murder always wrong?
I was watching a movie the other night (which shall remain nameless) and it got me thinking... where do I draw the line when it comes to taking the life of another?
I'd kill to defend myself or my family or another in immediate danger of death or serious injury (as the law permits me to) but after that it becomes more and more hazy. Logically extending it further the question becomes 'would I kill to defend myself, my family or another from certain death or serious injury tomorrow?' what about the day after? and the day after? This could obviously extend ad infinitum, so I won't labour on the point. But what about potential harm? What about the taking of life through rebellion or for idealistic reasons?
In the moment, it is nothing short of understandable that a life be taken in self-defence. Though I find myself thinking of the other extreme to clashes of ideology which in the first case have a serious impact on my life or on the life of my family and in the second case have very little to no impact upon my life.
The first case seems to me to be fraught with shades of grey. A good example is living in a theocracy as an Atheist or in a communist dictatorship as a economic rationalist with a penchant for voting and the democratic process. Could I, and indeed would you, kill in defence of those ideas which I hold dear to me? I may understand the assassination of a senior figure in the case of a suppressed minority, but how does I distinguish myself from the likes of Castro or even Pol Pot, Mugabe or even Lenin? Does the rise of extreme circumstances warrant extreme responses to bring about a peaceful equilibrium? I'm inclined to say no and I hate that I can't abide by it.
I hold a few ideals as dear to me - freedom of thought, freedom of movement and government for the people by the people. I feel nothing but sorrow for those atheists stuck in theocracies in the Middle East and increasingly those from the U.S.A. but I could never abide an individual killing another from the government because they wanted to drink alcohol or otherwise 'live in sin'. Though I think that religion is an "insult to human dignity" to borrow the words of Steven Weinberg (a renowned physisist) and to continue with his words "with it or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion" I couldn't rise up and kill anyone even if they were imposing their religion on me and the people around me... that is if I can freely leave on my own volition.
My opinion would change dramatically if I was suddenly prevented from leaving the country. For a government to tell me to obey a religious text of any form and to prevent me from not doing so would be paramount in my mind to sentencing me to a lifetime of intellectual rape which I perhaps could fight back against and potentially kill in defence of those ideals I hold dear -- not because I don't believe what they might but because I am no longer free to think how I want and I am no longer free to leave if I want. This is the crucial point -- the only justification for nationalistically or idealistically motivated murder would have to be living in an unreasonable and irrational system of government which prevents you or I from finding an political environment which more closely resembles our ideals.
On a less macro level though, when would it be justified to kill someone for religion? nationalism? ideology? The short answer is it can't be. Short of the legal justifications already present there can be none at all. These are the only justifications I can think of -- self-defence of the self, a family member or another from imminent physical injury that probably will or quite possibly could result in death. There are so many different permutations that I'm inclined not to explore them all.
At this micro level the question approaches the old philosophical question: If a train is moving rapidly towards six people who have been trapped on the tracks in some way but you could divert the train down another track and thus save the six people then would you throw the switch even though at the very moment a hiker would wander inevitably onto the second track and be killed as a result? What about if the hiker was similarly trapped? Would it change your answer?
Of course you could talk all day about these sorts of things... but I've got study to do.
I don't think it is ever going to be right to kill someone on a micro level except for self-defence from an imminent harm and when it comes to assassination, it is only justified in my mind if there are no other alternatives and never if you can simply leave the country.
I make no apologies for the flow of what I write - ever. Chiefly because there rarely is one as it is all a train of thought.
I'd kill to defend myself or my family or another in immediate danger of death or serious injury (as the law permits me to) but after that it becomes more and more hazy. Logically extending it further the question becomes 'would I kill to defend myself, my family or another from certain death or serious injury tomorrow?' what about the day after? and the day after? This could obviously extend ad infinitum, so I won't labour on the point. But what about potential harm? What about the taking of life through rebellion or for idealistic reasons?
In the moment, it is nothing short of understandable that a life be taken in self-defence. Though I find myself thinking of the other extreme to clashes of ideology which in the first case have a serious impact on my life or on the life of my family and in the second case have very little to no impact upon my life.
The first case seems to me to be fraught with shades of grey. A good example is living in a theocracy as an Atheist or in a communist dictatorship as a economic rationalist with a penchant for voting and the democratic process. Could I, and indeed would you, kill in defence of those ideas which I hold dear to me? I may understand the assassination of a senior figure in the case of a suppressed minority, but how does I distinguish myself from the likes of Castro or even Pol Pot, Mugabe or even Lenin? Does the rise of extreme circumstances warrant extreme responses to bring about a peaceful equilibrium? I'm inclined to say no and I hate that I can't abide by it.
I hold a few ideals as dear to me - freedom of thought, freedom of movement and government for the people by the people. I feel nothing but sorrow for those atheists stuck in theocracies in the Middle East and increasingly those from the U.S.A. but I could never abide an individual killing another from the government because they wanted to drink alcohol or otherwise 'live in sin'. Though I think that religion is an "insult to human dignity" to borrow the words of Steven Weinberg (a renowned physisist) and to continue with his words "with it or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion" I couldn't rise up and kill anyone even if they were imposing their religion on me and the people around me... that is if I can freely leave on my own volition.
My opinion would change dramatically if I was suddenly prevented from leaving the country. For a government to tell me to obey a religious text of any form and to prevent me from not doing so would be paramount in my mind to sentencing me to a lifetime of intellectual rape which I perhaps could fight back against and potentially kill in defence of those ideals I hold dear -- not because I don't believe what they might but because I am no longer free to think how I want and I am no longer free to leave if I want. This is the crucial point -- the only justification for nationalistically or idealistically motivated murder would have to be living in an unreasonable and irrational system of government which prevents you or I from finding an political environment which more closely resembles our ideals.
On a less macro level though, when would it be justified to kill someone for religion? nationalism? ideology? The short answer is it can't be. Short of the legal justifications already present there can be none at all. These are the only justifications I can think of -- self-defence of the self, a family member or another from imminent physical injury that probably will or quite possibly could result in death. There are so many different permutations that I'm inclined not to explore them all.
At this micro level the question approaches the old philosophical question: If a train is moving rapidly towards six people who have been trapped on the tracks in some way but you could divert the train down another track and thus save the six people then would you throw the switch even though at the very moment a hiker would wander inevitably onto the second track and be killed as a result? What about if the hiker was similarly trapped? Would it change your answer?
Of course you could talk all day about these sorts of things... but I've got study to do.
I don't think it is ever going to be right to kill someone on a micro level except for self-defence from an imminent harm and when it comes to assassination, it is only justified in my mind if there are no other alternatives and never if you can simply leave the country.
I make no apologies for the flow of what I write - ever. Chiefly because there rarely is one as it is all a train of thought.