CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
For example? Tell me when killing another human is needed for survival. If you are capable of killing, you are capable of making another go unconscious.
There are ways to shoot someone and render them uncapable of killing you without you killing them. Many duels end that way. Andrew Jackson survived many duels, and lost a few, however none of them died.
If you do fuck up your dead. However was it necessary? There shooting to kill you. What they're doing is unjust, therefore the kill was unjustified. If you do mess up, then you could have messed up when shooting to kill. Since it was your mess up, it was both yours and the killers fault.
Okay, A suicidal madman has 3 old ladies, 4 children and 6 bunnies tied up and is about to explode a bomb killing himself, the old ladies, children and bunnies... BUT he says if you kill him, he'll let the others live... what do you do?
That example was pure stupidity. Simple render them uncapable of blowing himself up. Since he will let them live if you kill him, then there is no way for him to kill everyone else if he cannot do something to trigger the explosive. Simply cut his arm off if there is a button for the bomb, or knock him unconscious. There are many ways to avoid killing him
Thank you. I appreciate that comment. I do believe I am quite intelligent compared to others. But all jokes aside, if I can't defend myself without killing, why would I enter such an instance in the first place?
I really dont need to read it to know you are wrong. If someone had an explosive vest and was going to blow you up and a whole bunch of other people and you had a gun WOULD YOU SHOOOT HIM.
Nope! You're wrong again. He has all of them tied up in a small room underground and no one knows where he is... he leaves you a remote control that if used kills only him... otherwise, he kills the children and bunnies.
If you are capable of killing, you are capable of making another go unconscious.
You are assuming the circumstance is both people using bare hands. What if the other person has a gun? What if it is a terrorist with a suicide vest? If you had a gun, wouldnt you shoot them? What about in the military? If someone is trying to snipe you, and you have a sniper, would you take the time to use however many full clips it would take to shoot them in the trigger finger? Heck no! The chest is the largest target and snipers are trained to shoot there. Any other choice is plain stupid.
It is not necessary to kill them, because if you are a sniper you are trained with accuracy. Since it is not necessary, you do not have to, and killing someone when you don't have to is unjust.
What? You are trained for accuracy but not stupidity. Do you know how hard sniping is? You would be dead by the time you hit them in the finger. They would be aiming for the chest, a much better shot, and you would be going for the arm/hand. They would hit you before you hit them. The only logical choice is to kill them.
If you were unable to stop them from killing you whether you had killed them or not, it would be yours and the killers fault. You would be too incompetent to protect yourself from dying, and so you died. The point is there are ways of avoiding death and ways of avoiding killing. If you chose to kill instead of avoid it, that would be unjust and therefore not justified.
No, YOU would be to incompetent to protect yourself. Any other reasonable person would SHOOT THEM IN THE FRIKKIN CHEST. I bet you couldnt hit them in the arm from 1000+ yds. Thats why you shoot the chest, because its a bigger target. I would be competent enough to prevent my death. But you would get killed before you could shoot the other guys arm.
Just tell me this. You have a gun, and a terrorist pops out wearing a suicide vest. What would you do? There is no other way but to kill him. You're not the flash. You move just as fast as he does. If you shoot the arm and miss, or its the wrong arm, or even if you do hit his arm and he drops the remote, he can pick it up and blow you up.
Self defence is defined "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack"
Of course you can try to injure them, but what if they are multiple of them,Im sure in that state you dont think to just injure them, but you think the best way to protect yourself is to exterminate them.
I clearly support that we can kill in self defence if they is no other way,and the chance to be killed is high.
Any other killing is not justified, and should be punished to death sentence!
So killing in death sentence is justified as well
What is the difference of a murderer and Saddam Hussain, both of them are same and killed, one maybe in the name off land,the other was stealing and killed....etc if you kill one person its as big than you kill the hole humanity , and therefore the accountability should be equal very every human killed the punishment should be death sentence.
Human cannot just justify the killing of 1 person a murderer in hold up and give jail sentence of 30 years, and on the other hand hanging a dictator because he killed millions.
My point is every human being which is killed is valuable, the quantity doesn't matter
If you do self defense, sometimes you can't control what you actions do to the person. For example, when you kick them in the stomach just for self defense, you cant control what their body's reaction would be, to what you did.
Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense. For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival. Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.
Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense.
Not always, of course. But sometimes, when defending yourself of loved ones, accidentally or unfortunately a life may end.
For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival.
Check your question. You asked “is there a way killing is justified?”. You did not specify killing humans (and we won't get into the debate that humans are animals). Thus, you have indirectly admitted killing can be justified.
Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.
Not necessarily. I can gather evidence to demonstrate the harm he would commit if he continued. Once he was about to conduct his plan,.yes I would kill him if I had the power to.
Killing by definition is depriving one of life, however by society, animals are not in the placing as "one" and so that is not killing. It is survival. If you had evidence that he was about to conduct the plan, then he would have gone to jail. That was attempted genocide, and people go to jail for that. Not to hell/heaven/afterlife or whatever you prefer to believe in.
Killing by definition is depriving one of life, however by society, animals are not in the placing as "one" and so that is not killing.
And by society, at one point “person” only meant white people.
It is survival. If you had evidence that he was about to conduct the plan, then he would have gone to jail. That was attempted genocide, and people go to jail for that.
No he wouldn't have, he was the system. If it were an option, it would be my first before having to kill him.
Not to hell/heaven/afterlife or whatever you prefer to believe in.
What does this have anything to do with our discussion?
The end was just an extra. And now society does not mean "white people". Also, you had evidence. Why would you need to kill him. Just have the government take him into custody. If they killed him, they would be committing Murder, however it was not in your authority to have him killed by your own hand.
The end was just an extra. And now society does not mean "white people".
Actually I said “person”, but “society” works too. And thank you for proving my point. It doesn't mean that anymore, what does that tell you?
Also, you had evidence. Why would you need to kill him. Just have the government take him into custody.
Because Hitler was the government.
If they killed him, they would be committing Murder,
Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. If he was found guilty in trial and was sentenced to death (under the condition the death penalty exists), it's not murder, because it's not illegal.
however it was not in your authority to have him killed by your own hand.
Under the circumstances with Hitler, yes, it would be anyone's authority to defend the victims. And sometimes, the only way someone can be stopped from harming is to end their life.
Society changed. Hitler was not the government yet. That was the point. Murder is the "unlawful" killing of another being. Unlawful is not morally right. What is morally right is judged by society. Society is the majority of people sharing common ideals. Since he did not commit the murder, there were no victims, therefore it was not in your authority to kill him since he did nothing wrong, yet.
Hitler was not the government yet. That was the point.
And your point is wrong and irrelevant. In my scenario, he is the government. Before he implemented the plans for the Holocaust, he wad already in the government and the Nazi Party had already gained quite a bit of power.
Murder is the "unlawful" killing of another being. Unlawful is not morally right.
I didn't argue that it's morally right. I argued that it's not murder.
What is morally right is judged by society.
Not entirely true. We tend to have different morals on our own.
Society is the majority of people sharing common ideals. Since he did not commit the murder, there were no victims, therefore it was not in your authority to kill him since he did nothing wrong, yet.
There is such a thing as attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder. And there would be evidence of that. Even if there wasn't, under your scenario, implying we know what he is guaranteed to do in the future and that I have the power to stop him and no government will give him a fair trial, I'd still kill him provided those conditions.
I wouldn't like that I did not have evidence to show others however.
Yes, because, let's say, and this is just a hypothetical situation, that some dude (A) was trying to kill another dude. (B) And B killed A simply because it was, in that situation, the only way to save his own life. Then I think the killing was justified, and B should not be imprisoned, since he had no intent to murder and it was simply in self defence. But killing 'just because' isn't justified. Thought out murder, or setting out with the intention of killing someone is never justified.
To kill is not needed to use self defense. To defend yourself from harms way is not the same as killing another just to protect yourself. Has their even been a case where you had to kill someone so you wouldn't get killed? If so please tell, and i will give a reason why killing the person in that "case" was not necessary.
Nope! No time to figure out a way to get them unconscious... kill or be killed! To suggest that there is never a circumstance where they need to just be killed is foolish.
If you have time to be able to know how to kill another, that means that you are capable of making one go unconscious, since it takes time and processing skills to do both. And it would not be foolish, since you are proving your point. If you suggested a circumstance where there would be a need to kill, then I would no longer try to disprove you, since I cannot disprove you.
If someone tries to kill me, ill just be like, peace man, peace, hit this joint! jk, if someone tried to kill me i would just try to maim and cripple them and runaway
However society pertains to the most common ideal. Since that is so, your reasoning does not matter, you will go to jail, and probably end up being raped and sucking another guy's... well I disproved your reasoning with logic. I have no further reason to continue rambling on.
Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Principles: an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct. The people who accept it is society. Society would deem vengeance as a means of killing unjust, therefore, it would go against the principle that killing one for vengeance is not justifiable, ergo illogical. So it was proven through logic, not just conformity. Well it's both, but still.
Why would you need to kill them? In what way is it necessary to kill them. If they won't stop attacking you, then use a different way to get them to stop. A man may not attack another on his own will if he is unconscious.
There is no place in this world for murderous scum.
If you are a person who is trying to murder me, a person who is normally nonviolent and a pacifist, then you are probably a very bad person. I would not feel bad killing that person if they were attacking me to try to kill me.
Of course, you kill them and loot their items from their corpse to use on your adventures!
*
But alright, jokes aside, I think killing is only justifiable in the case of self defense in whence that if you did not kill them, you would be killed.
Otherwise though, I think it's totally unjustifiable.
I don't think you understand. It would be a better decision, if it were a decision that could even be made. But unless you are educated to be able to masterfully disable people in every instance of violence, you will not know how to disable people a lot of time.
Actually, killing is necessary because if someone approaches you with aggression, what else there is to meet that aggression with aggression, and if it death, I rather be the one still living; therefore, I am going to use whatever aggression is necessary.
although to protect one's life, killing is not necessary. Can you guys read the first comment in the No area? It already disproves that self defense is not a reason.
Self-defense would be a valid reason since it concerns a life and death situation. In that scenario, the aggressive individual is the one subject to restriction under the law since murder or any such attempts are prohibited under the law. So the act before physical contact is in itself a violation of the law. Thus the defensive person has every right to maintain its lie by any means necessary.
Another would be by mercy killing. In the event that a person is incapacitated and has no chance of surviving, it is recommended that the person is killed at once by painless means as to avoid suffering. Euthanasia is legal so it is justified.
If a person has caused harm to anyone else, and are most likely going to repeat the crime in the future, then they should be put on the death penalty. Yes, it would probably be worse for the criminal if they rot in prison, but wouldn't it be better for the victim knowing that the man/woman will never escape again? Killing is justified under the right circumstances.
Yes. Self defense. If you say no, if you are pregnant and you see a man coming to you with a knife and his * hanging out of his pants, and you happen to have a gun, would you shoot him if he doesn't stop coming towards you?
There is also the Moral Imperative, in which case you would sacrifice one life to save two, etc.
Put another way, there is a pram with a baby on the railway track. There is equally a blind man. Which one do you save? Through inaction for the other one, they are being killed, by you.
If someone broke into my house and was planning on seriously harming myself or my family then I will do what it takes to protect my life and families. If that means kill them, then yes but that would be the last resort. As for the death penalty I don't agree with that, because by killing that person you are answering murder with murder. I am a firm believer that peoples lives can change in prison, by killing them is not giving them the opportunity to do so. God can change their life and make them repent greatly for what they've done, furthermore giving them the opportunity to be with Jesus in the end. That is what is most important.
You are not answering murder with murder but with equal punishment. Why give them the wonderful option of fixing their life when they ended someone elses. Peoples hardworking money should not be applied to feed,house, or support a murder. Murderer deprived the victim of the ability to think,feel, and live in this wonderful world. Murder should be punished for the same
Personally, I believe that there is no justifiable way to kill another. The definition of murder is : to unlawfully kill another. The definition of kill is : To deprive one of life. To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully. This is mass murder, and in society, mass murder is not justifiable by any means. Another example is when you are being mugged. The mugger may attempt to kill you, however by self defense you kill them. Their reason for attempting to kill you was unjust, however many may see you killing the person to be justifiable. However, you are at fault still, because death is not necessary. It is possible to avoid death without creating death. This is proven, since many people have been mugged yet are still alive, and the mugger is in jail or simply escaped. Even if the mugger was killed by you, this may be considered unlawfully killing since the attacker may have people saddened or affected by his death. It may only be a possibility that people are saddened by his death, but it is still highly probable.
That is avenging ones precious people. It is not justifiable, since one would get arrested if one used that as a means to kill another. Human society is considered more advanced compared to the way animals think. Comparing us to animals will not work since our own logic is different.
So youre saying a grown man who knows between right and wrong aimlessly murdering a child should not be given death? I say its a fair trade off, killing an innocent person who has never experienced life
He may be deserving of death, but he will not be given death, since killing him is doing the same thing as him killing another, and so you are the same as him. A murderer.
Self defense is, to me, the only justifiable premise on which to kill, or, the defense of the lives of others. Seeing as you are stating that it is absolutely against your own moral code to kill, allow me to suggest a situation.
Bear in mind, this situation is ridiculous, but when absolutes are stated, this kind of hypothesis is permitted.
Say, you find yourself holding a loaded gun, twenty yards away from another man, who is also holding a gun. The man is brandishing the weapon at a large crowd of young children who are completely defenseless.
Here's the dilemma: You are 100% certain that he is going to pull the trigger and start killing the children. (bear with me here)
You have time to do nothing else but shoot him. You do not have time to run at him, and the only viable option is to fire first, and realistically, you aim for his centre of mass - this is extremely likely to kill him. Do you fire?
I would. I think it is arguable that the lesser evil is to kill him, otherwise you permit him to slaughter innocent children. This is one of the only situations in which I would propose killing to be acceptable, but what are your thoughts?
Before i dispute, i actually admire your determination on this side of the debate for an unknown reason. Anyway, if you find me rude, please don't. I want to be nothing but smiles when debating. :)
To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully.
I see what you are saying. I use to agree with your logic. But when i distinguished between "cause" and "responsibility" then i began to disagree with the logic.
Lets say someone in war kill a mother's son. And the mother found out and hanged herself. Well i will say in this point of view, this is not murder. This is suicide. Suicide and murder are two different things. In your logic, you see that the death of the son caused a reaction in the death of the mother. I do agree that there can be a chain of reaction when death happens. However, in the "cause" and "responsible" logic i see, the killer in war was a cause in the death of the mother, but the killer was not responsible. The way i think of the term "responsible" is a word that means "more direct." The mother was responsible for her own death because she tied the rope around her neck. The killer in war did not do that himself. In this logic, it feels appropriate to call this murder on the killer's part. The killer, however, played a major cause in her death.
You think the other way around. And i see and understand this logic. I somehow understand the contradictions in my own logic. @_@ And contradictions equals false as some people would say but i see your logic and agree with it on some levels. Like for example, if i shoot a bird int he air and it falls on the head of a human baby, and the baby died, i would feel responsible. I would feel linked to the death with me at the start of the link. HOWEVER, in this logic of yours, the link extends and extends and extends and it would show that maybe others are connected to the death of the baby, and, in your example, the death of the mother. What i am saying is...who drove me to the spot who shot the bird? Lets say it is my friend. Now he is in the start of the link that ultimately caused the infant's death. But, who gave his existence? Mother and father of course. So now the parents are in front of the link that made my friend's existence, that made my friend drove me, that made me shoot the bird, that made the child died. So the parents are murderers as well. In this logic with your example...who allowed the killer to be in war? Who gave power to the person to allow the future killer to be in war? And we can go on and on with infinite question possibly leading up to the scientific Big Bang Theory. And what about the trees? And the apples? And you and I? The trees and the apples inaction allowed the person to kill the mother's son. You and I should be murderers as well because either we didn't do anything or we didn't know. And yes, not knowing about a murder makes us murderers in this logic of yours because we didn't do anything to stop it.
It seems weird to blame the inactivity of trees and us, for the murder of the mother. We automatically give a nasty face to those accusers or have a disgust thought because we think "hey, i didn't tie the rope to her neck." But that is what your logic is saying. The soldier killed a son, a mother hangs herself even though the soldier didn't do with his own hands, and now the solider is a murderer. This is the chain of reaction you was talking about. But don't forget our inactivity, our non knowing of the murder, and the apples and the tree inactivity that caused a chain as well for making the death more and more possible.
....I don't think i answered your question. ahhh im such an idiot.
I guess what i said above was that i wanted to extend this logic of yours by blaming trees and apples, to make you think that maybe the soldier in war maybe isn't a killer....and making killing justified.
You speak of the question of murder, which is not the intention of this debate. Murder (taking a life unlawfully) is wrong, yes. How is it wrong? If everyone were to murder at the same time, there would be no one left to murder, therefore no one left to make the idea of murder understandable. This makes murder morally impermissible. Killing, however, by means of self defense is rather ethical indeed. Here's how:
1. If an agent should be taken into a situation in which their life is threatened, the one who had taken this agent into the situation has the intent of causing harm
2. someone of this intent is most likely to commit this crime multiple times
3. then, leaving this person with their life will quite possibly cause the loss of others' innocent lives.
4. Ergo, defending yourself is actually the most ethical path here
It is basic utilitarianism, look at how many people this particular agent may kill if left un-checked as opposed to the life of one murderer.
No one so far has found an error in my logic. I referred to society many times, however my ideals go against society. I disproved your ideals with my logic going against society, however I used society to support my ideals. If you all had realized this, I wouldn't have been arguing with you guys for the past few hours. Have fun!!
Excuse me, but you show a shocking lack of knowledge of the justice system. Police are not "ordered" to kill murderers. The only entity permitted to "kill" murderers is the state--after a conviction after a trial. And many appeals. Police are "ordered" to apprehend suspects.
I know what you meant, but really--just basic knowledge about how things work under our Constitution would be quite refreshing....
Wait, so, you would resort to something you don't think can be justified? Apparently, you would do something you didn't think was right. Doesn't that go against your own argument? ChuckHades, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
I don't think so. I understand why other people do it (to an extent...) but for me personally, I would never be able to draw a blade to another human being. That's strictly a metaphor: I'm also anti death penalty, etc.
Personally, I believe that there is no justifiable way to kill another. The definition of murder is : to unlawfully kill another. The definition of kill is : To deprive one of life. To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully. This is mass murder, and in society, mass murder is not justifiable by any means. Another example is when you are being mugged. The mugger may attempt to kill you, however by self defense you kill them. Their reason for attempting to kill you was unjust, however many may see you killing the person to be justifiable. However, you are at fault still, because death is not necessary. It is possible to avoid death without creating death. This is proven, since many people have been mugged yet are still alive, and the mugger is in jail or simply escaped. Even if the mugger was killed by you, this may be considered unlawfully killing since the attacker may have people saddened or affected by his death. It may only be a possibility that people are saddened by his death, but it is still highly probable.