digitalMedia

Yes, that would certainly be a good discussion. I agree.

But, expanding on the idea of protecting innocent people in close proximity; Would the same rule apply for protecting innocent people that aren't in close proximity or even in immediate peril?

This assumes you have knowledge of an event and its likely outcome(death and maiming of innocent people) - before it happens. And, that you have the opportunity to stop it, but, the only way you can stop it is to commit murder.

Too much?

__________________
"Ubi re vera..."

George

It comes down to your own level of the feeling of personal responsibility IMO. Because in a "preventative" situation you have to look at the consequences. In that situation you don't have to just prove your motives to yourself, you'd also have to prove them to a judge and jury at your murder trial because you'd likely be arrested and charged with murder. If you are convicted your family will, in effect, be sentenced to suffer along with you.

Example: If Saddam Huessein were alive today and in fact given a parade down a street in Bagdad and I happened to be there for whatever reason. Now I have knowledge that he plans to gas an entire village. Women small children, infants. All dead in the street... I'm carrying a pistol and have a wide open shot at him nearly point blank/can't miss range.... Do I shoot him? Nope. Because my personal level of responsibility isn't there and it's something I would leave for "someone else" to do.

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

Maximus

A mission to kill high ranking child molestors.

Just because I feel it would be doing justice.

I guesse what would " push " me is simply a lack of direction in my life, you know, no other prospects.

Aaron

Of course, self defense and protecting loved ones, military service etc...

To give you the answer you are really looking for:

There are two people on the face of this planet, who aren't worth the air that they breath, that I would wack without hesitation or remorse given the chance. One of them I would kill only if I knew I wouldn't get caught; the other I will kill if I ever meet him face to face, no matter the consequences.

The first of these individuals harmed those that I love enough to leave emotional and physical scars that will last a lifetime. The second is responsible for my mother's untimely death.

Fortunately, I am not seeking out vengence and it is highly doubtful I will ever see them again.

So, to answer your question, opportunity (in two cases) is all it would take to drive me to murder.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

kjk437

No, not too much, but still a similar argument on my part. Assuming you have the knowledge, you also have to think of other repercussions of your acts. For instance, if we find out today, without a doubt, that Iran has nuclear weapons and is planning on shooting them at neighboring countries, I think most of the world would go after Iran. Now, what if we're 99% sure. I mean, we have overwhelming evidence, but we aren't 100% sure. Are we still justified? Most would say yes. Now, what if we're 75% sure? Ok, well now we have to consider not immediate action (as the deaths of untold numbers of citizens, see Iraq, might be killed). See where I'm going with this? Knowledge of a event to come is ambiguous to me. I couldn't kill someone if I knew that there was a high probability of them attacking me. In the act of harming me? Well then, there we go.

To answer your question on a personal level, however, there is absolutely no way for me to know of a situation before hand, even on a hypothetical level. Of course I would answer that if there was a way for me to be imbued with knowledge beyond my capability that I could know what was to happen (again, in a hypothetical sense), that I would take action in some way. I can't still convince myself to murder someone. However, as there is absolutely no way possible to be given the knowledge I seek, I can tell you firmly that I wouldn't kill anyone, ANYONE, unless they were in the act of their crime.

Buddha

I could kill bad people.

__________________
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are american dreams

WilliamBlue

If you are in my house without me or my wifes permission and knowledge, you will probably not get a warning. As for riches and such the karma's not worth it.

Bill

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

Mortalsfool

Not even a consideration, though it appears in our societies to be the biggest motivation for murder. Even if a person holds no expectation of some poetic form of justice when they die, it seems to me to be the most shallow of reasons to murder or kill.

I have heard that the Bible commandment that is commonly interpreted as thou shall not kill, is a misinterpretation of the original word used which meant ‘murder’. Big difference!

Aaron

Question: By what standard would you classify bad people?

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

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.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan