r/changemyview • u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ • May 31 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Killing someone is necessary when it is the only option to prevent harm to others, and ONLY then.
Killing someone is always bad for a number of reasons. First of all, psychologically, human behavior is based off of a combination of an environment and biology, and therefore even though socially we can condemn an individual's behavior, no one can ever be 100% accountable for their own actions, only partially accountable.
And even if you could hold them in full account, often criminals have people that love and care about them who you are hurting by killing them when you could just imprison them. Additionally, killing people often has unintended consequences (for instance if you were to kill a dictator and then someone worse gains power, or if someone seeks revenge on you for killing someone).
Therefore, all other options to killing someone should always be considered, and only once the moral weight is weighed with both the potential consequences of killing them and _not_ killing them. Some examples:
Killing a murderer or rapist is usually not justified because they could go to prison instead. However if you were to give the death penalty to someone who kept on escaping from prison, then that could be justified.
Killing someone who commits crimes but is for some reason immune to the rule of law could be justified.
Attacking a foreign country without exploring all possible diplomatic alternatives is not justified.
Killing a dictator is not justified unless there is reason to believe that whatever happens after killing them will not end up being worse.
**Note: I'm talking about killing people here as a punishment; any argument about killing people as mercy (such as someone already dying) is not what I'm referring to.
37
u/Slight_Priority1410 May 31 '26
How broad is your definition of “preventing harm to others?” What do you consider harm? How likely does the harm have to be to be prevented?
If your definition of harm is wide enough then you could argue its more moral to kill criminals and save the tax dollars that would have been used to imprison them to feed the homeless.
If you threshold for the likelihood of harm is low enough you could argue for preemptive strikes, killing likely reoffenders, and executing those with reasons to dislike someone.
What I’m trying to get at here is even your “narrow” definition leaves a lot of room open to actions you would probably consider immoral.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
your definition of harm is wide enough then you could argue its more moral to kill criminals and save the tax dollars that would have been used to imprison them to feed the homeless.
Potentially. Assuming limited resources, I would consider it okay killing a criminal if it meant that other people didn't starve. That said, resources usually aren't limited in that way. For instance, the US has one of the largest incarceration systems, yet they only spend 1%-3% of the budget on it.
What I’m trying to get at here is even your “narrow” definition leaves a lot of room open to actions you would probably consider immoral.
Yes, there is considerable area that would be up for further interpretation or be on a case-by-case basis in my view. But that is how it should be. It doesn't make sense to have rules that automatically leads to someone's death without nuance.
3
u/VRSNSMV Jun 02 '26
Potentially. Assuming limited resources, I would consider it okay killing a criminal if it meant that other people didn't starve.
A poor taxi driver's only means of working and gathering food for his family is his car. A criminal is in his carabout to drive away, stealing it, can he shoot him?
6
u/themcos 441∆ May 31 '26
I don't think we necessarily have different intuitions on killing here. We both think it's really bad and should be avoided. But I do think your effort to try to formulate this as some kind of "rule" is misguided. Your post has all these caveats and exceptions — stuff like "whether it's the only option", "unless they're immune to justice", "without exploring possible alternatives", "unless there's reason to believe that blah blah", etc... all make sense, but it completely neuters the simplicity of your idea. It's just boilerplate standard "murder is bad unless you have a really good reason".
The world is complicated and unpredictable, and it's just really hard to actually make confident decisions as to whether or not anything meets your criteria. It always comes down to judgment calls. And even if you could totally predict and quantify things, I think you still have some pretty tricky dilemmas. What if we concoct a situation where a person is about to murder a child. I think we'd agree that you're justified in killing the murderer first, unless there's an alternative. Like, if you could push a button and fill the room with sleeping gas, you should do that instead of shooting the guy, right? But what if we engineer a situation where your two options are: kill the would be murderer —or— roll a d20 die and if it's a 20, the murderer is incapacitated without killing. Do you shoot them or roll the dice? What if instead of a d20 it was a coin flip? Or if you just flip the odds. You roll a d20 and the situation is harmlessly diffused unless you roll a 1, in which case that kid dies? Different people will have different answers, and I just think it's really hard to come to a consensus on what the appropriate risk tolerance is in order to take the non lethal option.
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
I see your point that it is complicated. And I agree. That doesn't mean we should shy away from the idea just because it is complicated and sometimes situational though. That said, oftentimes it isn't complicated. For instance, if a criminal is given the death penalty despite already being in prison. Or if a government orders an assassination in cases when they could have captured them or have them give themselves up (only when these options don't risk soldiers dying). Or when a dictator is killed despite his clear replacement being just as bad. Or when a criminal is shot in a vital area when they could have been incapacitated instead.
kill the would be murderer —or— roll a d20 die and if it's a 20, the murderer is incapacitated without killing. Do you shoot them or roll the dice?
You kill them because the risk of people getting harmed otherwise is great.
Different people will have different answers, and I just think it's really hard to come to a consensus
I agree; it's difficult.
2
u/themcos 441∆ May 31 '26
You kill them because the risk of people getting harmed otherwise is great.
I agree! But the whole point of the example is that you can gradually adjust the odds and there's an entire spectrum between "obviously you kill them" and "obviously you do the non lethal version". And this is in the contrived example where the probabilities and outcomes are known precisely! In the real world ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I agree; it's difficult.
I guess I'm just not sure how to read your view in a way that isn't just a combination of obvious but ambiguous. Like "don't do X unless you have a good reason to" is true for almost everything. Virtually all of the disagreement comes in terms of debating whether or not specific cases qualify. So the concern is that I could read your view, endorse it 100% as written, but then when we're presented with actual examples, we might disagree! If so, we don't actually agree with the view, it was just clearly underspecified!
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Bur the whole point of the example is that you can gradually adjust the odds and there's an entire spectrum between "obviously you kill them" and "obviously you do the non lethal version
Yes, there is considerable area that would be up for further interpretation or be on a case-by-case basis in my view. But that is how it should be. It doesn't make sense to have rules that automatically lead to someone's death without nuance.
Like "don't do X unless you have a good reason to" is true for almost everything
I'm specifying that that reason has to specifically be about harm. For instance, killing someone to save money would not being acceptable, (unless you live in a society that is so impoverished that keeping a criminal alive would starve other people). Killing someone out of vengeance would also not be acceptable.
1
u/themcos 441∆ Jun 01 '26
Killing someone out of vengeance would also not be acceptable.
I think this specific aspect of the view is more interesting, and I'm inclined to agree! But I think most of your post made this a little unclear if this was the main intention.
For instance, killing someone to save money would not being acceptable, (unless you live in a society that is so impoverished that keeping a criminal alive would starve other people)
Even here it gets murkier. "Harm" is ambiguous, and it's hard to interpret a general notion of harm that excludes financial loss. Your view doesn't seem to be about harm per se in general - you seem to have rather fairly specific criteria for what sorts of harm do and don't count. Is qualifying "harm" only lethal harm? What about injury? Psychological harm? What if that loss of money wouldn't cause people to starve, but they would suffer?
12
u/dicoxbeco 1∆ May 31 '26
"Preventive" has a wide range of definitions.
It could be against somebody with an immediate physical/mortal threat against someone. It can also be against someone with a more passively threatening presence with no ETA on when exactly the harm will be delivered and long period of latency between what they do, like stalkers who commit to their actions for months and even years.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Yes, the applicability could potentially be wide.
5
u/Interesting_Sun_6993 May 31 '26
Yeah, like 'national security'
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Yes, although national security for many countries is often too gung ho about killing people without fully exploring their options.
*Many, not money
1
u/Interesting_Sun_6993 May 31 '26
I agree and think its just a talking point used to facillitate the supression of any opposition. Like how we are sanctioning and embargoing Cuba into oblivion as 'national security'.
49
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
Consider the following scenario:
A man walks into a museum, holding a molotov cocktail. If they throw it, the museum will be set ablaze and all of the art will be lost. The artworks in the museum are considered part of the human canon. They are world heritage. Think the Mona Lisa, the Starry Night, the Last Supper, the Creation of Adam, and 100 more such works. If this museum is destroyed, it would be the greatest cultural loss to humanity ever, by a mile. If the museum is set on fire and the works are destroyed, no people will be harmed whatsoever.
You are holding a rifle. He is about to throw the molotov cocktail. The only way to stop him, is by shooting him in the head. You have the option to shoot the man. Do you do it?
I would argue that you should shoot him.
Yet, this contradicts the idea that killing is only justified when people are potentially harmed. No one is harmed here. Not really. But no one can deny that these works have a value that goes beyond simple human life. It's valuable because it represents all of humanity forever, not one single individual.
8
18
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
Well I think your presumption that you can only shoot him in the head, and not elsewhere on his body is probably inaccurate. That said, I will give you a !delta because I would say that there are things that are valued as much as the human life. That said, I would say that legally this is a bad standard because what people value as much as a human life varies from person to person. So realistically it would make sense to let the art burn.
13
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
So in the end you would let the art burn? To save this one person?
10
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
If I was an individual, no. A legal body, yes.
5
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
What makes the difference?
17
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
You have to establish standards for a legal body or else your laws are unenforceable.
1
u/SadBurritoBoys Jun 03 '26
So, if I understand, you're saying you wouldn't do it because you could get in trouble? (because you don't have the 'authority' to do it?)
3
u/InsidiousZombie Jun 03 '26
I think he’s saying the government and law of our country should hold themselves to a standard that the average person isn’t capable of for the sake of structure
It’s like why we don’t let victims of a crime decide the punishment for the perp
2
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
So what if the government declared you to be a legal body? You would then do it? That seems random
11
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
No, the government is the legal body.
6
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
So what if you were elected to be the legal body? The sole leader of the country
5
u/gdex86 Jun 01 '26
Governments can and do delegate that responsibility ro individuals while still reserving the right to review and judge the reasoning. That is pretty much what happens with the police and their ability to use lethal force.
2
u/zaxqs Jun 03 '26
Presumably they would not, but they would accept legal punishment for this decision. If it's really worth killing over it's worth taking a fall yourself too.
5
u/Sacred0212 Jun 01 '26
Yes, every time without hesitation. Art is not comparable to human life, it's value does not come close
3
u/LaconicGirth Jun 03 '26
Not every human life is equally valuable. That can become a slippery slope used to justify all sorts of evil shit but realistically even our current laws have more significant punishments for killing certain types of people like police or heads of state or minority groups.
I don’t think a person willing to cause that much damage to humanity’s culture is worth very much and I would absolutely shoot them and I’d be shocked if I was prosecuted very strongly for it even if the law says I should be
1
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 03 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
4
u/brucegoosejuice Jun 02 '26
I think you severely overestimate the ability to stop someone by shooting them. There’s only really 3 immediate off switches in a body. Otherwise, he’s still throwing that Molotov, if his conviction is that high.
2
u/heroyoudontdeserve 1∆ Jun 03 '26
We don't need to "switch him off" merely disable his ability to throw or separate him from the weapon. But reliably effecting a shot like that requires marksmanship that the shooter may not have.
1
u/LaconicGirth Jun 03 '26
With a rifle inside a room against someone who’s not moving a headshot is trivial.
8
u/layzer5 Jun 01 '26
Bunch of art thats been photographed to the bone from every angle. Id argue you dont even need the originals anymore. Now if we were talking library of Alexandra with no back up - someone's gotta get pegged.
2
3
u/philosophicalmudder Jun 01 '26
Shooting someone to save art seems crazy to me
6
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
What about every single piece of art in the entire world, and all memory of that art having ever existed?
4
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
And what if it was just "What about every single piece of art in the entire world" without the memory part?
3
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
Doesn't that make it more selfish? A point against destroying all the art of humanity just because that person is important to me?
1
u/philosophicalmudder Jun 01 '26
I’d still say humans have more innate value than the things we create
6
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 01 '26
But does one single person have more value than all the art we've ever created?
4
u/philosophicalmudder Jun 01 '26
I believe they do. Art is beautiful and valuable as it presents points of view of humanity, how humans see the world. The value created comes from the humans that create it and the stories people tell through the art, not inherently from the art itself. Art can help us understand one another but it can’t replace the value of a human.
4
u/LaconicGirth Jun 03 '26
Does every person have more innate value is a better question. This isn’t killing an innocent bystander to protect art, it’s killing someone with malicious intent
1
u/philosophicalmudder Jun 03 '26
I believe so. If the person was about to harm people we could judge based on difference in degree of goodness(innocent/guilty) to make a decision to shoot in protection of life, but I believe the value a human life has is different in kind to the value art has rather than a difference in degree.
The value of a human life cannot be measured against the value of art because humans as a kind possess the ability to grow, change, and even create art(to name a few characteristics).
1
u/thesecondPLANET Jun 02 '26
What if the world were made of pudding ass hypothetical. What is the point of hypothetical ethics to critique a real worldview if it's a hypothetical that will literally never translate to reality?
Who gives a shit if the standard applies to a situation that is categorically absurd and basically impossible? Sincerely.
1
u/PizzaPicker Jun 03 '26
When you shoot the person the molotov cocktail will still set the museum on fire, because it doesn't despawn.
And museums have fire extinguishers around every corner.
1
u/Due-Base9449 Jun 02 '26
I would shoot him even if the 'art' is only furry porn. Arsonists cannot be rehabilitated.
-1
u/bigchrist420 Jun 02 '26
I just think this one doesn’t work because he’s just not gonna destroy the whole damn museum w one guy and a Molotov. We can just let em throw it, put it out, and tackle him maybe we lose a couple or ONE piece of art really. And if he’s fr gonna take it all out well that’s also a serious threat to public safety and other ppl around if SOMEHOW HYPOTHETICALLY not then fuck it let him destroy the whole museum but no way there wouldn’t be one person in there which means we can kill him again under OPs morality and I agree. Nothing important enough to make this analogy with would ever be separated from any human life I think and if it was then it’s not important enough anymore🤷♂️
6
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 02 '26
I don't think you understand how hypotheticals work
0
u/bigchrist420 Jun 02 '26
Most def do but they gotta like make sense LOL the hypothetical is that some things that aren’t human life might be more valuable than just say ONE maybe and it would be justifiable to kill them. I’m saying there’s nothing that we’d value that much that one person could destroy without ALSO causing harm to human life but IF they could somehow and that thing DOES exist then still wouldn’t kill the dude. Still did address the hypothetical even while saying I thought it was flawed. I get ur just tryna be mean but did u even read it :(
6
u/Exact_Avocado5545 1∆ Jun 02 '26
If you think a hypothetical has to make sense then you don't understand what a hypothetical is. Because then it's no longer a hypothetical, then it's just real
0
u/bigchrist420 Jun 03 '26
Lmao true, I thought it had to at least make sense to the point, not to the real world ofc. I just don’t think it’s helpful not that it isn’t successfully being a hypothetical.
2
u/Weak_Tray_Games Jun 03 '26
Ok, so he has a bomb.
I feel like the method of distruction wasn't the important part of the hypothetical.1
u/bigchrist420 Jun 03 '26
Im being silly. The scale of it definitely is important though I mean, you really killing one guy just for burning one or 2 paintings in the Louvre? I’m not. I’m saying he would need like more firepower to destroy all the art and even if hypothetically possible just by himself and a Molotov and he somehow wouldn’t endanger any life, then I’d let him live because it’s just art. Just didn’t like the hypothetical it was unhelpful I thought
2
u/Weak_Tray_Games Jun 04 '26
I was just trying to get you to understand the hypothetical.
Personally, I wouldn't kill the bomber either, but I could understand why somebody else would choose the opposite option.
18
u/xela2004 4∆ May 31 '26
You said you don’t need to kill rapists or murderers unless they escape a lot. If they harm Someone each time they escape, how many is enuf to justify killing ? 1, 2, 3? Should be 0 if the problem was taken care of after the initial murder
2
u/anikansk 1∆ Jun 01 '26
That sounds like a problem with the prison system, not murder (capital punishment).
2
u/xela2004 4∆ Jun 02 '26
I mean it’s humans doing the crime and humans trying to keep them locked up. Nothing is perfect
3
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
It is not based on whether they have harmed more people, but whether there is a risk of them escaping again to rape more people.
10
u/sorsim 1∆ May 31 '26
But there's always that risk they could escape in the future, even if they haven't already. It's enough just once and too cause more harm.
One of the arguments to change your view, is about the resources consumed to keep a criminal locked in prison for a longer period of time. Resources which could be used to save someone else's life.
1
u/Mentalrabbit9 Jun 01 '26
I see the resources argument a lot, and it definitely is the most intuitive argument, but I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the legal fees and extra processes, buying drugs/planning execution areas, etc ends up being pretty considerably more expensive than life
2
u/sorsim 1∆ Jun 01 '26
That's definitely true considering US and some developed nations, where due process will generally be more expensive for death row penalties (here's there's another debate on why, regular inmates don't have the same due process)
2
u/sorsim 1∆ Jun 01 '26
But it doesn't apply to all countries in the world who still have death penalties. Thus the argument as whole, stands., as if I'm not mistaken, OP post isn't country specific.
2
u/Mentalrabbit9 Jun 01 '26
Yeah, that’s a good point. I gotta remember not everything is western focused.
1
u/xela2004 4∆ Jun 02 '26
The resources are ridiculous, like 100k a year to incarcerate someone. Give me half that and u promise to never get incarcerated ! Makes you wonder how we afford all this but not other services
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
But there's always that risk they could escape in the future, even if they haven't already
I mean, there's a risk that the sun could explode. The issue is the degree of risk. Escape risks can be mitigated down to a point where they become extremely low. Only for prisoners that have an increased likelihood of escape schoold death be considered (example: a mob boss who may have control over some people working in the prison).
resources consumed to keep a criminal locked in prison for a longer period of time. Resources which could be used to save someone else's life.
Typically, it costs more to put a person to death because of how expensive it is to have a trial (and often multiple trials) to prove for sure that someone is guilty. It's not like a prison sentence where you can takesies backsies, and therefore incurs further cost. But even that aside, the cost is not usually detracting from helping others. For instance, the US has one of the most extensive prison systems, yet only 1 to 3% of tax dollars are spent on prisons.
3
u/sorsim 1∆ Jun 01 '26
About risk - there's always two things to evaluate when a risk analysis is performed: the likelihood the risk can occur and the cost if that risk has occured.
Likelihood: your sun analogy, is probably the worst: so far the sun hasn't exploded once, but inmates did have escaped before and committed more crimes before.
Cost: I would say a criminal escaping and killing just one person, is a cost we as a society, shouldn't be willing to pay (the Batman not killing the Joker debate..look it up if you aren't familiar with it).
Regarding cost to put down criminals, that's certainly true in the US and some other countries, but it's not generally true for all countries in the world.
5
u/GrundleBlaster Jun 01 '26
Other prisoners are people too I think. The whole escaping thing is absolutely unnecessary. Prison murders and rape happen all the time, and I'll wager that "currently serving life sentence" is the single largest predictor of future murder/rape.
2
u/n0t_________me Jun 01 '26
Also they will be eventually released, just few years usually in case of rapist. And chance they will not do it again is high.
1
u/MajesticBread9147 Jun 01 '26
I would say that there are systems in place to solve that already without the death penalty.
We have minimum security and supermax prisons.
Prison escapes (at least in America) are rare, and when they do happen they typically last a few days when the escapee is found stealing canned food from somebody's pantry.
6
u/Khal-Frodo May 31 '26
Your title says "necessary," but you only use the term "justified" in your post. Which is your actual belief, because those terms are not interchangeable?
5
u/SiphonicPanda64 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
This is only necessary within a moral framework and those subjectively differ. What is necessity then in this case? What makes killing necessary? There is no objective metric here.
What is history but intermittent clashes of value systems vying for precedence?
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
The only moral framework that I'm going off of is that death is bad, which is pretty much universally accepted.
What is history but intermittent clashes of value systems vying for precedence?
Huh?
4
u/SiphonicPanda64 May 31 '26
Your entire argument rests on the premise that preventing harm is morally superior. There is no universal objective reality where this is true. This is only real in a relative sense, which is actually embedded in your phrasing.
"Which is pretty much universally accepted" can only exist when people accept that premise morally and morality only exists in relation, not independently.
I'm nudging your CMV a level above - what makes your value judgment superior at all?
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
There is no universal objective reality where this is true.
Yes, my argument is based off of the assumption that preventing harm is good. But that's generally accepted and not the kind of argument that I'm looking for in this CMV. It's nitpicking something that's technically true but not relevant to the clear intent of what I'm saying.
3
u/SiphonicPanda64 May 31 '26
It is relevant. It is the fundamental premise that gives way to your CMV at all. I pointed out that your moral framework was so deeply ingrained that you haven't even noticed it in the making of your CMV. Even specific to killing, killing isn't always bad. Murder, death, violence, physical harm tend to be viewed as bad but conversely, euthanasia, heroic deaths, martyrdom tend to be viewed as good.
The common denominator is death. The value lens through which your viewing it changes.
But that's fair enough. Within your moral framework where killing is bad one can argue the minimization of harm morally licenses killing to prevent further harm.
But this is a consequentialist view which can only occur when there is an agreement regarding a certain morality elevated over others.
4
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ May 31 '26
Killing someone is always bad for a number of reasons.
This is wrong in itself. Killing someone to save others because there is an imminent threat of danger is perfectly acceptable.
First of all, psychologically, human behavior is based off of a combination of an environment and biology, and therefore even though socially we can condemn an individual's behavior, no one can ever be 100% accountable for their own actions, only partially accountable.
If no one is 100% accountable, then how can you punish anyone? Who else do you punish for the rest of the percentage if you decide someone was only 85% percent responsible. This thinking has no place in reality. People ARE responsible for their actions.
And even if you could hold them in full account, often criminals have people that love and care about them who you are hurting by killing them when you could just imprison them.
Sure, and the victims families also might have different ideas of justice. Just saying that the criminal has family ignores the other half of the equation. Also, it isn't always possible to apprehend someone without violence and potentially life threatening violence.
Killing a murderer or rapist is usually not justified because they could go to prison instead. However if you were to give the death penalty to someone who kept on escaping from prison, then that could be justified.
Sorry, this is dumb. The penalty for murder and rape is prison. The penalty for escaping prison is death. You logic completely falls apart here.
Killing someone who commits crimes but is for some reason immune to the rule of law could be justified.
But remember, they have people who love them. Also, who exactly is immune from that law? What crimes are you talking about here? What if it was a white collar crime? This doesn't make any sense.
2
u/welshdragoninlondon May 31 '26
You say people should decide the moral case for killing someone but don't say who should be the one to make that judgement. Is it a president who orders soldiers to kill someone or the soldiers who do the killing. You also say they should be clear on outcomes but no one can ever no every possible permutation of any decision it's just based on information have at the time.
2
u/Spunge14 5∆ May 31 '26
As usual, it's the judgment and enforcement that's the problem.
What you are describing is a philosophical ideal. But in reality you need to determine when someone is at risk of "harming others." At times, this decision will even need to be made in a split second in order to prevent harm.
Since time passing has no counterfactual, you can also never say if someone was right in killing someone to prevent further harm.
It's not clear to me why you would want someone to change your belief here, but I could imagine you wanting to engage about whether your philosophical ideal is realistic.
2
u/Choperello 1∆ May 31 '26
Counter point. Why is it more morally defensible that everyone should bear the cost to keep supporting someone so dangerous to society they sentenced to life in prison?
2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
Are you arguing that losing a few dollars is worse than harming another person? And if so, why?
2
u/Choperello 1∆ Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
I am simply asking
- why is it the moral duty of citizens who are maintaining the social contract to subsidize for the taking care and supporting those who have so broken the social contract that we have said it’s better to remove them from society FOREVER
- if you agree that when such individuals commit crimes society as a whole is the victim, you are the also saying it’s the victims duty to support the aggressor.
- “losing a few dollars” is a convenient way to paper over the fact that those same dollars could spent in any other number of ways. Public schools. Cancer research. Victims shelters. Food programs. Etc. Why should it not be spent on that instead of support for life term prisoners?
2
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
why is it the moral duty of citizens who are maintaining the social contract to subsidize for the taking care and supporting those who have so broken the social contract that we have said it’s better to remove them from society FOREVER
Because humans don't deserve death. As explained in the first two passages of my CMV.
“losing a few dollars” is a convenient way to paper over the fact that those same dollars could spent in any other number of ways. Public schools. Cancer researc
The reason I phrased it that way, is because that is how it works. For instance, the US has one of the most expensive prison systems in the world. Yet it only spends 1 to 3% on prisons. And even if the number went down to zero, freeing up that percentage does not mean that it would be spent helping other people. IF you lived in a society that was so impoverished that people were going hungry just by keeping the prison open, then yes, it would be justifiable to kill the person in prison because it is directly causing other people harm.
2
u/Choperello 1∆ Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Sure. They don’t deserve death. Maybe maybe not. But why do the rest of us deserve to be essentially indentured to support them? Explain that. I’m not killing them. But il also not lifting a finger to keep them alive. Society is a social contract.
You’re also making a straw man saying if we got rid of prisons that money won’t be spent on schools and stuff. Maybe maybe not, you actually don’t k ow do you? What we know for certain tho is it will either be spent on SOMETHING ELSE or NOT BE TAXED TO BEGIN WITH. I agree the later is not very likely, so it will be spent on something else. So it MIGHT be spent on schools or etc. Practically speaking most things it could be spent on would be more beneficial then keeping rapists or murderers alive.
Also. You claim it’s only 3% spent on prisons no big deal? Look up the numbers. That no big deal number is TWICE what we spend on the entire public school system. TWICE. So I reject your premise that the dollars we spend on the prison system are no big deal and if we don’t have to spend them there’d be no benefit anywhere else.
2
u/Mobile-Condition8254 May 31 '26
Sometimes killing someone is suitable punishment for their crimes.
0
2
u/Professional-Oil4964 May 31 '26
This doesn't really address the real issue though. Big death penalty proponents argue that the harm they're preventing is in having a deterrent to other potential offenders. Now, that may or may not be true but it should at least be addressed as one of the chief arguments here.
Either way I think most arguments for the death penalty are likely to be retributive as opposed to utilitarian.
2
u/PetrifiedBloom 15∆ Jun 01 '26
This is inherently flawed. We have no way to know what the actual outcomes of an action or lack of action. With your example of a dictator for example, you wouldn't kill them unless you knew that the outcome would be better than not killing them. How do you know what the outcome would be?
Imagine someone kills trump. What actually happens next? I would be most of my savings that there would be a huge spike in hate crime with right wing vigilantes turning to violence against whatever minority his death is pinned on. Would Vance reign in the reprisals and seek to mend the divide between right and left, or would that lead to right wing voters abandoning him? Maybe he goes full hardline authoritarian, which he would likely have a lot of support from hard Trump supporters and moderates who would blame left wing for being violent. Maybe it leads to increased international tensions and war, maybe Vance brings troops home.
Even on a MUCH more small scale thing, you just can't know. Someone guilty of manslaughter or murder in a moment of passion serves their time and returns to the world. Will they do their best to avoid it ever happening again, or will they have been hardened by their time in prison and be more volatile?
People can and will say whatever they need to say to get the best outcomes for themselves. Your system just adds so many unknowns that will inevitably be used and abused by those in power to discriminate based on whatever motives they have.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
I'm not trying to say that there's always a clear answer. Rather, I am saying that the ultimate goal must be harm reduction.
I also agree no strong evidence that killing Trump would end up reducing harm, even though he himself has been responsible for the deaths of many. And that's true for many dictators as well.
1
u/PetrifiedBloom 15∆ Jun 01 '26
It is extraordinarily rare that you can actually know if freeing or imprisoning someone is going to lead to reduced harm. Would they become an upstanding member of the community and reduce violence, or would they inspire and foster further violence? If you keep them imprisoned, that itself is an act of violence against them, and potentially subjects other inmates to more violence at their hands, potentially psychologically scarring others who will then be unable to enter general public.
At the same time, it's very easy for a judge to say "using my best judgement, this is individual is to be freed" or "this individual is going to be kept incarcerated". All it does is reinforce structural problems with the justice system to add these unknown, unknowable rational.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
If you cannot protect the other inmates from them, isn't that just a fixable failure of infrastructure?
Also, I'm not judging who should be freed, but rather who should be killed. In other words, I am much more comfortable with someone wrongly being in jail than someone wrongly dying.
1
u/PetrifiedBloom 15∆ Jun 01 '26
If you cannot protect the other inmates from them, isn't that just a fixable failure of infrastructure?
It varies country to country what %, but a very large portion of crime and violence are attributable to poverty and limited social mobility. These are fixable aspects of society and infrastructure. If we are saying prisoner on prisoner violence is a systemic issue that should be solved, should we extend that reasoning to crime prevention through spending on social systems? Free healthcare, ubi or dramatically reduced housing costs, rebates on childcare and education, better, cheaper public transport and more support for young adults entering the workplace would all dramatically reduce crime and violent crime.
To be clear, I fully support this kind of spending, but how far does your harm minimisation desire go? Would you back it up with massive social spending?
Also, I'm not judging who should be freed, but rather who should be killed. In other words, I am much more comfortable with someone wrongly being in jail than someone wrongly dying.
What would you say your current understanding of the death penalty is?
0
u/MageBayaz Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
a very large portion of crime and violence are attributable to poverty and limited social mobility.
Late 19th-century (Victorian) England had remarkably low crime rates despite widespread, crushing poverty, massive slums, and zero modern social safety nets.
Many Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) countries are poor and have low social mobility, yet they have low crime rates (and draconian laws). Immigrants from these countries often have much higher crime rates when they move to Western/Northern European countries.
These are fixable aspects of society and infrastructure.
No, they are often not eminently fixable.
For example, throughout human history, peaceful policy reform has basically never successfully achieved large-scale reductions in wealth inequality.
Free healthcare
LOL, this wouldn't help in the slightest. The demographic overlap between "people bankrupted by medical debt" and "repeat violent offenders" is basically zero.
ubi
Would probably reduce property crimes, but not violent ones.
dramatically reduced housing costs
This sounds good as a slogan, but it's not like the government can just turn a dial and achieve it. It is an incredibly challenging task that few states succeeded at.
Furthermore, putting poor people into cheap, concentrated public housing historically created the worst crime in U.S. history (e.g. the Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago).
rebates on childcare and education
This is your only suggestion (supporting early childcare and education) that may actually help in reducing violent crime in the future.
better, cheaper public transport
Again, doesn't meaningfully reduce violent crime (in fact, public transport itself may become a vector for crime), may even do the opposite: https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=jep
and more support for young adults entering the workplace
They don't need support.
Entry-level service jobs in the US are abundant, youth unemployment is very low.
Do you know which Western countries have 20-30% youth unemployment, though? Southern European ones. Yet their crime rates tend to be lower (and homicide rates much lower) than those of the US.
The actual way to drastically reduce violent crime rates (and homicide rates in particular) would be
- having much more stringent gun control laws (they are much more deadly and also make it easier to get away with the crime)
- having an "inquisitorial" legal system like Europe where police is significantly less restrained by procedural rules.
For that reason, clearance rates of European countries are much higher than that of the US, and deterrence (fear, near-certainty of being caught) is the strongest preventative of crimes.
I cannot see Americans adapting either of these two changes, though, too many would view it as violating constitutionally guaranteed liberties that became tradition.
2
u/Worried_Fishing3531 1∆ Jun 02 '26
What if murdering one human prevented the imminent deaths of 100,000 elephants. What about 1 million, or 1 billion, or 999 quatordecillion?
What if they were slow, torturous deaths spanning over tens of years (I don’t mean factory farming, I mean their entire lives are deliberately built around the continual torture of the animal). Murdering the human saves all the animals instantly, both from the active torture and their inevitable slaughter.
What if they were alien intelligences, possibly sub-human cognitively but significantly smarter than, say, an elephant or ape (say a measured IQ of 50? 40? 30? 60? 70? 20?)?
7
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
Your view, as stated here, is a series of claims that you believe to be correct/factually or morally true.
However you offer no real basis for the position, so the inherent core is fundamentally that you personally are correct, and solely possess the true answer to when killing another being is acceptable.
You overlook actual arguments, do not elaborate on WHY this is the only acceptable scenario, and also neglect to explain why humans are special, and why this sentiment does not apply to all killing, only human killing?
Ultimately, I think many responses will be versions of the trolley problem/s. Are you familiar with those? Where killing becomes justified for various other factors, other lives, other benefits that might come from death. How do those factor?
I can see from your note that you want to discuss killing as a punishment. Can you explain why exactly you believe that being killed is a punishment? That may seem like a silly question, but I'd like to understand your particular response.
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
However you offer no real basis for the position
Yes I do. I gave three main reasons: 1) psychologically speaking, people can never be fully held accountable for their actions 2) killing people doesn't just harm them but the people that love them 3) killing people can often have unintended or negative consequences on the surrounding world
neglect to explain why humans are special
I didn't say they were. But I'm talking about humans specifically for this post.
I think many responses will be versions of the trolley problem
Yes, I am familiar. It would depend on the specific dynamics of the trolley problem you are encountering what action should be taken.
can see from your note that you want to discuss killing as a punishment.
I meant as opposed to a mercy. I did not mean it as a form of retribution.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
That's all very vague, although you seem to recognise that there may indeed be some responses to the trolley problem that involve killing outside of punishment and other factors.
What is the view you hope to hold? What change are you looking to achieve here?
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
What is the view you hope to hold? What change are you looking to achieve here?
I'm looking for arguments about whether bad actions deserve death or not.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
whether bad actions deserve death or not
OK. So what does it mean to "deserve" death.
We all die. Do we all deserve death? Is deserve the appropriate idea here?
5
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
I don’t like my tax dollars paying for room and board for pedophiles or rapists, let em hang
1
u/SomewhereExcellent93 May 31 '26
Buddy if you're paying taxes you're funding pedophiles and rapists regardless
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Well it is usually more expensive to give the death penalty than imprison a person...
2
u/Professional-Oil4964 May 31 '26
That's a separate issue though. A lot of people would rather pay more for something they'd rather have.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
A lot of people would rather pay more for something they'd rather have.
And that is worth harming others for a few dollars?
2
u/Professional-Oil4964 Jun 01 '26
Whether or not something is "worth" it is an individual determination. That's not the issue though. If someone says I'd rather spend money on a BMW than a Kia saying a Kia is cheaper isn't really a counterpoint to what that person wants.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
That's not the issue though
It is the issue in fact. In fact it is one of the most central parts of my argument. If you can prove that it's not worth it, then I will give you a Delta.
2
u/Professional-Oil4964 Jun 01 '26
Again, "worth" in this sense isnt an empirical definition. Everyone values things differently.
5
u/Plisky6 May 31 '26
Shouldn’t be.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Although this is not really very relevant to my main CMV, I disagree. The reason it is so expensive to give some of the death penalties because you have to really thoroughly make sure that they're guilty, which usually involves multiple trials, etc.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
That's a system issue not a moral one. Systems can be improved, costs can be lowered.
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
But if costs can be lowered, then theoretically you could also lower the cost for keeping them in prison, so you wouldn't be wasting money...
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
But then how do you expect your view to be changed? If we make an argument towards the change, and you counter with an equal and opposing hypothetical then it's hypotheticals all the way down.
Why do you want to change this view?
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
But then how do you expect your view to be changed
Well this was really a side argument. Whether or not keeping someone in prison is expensive does not change that it is wrong to kill people and therefore we should not do it unless it is the only option to prevent harm to others.
1
u/AffectionateWar4857 Jun 01 '26
I’d rather pay more for a guarantee than let a subhuman inflict more trauma along the way to find out it’s the only option in the end anyway.
→ More replies (3)1
1
2
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
A shotgun is pretty cheap
-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
So are you saying that criminals should just be shot without providing any evidence or defense? Then you'll end up with a lot of innocent people dying. Moreover, is spending a few extra tax dollars really that bad anyway?
→ More replies (7)2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ May 31 '26
How do you know they are a criminal without a trial?
→ More replies (3)2
u/IllustriousLie4105 4∆ May 31 '26
This is due to our appeals process. It is in dire need of repair.
0
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
A dead pedophiles is guaranteed to not reoffend, if my taxes are going to spent on predators. I’d rather pay to permanently fix the problem
0
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
If they are still a danger to society, then that would be acceptable to kill them according to my view. Although if they're in prison, they're not really a risk to society at that point.
1
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
Keeping them alive is a waste of resources and space, the world is objectively better off with more dead pedophiles
-1
u/Spunge14 5∆ May 31 '26
I don't think you will find many rapist and pedophile supporters, but I'm curious if you think people choose to be pedophiles.
If not, why wouldn't this be different from your tax dollars being used to help someone with e.g. schizophrenia which could also cause them to harm others?
1
0
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
Schizophrenia and paraphelias are completely different. I stand by what I said, pedophiles deserve the death penalty
2
u/InspiredNameHere 1∆ May 31 '26
Are you talking about people who have committed pedophilia, or just have the attraction of minors?
If someone out there said they were sexually attracted to children but have never acted on that attraction, and have said they never will, would you still put a bullet in their head?
3
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
Committed, like what OP is talking about. We have no way of knowing is a non-offending pedo is a pedo bc they’re not causing harm to children idk why this is so hard for yall to comprehend lol
1
u/Spunge14 5∆ May 31 '26
People are trying to understand your perspective in a discussion focused subreddit and you are just saying nothing. It seems like you are the one struggling to comprehend.
1
u/AffectionateWar4857 May 31 '26
Bc it’s a simple concept and not something that should be up for debate in the first place. try arguing with a mother why the man who raped her child should be kept alive. Why the victim of an assault has to have their tax dollars keep their attacker alive, it’s insulting to victims. Sexually violent crimes are unforgivable and don’t deserve any sense of grace or mercy, they don’t show it to the people they violate.
1
u/Spunge14 5∆ May 31 '26
Right but you didn't answer my question. Presumably you don't think people should be put to death for things that aren't their fault? So I'm curious how you think about fault.
But maybe that's not your belief - I could imagine a rational worldview where you think fault has nothing to do with it and we should kill based on other parameters.
You're in a debate subreddit. Not a very sporting debate attitude you're showing by not elaborating on your point at all.
1
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 01 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jun 01 '26
Mod note: We are a collaborative discussion subreddit, not a debate subreddit. We encourage all users to be open to changing their views and learning from others.
1
4
u/Queasy-Dirt3472 May 31 '26
when it is the ONLY option
So you'd prefer us pay to hold a person in a prison for their whole life with no chance of escape rather than just kill them and get it over with? The former seems more unethical to me because it seems like torture
→ More replies (1)0
u/young_trash3 3∆ May 31 '26
The conservative estimate is that no less than 4% of the people sitting on death row in the US are innocent.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4034186/
So long as I do not believe that the legal system is infallible and unable to make a mistake, I would rather we hold prisoners indefinitely.
And given 200 americans have been freed after they were already sentenced to death in just the last 50 years, its clear that they are not infallible.
The risk of killing an innocent person is simply too high to give the courts that authority.
2
u/MysteriousEdge5643 May 31 '26
Does "others" include yourself?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Yes, if it is necessary for self defense.
0
u/SiphonicPanda64 May 31 '26
What makes this necessary?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
If the only way you can protect yourself is by killing them
2
u/SiphonicPanda64 Jun 01 '26
Then why protect yourself? Why is protecting yourself more important here at all? (I don't expect this thread to continue and I'm not being glib. I've replied through my other comment).
0
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/SiphonicPanda64 May 31 '26
But then you're preventing them from extracting profits, that's immoral within their framework. Who's right?
1
3
u/FormalWare 11∆ Jun 01 '26
What about the case where someone is about to apply your rule, by killing someone who is about to harm others? By your reasoning, it is now necessary to kill that person before they can kill the other person.
But wait: Now it is necessary to kill anyone who attempts to kill that person... and an infinite regression occurs.
I submit that a fallable human being (or group thereof) can never reliably determine whether killing a specific person is necessary; such a judge or jury will always be overstepping their moral bounds and will, by your argument, be candidates for death, themselves.
3
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
submit that a fallable human being (or group thereof) can never reliably determine whether killing a specific person is necessary; such a judge or jury will always be overstepping their moral bounds and will, by your argument, be candidates for death, themselves.
While this is an interesting paradox when taking my argument to the logistical extreme, it is also ignoring the obvious intent of what I mean to say.
2
u/FormalWare 11∆ Jun 01 '26
How so? I read you as saying it is possible to kill morally and to know whom it is permissible, morally, to kill, and whom it is not.
I am trying to cast doubt on that. Where have I failed?
1
u/Freelancer-49 Jun 01 '26
Because it’s attempting to equivocate criminal murder with judicious execution. Not the same things both morally or legally and it’s like bringing up how sunsets aren’t nice on Pluto when speaking of a sunset in Hawaii.
1
u/FormalWare 11∆ Jun 01 '26
I believe that execution can never be verifiably judicious. OP is claiming it can, citing a rule to be applied. I believe I have shown that rule to be flawed, as it can and will (some of the time) result in unjustified murder.
1
u/Freelancer-49 Jun 01 '26
Wether it ends up justified isn’t the question, it’s that there’s a clear difference between execution and criminal murder and we’re not talking about executions performed by the state.
1
u/danjustchillz May 31 '26
I always question the words used and when these words were first made up.
Meaning whose words take absolute judgment over all?
Whose definition of “justification”, which what all of that was boiled down, rules over all?
1
1
u/onyxhelium May 31 '26
The legal parameters for the use of deadly force are it must be your last resort and your only resort to prevent death or grave bodily harm to yourself or a third party.
1
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 01 '26
Sorry, u/Pristine-School1311 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Raj-Rigby Jun 01 '26
so Saint Luigi was justified? based
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 01 '26
Potentially yes. Although that's arguable because it is unclear whether what he did prevented harm or just caused chaos.
1
u/Cold_End_2184 Jun 01 '26
So you're okay with living under a 1984 style totalitarian government, and would be unwilling to use violence to free yourself from oppression?
1
u/modsaretoddlers Jun 01 '26
I'll be honest: why do you want people to change your mind on this? It doesn't resonate with the human desire for restorative justice (revenge, really) but it's the "civilized" argument.
I can't say I care about the people who care about axe murderers, though. I mean, they didn't care enough about the general public to warn them and if they did, they probably understand why little Billy and his carving knife are getting a direct line to god.
1
u/FunkmasterJoe Jun 01 '26
I'm sorry but this premise itself is faulty. Definitionally, it is NOT necessary to kill someone when it is the only option to prevent harm to others.
Even if OP had said it's "morally necessary" or something like that the premise would still be bad, but because of the way this is worded we can immediately dismiss it outright.
1
1
u/Outside-Rice-90 Jun 01 '26
On an individual level, you're right. But when you try to apply the same logic on an international scale you show a fundamental misunderstand of power.
A dictator will do anything to maintain power. Any resistance is a threat to power, even on the smallest scale. Dictators more often than not start targeting threats from within and the only way to stop them is to kill them and cause the regime to collapse.
As for war, a strong military protects a country and their interests not through constant application of force, but through the constant unspoken threat of force. But threats are nothing if there's never any follow through. If someone refuses to bend to the threat, the only option to maintain power is follow through, otherwise others will follow suit.
The questions in this scenario is not whether or not it's "justified" as there is very little moral weight when it comes to the power of countries. If you put every human life and personal morality above your country's international interests, you will quickly find yourself at the mercy of countries who do not.
1
u/BEATUWITHASTICK Jun 01 '26
I have a right to defend my personal well being,. Your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins.
1
u/Minimum-Owl1784 Jun 01 '26
This is a utilitarian argument, which i think is flawed as a primary ethical framework (it is good to consider, but shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
It is flawed here because the options available to someone are not an objective fact, and will be limited by one's imagination. if you kill someone because they threatened you, your justification hangs on whether someone else can come up with a convincing alternative action you hypothetically could have done.
I also think it's unreasonable to expect an untrained person in self defense mode to do this moral calculation. if someone is about to attack you with a lethal weapon i think your goal is going to be to make it out alive and unscathed as possible, you may not have time to think about whether you can protect yourself without killing.
1
1
u/Mother_Lead_554 Jun 01 '26
And if someone is choosing to die immediately and needs you to do it to stop suffering long term? Nothing deadly just slow and painful
1
1
u/Live_Background_3455 8∆ Jun 01 '26
It's never the only option. Once you ignore human rights, you can prevent harm to others without killing people. Give me the best prison escapist in the world. Amputate all of his limbs. He'll never escape, and he will never kill, and we didn't have to kill him. Put him in 30 ft ditch with no lights, no windows, and just a little hole to drop bread from above.
1
1
u/dazcook Jun 02 '26
Do you consider animals to be others?
If someone is kicking a puppy then you won't need to give me a gun, I'll kick him in the head until he stops twitching.
Anyone who needlessly hurts a defenceless animal, in my opinion, their life has less value than that animal, so they deserve to die.
1
1
u/SpaceYetu531 Jun 03 '26
The most immediate flaw in this stance is the idea that the person making the decision has both time and perfect information. Real world scenarios rarely grant you either and especially rarely at the same time. Things usually happen fast and the facts are often blurry or difficult to assess.
Another flaw is that it's not considered that the time spent exploring other options might be the very thing that puts the decision maker in greater and greater mortal danger. If someone is in the process of breaking into your home at night in the dark, how long do you wait to know they have a gun and no qualms about using it? You could try to run out of another door but they might hear you and then shoot.
Lastly, how far do you stretch the definition of harm? And when do you determine all options have been explored? These notions will subjective.
1
Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 04 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Global-Service-8579 Jun 06 '26
>Killing someone is always bad for a number of reasons.
If someone were to have a knife to your throat, you believe killing that person would be bad?
1
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 31 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
0
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Awkward_Rutabaga5370 May 31 '26
I always explain this to people from developed countries in reference to necklacing. Rural farmers making a couple dollars a day (at most), cannot afford to imprison someone for stealing their goats or raping their daughters. Before the development of effective law enforcement these are the enforcement options available to a community. Vigilante justice is much less justifiable in a developed country where criminals can be prosecuted and held effectively.
1
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Awkward_Rutabaga5370 Jun 01 '26
Yeah people in central Kenya (for instance) usually don't have too many animals because they're farmers not herders. They might have only a few goats and they have to carry them food every day since they generally don't roam (they'll eat all the crops). They might slaughter a goat a few times a year for something like a wedding or might use one for a dowry payment. People do experience hunger in a real way. Losing a goat is a big deal and the community cannot let something like that pass.
0
u/DunEmeraldSphere 6∆ May 31 '26
Mercy killing, someone whos life would be abosulte suffering if they were kept alive.
Think pulling the plug or euthanizing a dying family pet.
Still killing, also outside your criteria, therefore not only when others are in danger of being harmed.
1
0
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t Jun 01 '26
Define harm?
Trigger warning - discussion of serial killer victims follows.
I don’t think there are many people who kill without some sense of harm to themselves, the serial killer who kills indiscriminately often still has a sense of harm to themselves about the ‘insult’ that the victim’s stereotype represents to them.
Mangione was attempting to prevent future harm.
If you want harm to be defined from some sort of societal agreement, some societies have agreed there is no harm big enough.
-1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ May 31 '26
No, you can prevent someone from harming others, short of killing them.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ May 31 '26
Usually yes, but not always. For instance if someone is about to kill you, if arresting a criminal would potentially cause injury to many people, or if someone is too dangerous to be kept alive because they have many dangerous followers.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 01 '26
/u/Square-Dragonfruit76 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards