Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron  I think all of this talk of defending the innocent is straying from the orriginal question of what would it take to drive you to murder.
I think at this point, we need to define what murder is. Murder is the unlawfull killing of another in anger or cold blood, with or withought motivation. Killing in defence of yourself or others isn't murder. |
So are we going by the law as it exists today in December 2007 or a "relative" version of the law? It can and does change especially regarding unforeseen circumstances. If we are going by todays version, is it the US version? If so could you recite it here so we're all clear....cuz so far we've said self defense isn't murder and killing in anger is, what if you did both at the same time? We've also said killing in defense of other people isn't murder but how about the killing in defense of 200 polar bears?
More to the point of the question though, is "Under what conditions would you consider it morally acceptable to kill someone?"
If you subscribe to the basic moral premise of utilitarianism, which I do and I believe most people do whether they know it or not, then any number of circumstances would deem killing someone moral.
More simply, the consequences of me killing someone = A, and the consequences of me not killing said someone = B. If A > B go for it man.
Build a law around that, and I'd be impressed.