example.

I did not say that wild west justice was always right, I said the greatest societal utility was served by eliminating a murderous criminal. I didn't say that someone not valuing their own life justified their murder, I said that the greatest individual utility was served by preserving the life of the person that valued their own life more.

This is an argument from utility; you have yet to offer a consistent ethical theory explaining why we should value the life of a home invader over our own safety from being killed by the invader.

I haven't offered that argument because I don't feel that way.

you live in your own world dude... You should ask your psychiatrist this question.

- Head downstairs, curious as to what is going on
- Confronted with man
- Assess is this a person I know or have invited into my home?You have to determine after hearing a broken window/etc if you invited a guy into your house??? really? holy fuck
- Answer no?no shit, this is step 1
- Conclusion: he is a criminal breaking and entering, this is fact.
- Is he evidentially a threat to my life?
- Conclusion: unclear at this point.uh... He is in your home he is a threat to your livelihood
- What is he doing?
- Holding household item, after breaking and entering.
either you are dead by now, or he is gone
- Conclusion: Thief
- Consider Action to take?
- Conclusion: Prevent thief from stealing, ideally have him arrested or at least get him out of the house.
- How to do this?
- Weigh up potential threat to me.
- Is hand to hand combat a viable option?So you have x-ray vision and know that he has no knife, no gun, no guys outside waiting, etc?
- Conclusion: Yes
- Engage in hand to hand combat with the sole aim of restraining or ejecting thief from house.
- Consider nearby weapons in the event the hand to hand combat escalates

1) Yes I have to determine if he is breaking into my house and is uninvited or is he a family member who's lost their keys etc etc etc
2) Read above
3) How is he threatening my livelihood?
4) I don't have x-ray vision, so I have to base it on what I do have, vision.

I love you too troll boy.

Simple enough of a start, let's see how this progresses....

..

Why the question mark? I will assume typo, and that is being generous.

It was a typo

Yes, a criminal that has so far, broken into your home.

Yup

Very unclear. It can go either way really.

True

I'm curious again, as to how you jump from "unknown threat to my life" to just a "thief" without any additional information on the subject. You don't know his criminal past, or his current intentions. You don't know if he is on drugs or not...I could go on.

Why do you assume best case scenario?

I'm not jumping to that, I'm saying based on what I know, the guy is a thief.

Logical, ideal, but logical

I'm an idealist.

Viable does not always mean best option. Again, you ignore assumptions that could easily end your life if they are wrong. Why?

I don't know that I am.

Another problem. You aim to restrain or eject...not to win. You ever try to restrain someone who is actively resisting your efforts? You know how quickly a situation can escalate? Your reasoning and your "force continuum" will get you killed. You cannot rise to merely match your assailants level of aggression. In order to win, you have to exceed his or her level of force. Law Enforcement has learned this because thousands of us have died as a result of merely rising to another persons level, rather then exceeding it and ending the fight swiftly.

This is something I hadn't considered and in all honesty wasn't aware of, you make a good point, perhaps rather than restrain my aim should be to injure the person. Then restrain him. I have restrained people in the past who were attempting to resist me, but this is a good point that I need to think about more.

Why do you chose to ignore assumptions that are inherently more dangerous to make then any others you consider on a daily basis?

Because there are certain things that people should not do based on assumptions, or rumours. For example. if the president ordered the invasion of a country on the assumption that they had WMD's that would be wrong :hmm: Similarly, assuming that someone is there to kill you and pre-emptively killing them is wrong.

 

[MikeMike]

It has now been 1.5 hours since you started saying "it's to late to reply to that"... and yet here you are replying to other posts...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But you can be certain of a murderous threat. Like aiming a gun at you for example.

or by invading your home as proved logically here:

Given the lack of legal compunction the criminal has and the relative benefit the criminal would receive from my death there is no logical conclusion to be drawn but that the invader intends to end my life. This is the only rational choice for a home invader that has thrown out morality in favor of personal benefit.

you have yet to offer a consistent ethical theory explaining why we should value the life of a home invader over our own safety from being killed by the invader.

I haven't offered that argument because I don't feel that way.

But not shooting a home invader on sight is valuing the invader's life above my safety, as failing to kill on sight can reduce my chances of survival thus reducing my safety. (ie of 100k people dealing with this situation some number more home owners will end-up dead because they failed to shoot on sight: not shooting on sight is therefor less safe than doing so)

If, then, you are arguing against shooting a home invader on sight you are, in fact, arguing that "we should value the life of a home invader over our own safety from being killed by the invader.".

Regardless you have still failed to appeal to any particular point of view that explains why you feel the way you do! The more you fail to offer a "consistent ethical theory explaining" your point of view, the more you show how abysmal the state of philosophy scholarship in the UK is.

 

[HAL9000]

or by invading your home as proved logically here:

You can't say "because the criminal would be better off to kill me, he will" That's false logic.

But not shooting a home invader on sight is valuing the invader's life above my safety, as failing to kill on sight can reduce my chances of survival thus reducing my safety. (ie of 100k people dealing with this situation some number more home owners will end-up dead because they failed to shoot on sight: not shooting on sight is therefor less safe than doing so)

Reducing your safety by 1% or 10% or 50% is not a valid reason to kill someone.

If, then, you are arguing against shooting a home invader on sight you are, in fact, arguing that "we should value the life of a home invader over our own safety from being killed by the invader.".

See above.

Regardless you have still failed to appeal to any particular point of view that explains why you feel the way you do! The more you fail to offer a "consistent ethical theory explaining" your point of view, the more you show how abysmal the state of philosophy scholarship in the UK is.

I have a Philosophy Degree from the University of Cambridge, granted it's only a 2:1 but I think it's a pretty good school.

My logical thought process is this:

- Human life is valuable, given the potential each human has inside them.
- To end that potential a person must be protecting something of greater value
- I value my life and my families lives higher than that of an unknown as I know their potential, but not the unknown, it is also apparent that if the unknown is a criminal then their current value is less (in terms of contribution to society) than my non-criminal family.
- If I am put in a situation where it is absolutely apparent that I have to choose between the lives of my family and the life of an unknown or a criminal I will choose my family.
- If the unknown or criminal does not present a deadly threat beyond reasonable doubt, then I cannot morally kill them. As human life is too valuable to be ended, based on what could very well be a faulty assumption.
- When a person breaks into my home their intentions are not absolutely clear
- While it is possible, even probable that they wish me harm, that does not give me the right to kill them
- While it is clear that they value their lives higher than mine, that does not give me the right to kill them
- While it may be beneficial to them if I were dead, that does not give me the right to kill them
- Why do the above three examples not give me the right to kill them? Because none of them offer absolute certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt that they intend to kill anyone.

A clear, absolute, intention to kill, or an absolutely clear deadly threat is what I require to pull the trigger, anything short of that and I do not have the moral right to end someones life.

 

[HAL9000]

It has now been 1.5 hours since you started saying "it's to late to reply to that"... and yet here you are replying to other posts...

Wow you must have a degree in time!... or a watch, you know whatever.

 

[MikeMike]

Wow you must have a degree in time!... or a watch, you know whatever.

Or you won't respond to posts that you have no way to disagree with.

 

[HAL9000]

Or you won't respond to posts that you have no way to disagree with.

I think I've responded to all the posts :hmm:

 

[MikeMike]

I think I've responded to all the posts :hmm:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31671862&postcount=450

not that one (and i didnt go back a page, or look for posts where you edited etc... plus you never went and found the statistics of how dangerous it is to surprise an intruder)