Is "murder" justified when victim is completely evil?

[Tempguy]

Ignore all ideological or philosophical arguments from the many clowns that roam these forums, if someone rapes/murder your kin or even friend without a good reason go for it (for rape?), just don't get caught. The reason many people are against it is because they're brainwashed from day 1 that murder is always bad and then they stand there like clueless imbeciles when the criminal gets out of jail and keeps on killin'.

You're evil. Its okay to murder you now.

I feel SWAT is in their way to arrest me for an out of context post that makes it look like I'm threatening murder

[natpick]

to kill someone is to become the very evil you dispise.

[Noradin]

Ignore all ideological or philosophical arguments from the many clowns that roam these forums, if someone rapes/murder your kin or even friend without a good reason go for it (for rape?), just don't get caught. The reason many people are against it is because they're brainwashed from day 1 that murder is always bad and then they stand there like clueless imbeciles when the criminal gets out of jail and keeps on killin'.

What an evil philosophy to spread; encouraging vigilantism, thereby advocating creating unrest and inciting the destruction of society.

[Halyon]

We had a murder once, (Sommersted for the danish) were 3 men brutally tortured, and entirely intended to kill a woman (she was the ex of the leader), and she was on the run with a female friend. They tied the friend up and left her on a bed, while they tortured the target in another room. Had that friend somehow broken free and killed all 3, she would've been justified in doing so, as those men were animals in need of being put down.

Unfortunately, she didn't.

What an evil philosophy to spread; encouraging vigilantism, thereby advocating creating unrest and inciting the destruction of society.

Arguably, it encourages not being a helpless sheep. Sometimes, authorities will not even arrive on time to help, if they're even aware of a problem to act on it, so you'd be justified in self-defense that ends up killing an assailant.

[Noradin]

We had a murder once, (Sommersted for the danish) were 3 men brutally tortured, and entirely intended to kill a woman (she was the ex of the leader), and she was on the run with a female friend. They tied the friend up and left her on a bed, while they tortured the target in another room. Had that friend somehow broken free and killed all 3, she would've been justified in doing so, as those men were animals in need of being put down.

Unfortunately, she didn't.

That wouldn't have been "murder", though.
It would have been justified homicide in defense of another.

- - - Updated - - -

Arguably, it encourages not being a helpless sheep. Sometimes, authorities will not even arrive on time to help, if they're even aware of a problem to act on it, so you'd be justified in self-defense that ends up killing an assailant.

No.
It encourages vigilance.
"Just do not get caught" implies time to plan and having to hide from the law afterwards.
If you have to defend yourself or others then it would be justified homicide and unlikely to be in a situation where you had time to plan how to hide it.

Of course you might need to kill in self defense. That is not murder. The text you wrote implies something else however it strongly hints at vigilance or is at the very least worded so it can be taken that way. Which again would make it (maybe untentionally) evil advice.

[Halyon]

That wouldn't have been "murder", though.
It would have been justified homicide in defense of another.

Or just yourself.

In denmark, you can get punished harder than the person who attacked you, if his injuries are more severe than your own, unless it's deemed that the situation required/justified retaliation that meant one of the dies.

You're still killing someone, so depending on the circumstances, it's some description of murder or self-defense.

As for the vigilantism; No, it depends.

Long-term abuse victims sometimes pre-meditate murder of their captors to escape, I'd say that's justified...

[Noradin]

Or just yourself.

In denmark, you can get punished harder than the person who attacked you, if his injuries are more severe than your own, unless it's deemed that the situation required/justified retaliation that meant one of the dies.

You're still killing someone, so depending on the circumstances, it's some description of murder or self-defense.

As for the vigilantism; No, it depends.

Long-term abuse victims sometimes pre-meditate murder of their captors to escape, I'd say that's justified...

I'd still call that justified homicide, murder requires unjustified motivations.

The planning implied in the sentence "just don't get caught" points to murder though.
You shouldn't need to hide it if it was justified; you might to anyway of course, but as soon as the hiding afterwards becomes an influential aspekt to your planning I'm hard pressed to imagine a situation where there is no other option unless you are surrounded by hostiles. Then again, in that case technically the act of hiding wouldn't be "afterwards", it would be an ongoing situation of peril.

[Deleted]

I am amused by the amount of people that think killing is wrong because "no one has the right to take a life". How childish and how stupid is to think that the simple act of killing makes you "evil".

Is a doctor who euthanize a suffering patient evil?
Is a cop that shoots an armed criminal evil?
Is a soldier that kills an enemy on the battlefield evil?

Killing itself is not an evil act, what makes you a killer does.

Killing a woman after you raped her makes you evil.
Killing the man who raped and killed your wife does not.

[Noradin]

I am amused by the amount of people that think killing is wrong because "no one has the right to take a life". How childish and how stupid is to think that the simple act of killing makes you "evil".

How do you mean?

The only times that explanation was brought up in this thread was to use as a strawman to ridicule someone, just like you are trying to do.
Do you understand the difference between "murder" and "homicide"? If so why are you talking about homicides when this thread is about murder? Didn't have time to understand what you were reading because you were so busy envisioning what the thread might be about?

So do you mean you are amused by the amount of people thinking as you claim? (About zero people that is?)
Yes, it amuses me too, how people just assume to know what a thread is about without once bothering to properly read even the headline at least.

[Draco-Onis]

I honestly believe true evil should not be killed, why? because killing is too easy for them there are fates worse than death. I would rather bring them to the point that they would be begging for the sweet release of death, that's true vengeance.

[Julmara]

dang better let that new hitler that will 100% do what the old hitler did live cause he totaly is a living creature and he deserves to live

[Dezerte]

As an absolute last resort, i.e. when you genuinely fear for your life.

[Escariot]

as far as normal people go, im pretty sure in the right mindset people would kill, hell if there are no witnesses why not

but you should think to yourself, "what will happen to me" after you do it

thats really the only thing that matters, can you live with it?

[Breccia]

By its very definition, "murder" is never justified. When an individual starts deciding who has, and who has not, earned the right to live, without any kind of legal, political, or otherwise bestowed ability to do so, then that individual has become the problem. Society does not function when each individual person gets to decide which rules apply, and don't apply to them. So someone decides to kill a rapist, who has not yet been found guilty in a court of law. What's the next thing they'll choose, on their own with no oversight? A six-year-old theft? A bar fight last week? Cutting you off in traffic?

Also...what if they're wrong? What if it wasn't the martial arts instructor? Then what?

Vigilantes make great movie and comic book anti-heroes because like the idea of someone taking out people who "have it coming". They like the concept of skipping the legal system when someone we can clearly see is unquestionably both evil and guilty. But there's a lot of things in fiction which just won't work the same in reality. That's what makes it fiction. That's what makes it entertaining.

[Deleted]

There are really 2 parts to this debate:

a) vigilante action vs due process: if courts of law are too slow/too corrupt, does it serve justice better to take the law into one's own hands?

b) utilitarian-consequentialist vs deontological ethics: is murdering 1 person to save 1000 people ethical in terms of a better outcome, or is killing wrong in-and-of-itself?

You could for the sake of simplicity explain your side using this double dichotomy, I would favour due process / utilitarian

Note that you can be in favour of vigilante / deontological: that the person committing the vigilante murder is wrong, but there is simply no other way to achieve justice

[Valech]

Nobody on this world has the ability to label another being without contest. Humans lack omniscience. So no person or council of persons could ever label another human as entirely evil. So even if being enitely evil qualifies a person to be murdered rightously, nobody could ever achieve that qualification.

[Noradin]

There are really 2 parts to this debate:

a) vigilante action vs due process: if courts of law are too slow/too corrupt, does it serve justice better to take the law into one's own hands?

b) utilitarian-consequentialist vs deontological ethics: is murdering 1 person to save 1000 people ethical in terms of a better outcome, or is killing wrong in-and-of-itself?

You could for the sake of simplicity explain your side using this double dichotomy, I would favour due process / utilitarian

Note that you can be in favour of vigilante / deontological: that the person committing the vigilante murder is wrong, but there is simply no other way to achieve justice

The problem with part 6) is that it generally assumes one can divine the future, change it with one murder, and that there are no other options or changes possible.
Yes, there are exceptions, but the part about there being no alternative to murder is highly unlikely.

There are some cases of vigilantism where I respect the person who enacted it for it.
They full well knew what they did was wrong, but did it anyway to try to save an innocent and harmed no one but the culprit and then they acepted their punishment in good grace. That latter part is what makes them someone to be respected and asking to let them off their punishment worse to make it legal would cheapen that.

In the case in question a young boy was kidnapped and a ransom demand from a family friend who wanted to be let go in exchange for naming the whereabouts of the boy who would otherwise starve to death as he claimed. The superintendent threatened him with torture because there was no guarantee that the kidnapper would keep his word. He has his collegues document this fact. The kidnapper then folded and offered the location. Unfortunately he had killed the boy days prior.
Consequently the superintendent lost his job and was sentenced for threatening torture.
It is hard to have any pity for the kidnapper in this case, and only natural to think the superintendent should be let of easy (which he was within the limits of the law). Nonetheless it would be folly to legalize this, or to even put the possibilty of a pardon out there.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody on this world has the ability to label another being without contest. Humans lack omniscience. So no person or council of persons could ever label another human as entirely evil. So even if being enitely evil qualifies a person to be murdered rightously, nobody could ever achieve that qualification.

Someone omniscient would surely have to qualify as evil, unless they are entirely incapable of acting on it, in which case the omniscience of no consequence aside from being a source of torment. So maybe there are no omniscient beings because they all killed themselves out of shame for not knowingly making the world a better place?

[Al Gorefiend]

Someone who kills should be killed. What is morally reprehensible is keeping someone alive who has committed countless killings and tore apart many families.

An eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but a world full of serial killers dying natural deaths is a world already full of darkness.

[Lupinemancer]

Sure!
That's the only time I'd say it's justified.
Killing itself isn't evil, even though people have declared it so, it's how you do it that's evil. Killing an innocent who has done nothing, is bad, we can all agree on that. But killing someone who is evil/criminal, who killed someone for no reason, someone who was innocent and hadn't done anything, isn't evil.
Besides, nature has intended for us to kill in order to survive, if that means getting rid of all those that threatens us, even if it happens to include other humans, then so be it.

[Revi]

I think there are many scenarios outside of self defense where you're perfectly justified in killing someone. We could never legally allow it though.