moral calculus
I'm a big fan of revenge movies; the Death Wish franchise, Dirty Harry series, The Star Chamber, Thriller: a Cruel Life, the whole lot of them.
Tonite, I was watching a recent attempt at one (Already Dead; more Star Chamber than Death Wish, but alright as far as it went) when I had a thought.
Now then, we all here agree on the propriety and reasonableness of self-defense in exigent circumstances. If you or your family were faced with the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, I don't think any of us would hesitate to use any and all means at our disposal to defend what we hold dear. Perfectly fine as it goes.
But what if, for whatever reason, we couldn't use that deadly force at the time to prevent such harm? What if, instead, our wife or child or sibling or parent or whatever, was harmed (let's say killed) and we were unable to prevent such an occurrence. Let's also speculate that we could know, at some time in the future, with 100%, no error, beyond any shade of a doubt, who the perpetrator was, but the police were unable to apprehend them for whatever reason. With that in mind, pretend that you found them before the police did (by chance or otherwise.) What is wrong with killing them now? If you were perfectly within your rights to kill them before (when you failed to do so for whatever reason) what, morally speaking, removes that right from you after the fact when we know beyond doubt the harm that was actually caused by this person? Before, when you're legally privileged to use self-defense up to and including deadly force, you were acting on mere assumptions of the danger that could be wreaked upon you and yours. Now, in the place of assumptions and guesses, we have actual knowledge. What is the justification from removing from you the executive authority, so to speak, of using such force against that same person when you have MORE knowledge and facts to base your decision on, not less? Is it mere time? Is it the loss of exigency? Is it something else?
Remember, in my hypothetical, we know beyond doubt and with perfect accuracy that this person is the one and the same that harmed your [insert person of significance here] so a mistaken ID is not to be considered as a factor as it normally would be. Why is extreme force acceptable when acting on imperfect knowledge and what might happen but not when based on irrefutable facts of what did happen and the real harm that was committed as opposed to that which might be?
Tonite, I was watching a recent attempt at one (Already Dead; more Star Chamber than Death Wish, but alright as far as it went) when I had a thought.
Now then, we all here agree on the propriety and reasonableness of self-defense in exigent circumstances. If you or your family were faced with the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, I don't think any of us would hesitate to use any and all means at our disposal to defend what we hold dear. Perfectly fine as it goes.
But what if, for whatever reason, we couldn't use that deadly force at the time to prevent such harm? What if, instead, our wife or child or sibling or parent or whatever, was harmed (let's say killed) and we were unable to prevent such an occurrence. Let's also speculate that we could know, at some time in the future, with 100%, no error, beyond any shade of a doubt, who the perpetrator was, but the police were unable to apprehend them for whatever reason. With that in mind, pretend that you found them before the police did (by chance or otherwise.) What is wrong with killing them now? If you were perfectly within your rights to kill them before (when you failed to do so for whatever reason) what, morally speaking, removes that right from you after the fact when we know beyond doubt the harm that was actually caused by this person? Before, when you're legally privileged to use self-defense up to and including deadly force, you were acting on mere assumptions of the danger that could be wreaked upon you and yours. Now, in the place of assumptions and guesses, we have actual knowledge. What is the justification from removing from you the executive authority, so to speak, of using such force against that same person when you have MORE knowledge and facts to base your decision on, not less? Is it mere time? Is it the loss of exigency? Is it something else?
Remember, in my hypothetical, we know beyond doubt and with perfect accuracy that this person is the one and the same that harmed your [insert person of significance here] so a mistaken ID is not to be considered as a factor as it normally would be. Why is extreme force acceptable when acting on imperfect knowledge and what might happen but not when based on irrefutable facts of what did happen and the real harm that was committed as opposed to that which might be?
0
-
In your hypothetical, I would hypothetically kill the son-of-a-bitch. It wouldn't matter if the police got to him first. If I'm still alive after he pays his hypothetical debt to society it's time to hypothetically settle up with me. I understand I would hypothetically spend the rest of my hypothetical life in prison because I wouldn't lie about it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
In your hypothetical, I would hypothetically kill the son-of-a-bitch. It wouldn't matter if the police got to him first. If I'm still alive after he pays his hypothetical debt to society it's time to hypothetically settle up with me. I understand I would hypothetically spend the rest of my hypothetical life in prison because I wouldn't lie about it.
Hypothetically, I agree 110%. Unfortunately, in reality, the threat is over and due to the "revenge" factor, the law would prosecute you and then your family would have lost two members because of one piece of doodoo. It's a lose/ lose situtation. Unless, you plead insanity, hell it works for alot of S.O.Bs0 -
no moral dillema for me!
id kill the s o b and laugh while i did it!
here you only serve 18 years for 1st degree murder...i wouldnt give the courts the chance to jail him/her, my sentence would be permanent!0 -
Yep, I ran across a term from the vets that applies here: SSS.
Shoot, Shovel, & Shutup!!
I might be tempted, if it was my Wife or only Daughter. I would ask for the Lord's forgiveness after the bile dissipated. But until it did, I would quite possibly be "on a mission". I am happy I have not had that situation facing me, and pray I never do.0 -
Go to BLOCKBUSTER and rent the movie "Death Sentence" with Kevin Bacon. 0 -
I'd do it, or have it done.
I'd also make sure I had a rock-solid alibi0 -
time to get a couple of hard-ass brothers with pliers and blow torches and get medieval on their ass ... 0 -
The old addage says, "Vengence is a dish best served cold." That makes it premeditated murder, an eye-for-an-eye justice not being the legal standard in this country. 0 -
I think everyone is missing the point; I'm not asking what you WOULD do in that circumstance, I'm asking what the moral or philosophical underpinning is for such disparate treatment in the various settings.
Of course, I should have known better than to ask for a little bit of intellectualism from this bunch.[:p][}:)][;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I think everyone is missing the point; I'm not asking what you WOULD do in that circumstance, I'm asking what the moral or philosophical underpinning is for such disparate treatment in the various settings.
Of course, I should have known better than to ask for a little bit of intellectualism from this bunch.[:p][}:)][;)]
Nobody does anything they can't justify in their own mind. Sane people that is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I think everyone is missing the point; I'm not asking what you WOULD do in that circumstance, I'm asking what the moral or philosophical underpinning is for such disparate treatment in the various settings.
Of course, I should have known better than to ask for a little bit of intellectualism from this bunch.[:p][}:)][;)]
Now you're making my head hurt, what with all them four and five cylinder words.[:0]0 -
sounds like the perfect psychiatric defence. 0 -
Your best arguement to a questionable jury is the defense factor. You've just thrown that away by going on the offensive.
Try it. You won't like it.
As far as the intillectual aspect of your "what if" scenario..I'm not willing to answer that without a lot of reflection. I'll let other posters make the [snap judgements] necessary to satisfy this string. Best, Joe0 -
O.k., the "Justice System" looks at what is reasonable, or what a sane person would find to be reasonable in a particular situation. If at the moment, you can articulate that you were in fear for your life or the life of another, then it would be "reasonable" to use force to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force. If, two months later you run into the perp and just shoot his butt, then it would not be reasonable, as the immediate threat is over and it would be viewed as vengence or even premeditated murder. It all falls back to what is viewed as "reasonable". The whole judicial system is based on probable cause, reasonable suspicion and hard evidence. There is the disparity in the two scenarios, "Reason". 0 -
I think if some one hurt my child I wouldn't kill him but make him live ...no arms .no legs .no ???? 0 -
i would put a shotgun to his nuts or head and walk him to the police and if he doesnt confess *BOOM* 0 -
While I agree with your post in content, my mind goes back to a mother ( I forget her name) who gunned down the perp of some sort of sexual violence on her son several years back.
She sat in jail for a few years, then died from some disease, and left her son motherless for the years from the incident until her death.
While the Dirty Harry seems like the way to go, the repurcussions delve a lot deeper.....0 -
In theory I would say it is vigilante justice, and as a Christian, even a flawed one, I would not be able to morally condone it.
However men ARE flawed and I don't know if I could be that big. I do think that if I did it I would feel good about it but feel bad ABOUT Feeling good.0 -
The moral part of your question depends on your beliefs.
For Christians, does "Thou Shalt not Kill" or "Vengance is mine say'th the Lord" ring a bell. But the bible being what it is might offer other contradictory ideas.
Some believe that it is immoral to kill even in self-defence
Others believe that you should save the tax payers the cost of a trial and incarseration and if you are ever brought to trial you might find the system sympathic and get a light sentence or even a sweet plea bargin.
If we had not set up this whole government thing we got it would just be up to how you felt about the whole thing.0 -
"an eye for an eye", Exodus 21:23-27 0 -
Reply:
Are you not familiar with the concept of "self defense"?
If you have to hurt someone to protect yourself or someone else from serious injury that's one thing. Shooting them afterwards when they are sitting alone posing no threat to anyone doesn't defend anyone, and that's why its illegal.
(For the moment, we're going to leave out of this the likelihood that the murderer you kill in revenge could commit another murder. Even most people who commit homicide aren't serial/repeat killers).
The next question, if you're asking, if someone kills a member of your family, then got away with it legally speaking, and you think you could get away with killing them in revenge, would you try?
My answer is no (though I have to say, I've never been in that situation, so this is a speculative answer).
First of all, no matter how careful you think you are, there is a realistic likelihood you'll get caught (beforehand, during, or after), and its not worth throwing your life away too.
Next, even assuming you got away with it, then you'd have to live the rest of your life with the knowledge that you committed a murder. If its a situation of my life or theirs, I suppose I could live with it afterwards. If the state wants to take the life of a someone who murdered a member of my family, I don't think that would bother me either. But personally, I'd just as soon rather not kill anyone if I can help it, not even a bad person.
And let's go down the slippery slope. Let's say its "OK" to kill someone who gets away with the murder of a family member. Then why wouldn't it be OK to kill someone who got away with the murder of someone ELSE's family member, maybe someone who was unable to exact revenge on their own? Why wouldn't it be OK to subcontract out your revenge to a third party professional? So now you've justified frank vigilantism as well as murder-for-hire. Once you do that, you can see how its very easy to make a mistake about who deserves to get killed and who doesn't. That's why we have courts, laws, rules of evidence, etc.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I think everyone is missing the point; I'm not asking what you WOULD do in that circumstance, I'm asking what the moral or philosophical underpinning is for such disparate treatment in the various settings.
Of course, I should have known better than to ask for a little bit of intellectualism from this bunch.[:p][}:)][;)]
Nemesis - I am going to have a go at your challenge to my intellect...I ain't never been afraid to make an idiot of myself!
Philosophically speaking I think that the "disparate" treatment emenates from the fact that there is no physical threat to you should you seek retribution at a later date. The premeditation that it would take to act at a moment far removed from the origional situation allows you the "luxury" of having the authorities carry out sentence via jurisprudence.
I use your terminology of "morally" as a polar opposite of "philosophically"
Morally you open this up to a much more interpretive and emotional response...morally speaking you can justify any action as morals are very fluid ideals when comparing from one person to another.
Thanks for leting me think. I just wish I could type fast enough to keep up!0 -
I only watch the "Death Wish" movies for the Academy Award-winning level of acting. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
I only watch the "Death Wish" movies for the Academy Award-winning level of acting.
I have to admit that I picture a lot of the posters here as Charles Bronson wannabees.
My father in law worships Bronson and Chuck Norris...all I will say about that!0 -
Morally? Hurt mine only at the risk of your life. I would contend that is poor morals to permit those to whom you owe protection to be harmed without retribution. This is why you may see folks from the Animal Liberation groups tossing red paint on old women wearing furs, but rarely see them tossing paint at a biker wearing a leather jacket. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
First of all, no matter how careful you think you are, there is a realistic likelihood you'll get caught (beforehand, during, or after), and its not worth throwing your life away too.
Next, even assuming you got away with it, then you'd have to live the rest of your life with the knowledge that you committed a murder. If its a situation of my life or theirs, I suppose I could live with it afterwards. If the state wants to take the life of a someone who murdered a member of my family, I don't think that would bother me either. But personally, I'd just as soon rather not kill anyone if I can help it, not even a bad person.
beantown, This is going to vary from person to person. I usually don't like to get into hypotheticals, but I'll throw my opinion into this one.
If someone murdered my wife, I wouldn't even try to "get away with it". I'd murder the son-of-a-bitch on the courthouse steps at high noon right in front of God and the Boatswain's Mate and everybody.
Having to live with having killed someone ain't an easy deal, but I think it would be a lot easier than having to live with not killing someone under those circumstances.
Some people, maybe most, look at it differently.0 -
Morally, you can initially cause one death, to prevent more death (ie kill the attacker to stop him from killing).
If you kill the person after the fact, you haven't prevented any death, only caused more. If it was a serial killer... well thats another story, if you run into them again, and they plan on killing again, perhaps its self defense again?
If someone killed a family member, I'd get revenge(assuming the police won't act), and I'd get away with it.
Contrary to TV shows, most murders go unsolved.
If anyone with sufficient resources an intelligence wanted to, they could get away with murder at least once, assuming they go after an average Joe with no security detail (prominent leaders... I won't even go there).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
I only watch the "Death Wish" movies for the Academy Award-winning level of acting.
that, and lots of dead street punks.[:D][:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
Morally, you can initially cause one death, to prevent more death (ie kill the attacker to stop him from killing).
If you kill the person after the fact, you haven't prevented any death, only caused more. If it was a serial killer... well thats another story, if you run into them again, and they plan on killing again, perhaps its self defense again?
If someone killed a family member, I'd get revenge(assuming the police won't act), and I'd get away with it.
Contrary to TV shows, most murders go unsolved.
If anyone with sufficient resources an intelligence wanted to, they could get away with murder at least once, assuming they go after an average Joe with no security detail (prominent leaders... I won't even go there).
Big problem is that if the killer is known you would be the #1 suspect. If something happens to O. J. who do you think will be one of the first people the police look at?
That type of situation is the most likely most of us could face. A slimeball who gets away with it due to a tecnicality or a brain dead jury or witnesses that are too scared to testify.0 -
If i couldn't do anything, for any reason, when the initial threat of harm is present, i would surely "even the score" if i could .Later-on. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments