Murder Justified?

I posted this as a reply to 'THE VOICE OF REASON' and 'SOUL TYPE1', but I have lost it???!!!!

I then thought this ought to be a new thread:-

A 'supposed to be true' tale:- There were seven on a boat, one of whom was a Buddhist Monk. One night he overheard two of the passengers plotting to kill everyone, and stealing their possessions; he killed the two would be murderers and thieves, thus saving four passengers from being murdered.

Justifiable?

Like I have said before, I am not happy with 'greys' (prefer the safety of black & white)- I'm always worried about how far an elastic conscience can be stretched before the elastic snaps, and you're in the black.

Any comments, views?

The intent of doing good can never justify evil actions.

SOGFPP said:

The intent of doing good can never justify evil actions.

Click to expand...

But it can, and is, employed to paint evil actions as good, is it not? Is that not precisely what theists do when confronted with some of the horrific accounts in the Tanach?

Well Im firmly seated in the arena of black and white as well. Either something is wrong or it is right, in my opinion of course. I do believe that things can be right or wrong to a lesser or greater degree, which is normally what people mean when they involve a grey. However, the dnager of defining it like that is it makes something which is wrong, sound like it isnt wrong and the same for something which is right.

What the monk did is going to be fairly near the centre of the scale. However, it WILL go into one of the 2 options, evil or good, it wont go into both.

I agree with SOGFPP that the intention alone cannot justify an evil act. However, to look at the action as a whole then this must be included in any judgement made on it. The monk had 2 intentions, to kill and to save life. However, he was also doing it to save his own neck, he might not have cared about the other passengers at all... he just didn't want to die.

There are many other things to consider such as the outcome and whether there were any other alternatives... Its a lot to take in at once but I would say that the monk was not justified but his actions were understandable.

The monk showed a lack of imagination. There would be other ways of dealing with the situation without killing the too criminals. Alerting the other passengers would have greatly improved both his ability to come up with a better solution as well as expanding his range of action.

Deut. 32.8 said:

But it can, and is, employed to paint evil actions as good, is it not? Is that not precisely what theists do when confronted with some of the horrific accounts in the Tanach?

Click to expand...

Again..... you waste our time erecting a strawman..... I care not what "some theists do"..... if you have a question for me, fire away.

There was no intent at erecting strawmen. Very well: what was the 'intent' behind the biocide of the flood, the genocide of the Midianites, the enslavement of their virgin daughters, the killing of the first born, or the shredding of 42 children in 2 Kings 2:24? Were these actions evil and, if not, why not?

Oh vey..... this is not in the biblical debate forum and I never used a OT or any Biblical reference to suggest that my premise was valid.

We have a FAQ section if you need a refresher on forum rules.

Deut. 32.8 said:

There was no intent at erecting strawmen.

Click to expand...

You might want to start another thread on this.

Hey Michel,

The problem with "what ifs" is that they try to take things to their absurd conclusions. This particular scenario has blurred the lines between murder, self defense and even punishment. Consequently, there is NO answer that could not be twisted by another individual set on making you or God out to be a pariah.

Fortunately for us, only the government has succeeded in taking things to their absolutely most absurd possibility.

michelhiernaux said:

I posted this as a reply to 'THE VOICE OF REASON' and 'SOUL TYPE1', but I have lost it???!!!!

I then thought this ought to be a new thread:-

A 'supposed to be true' tale:- There were seven on a boat, one of whom was a Buddhist Monk. One night he overheard two of the passengers plotting to kill everyone, and stealing their possessions; he killed the two would be murderers and thieves, thus saving four passengers from being murdered.

Justifiable?

Like I have said before, I am not happy with 'greys' (prefer the safety of black & white)- I'm always worried about how far an elastic conscience can be stretched before the elastic snaps, and you're in the black.

Any comments, views?

Click to expand...

This little story just showed how 2 murderers became 3 murderers. There is not justification to murder someone...thou shalt not kill!

"There is not justification to murder someone...Thou shalt not kill!

I assume, then, you condemn the coalition troops in Iraq, or, in fact, any military action.

michelhiernaux said:

I posted this as a reply to 'THE VOICE OF REASON' and 'SOUL TYPE1', but I have lost it???!!!!

I then thought this ought to be a new thread:-

A 'supposed to be true' tale:- There were seven on a boat, one of whom was a Buddhist Monk. One night he overheard two of the passengers plotting to kill everyone, and stealing their possessions; he killed the two would be murderers and thieves, thus saving four passengers from being murdered.

Justifiable?

Like I have said before, I am not happy with 'greys' (prefer the safety of black & white)- I'm always worried about how far an elastic conscience can be stretched before the elastic snaps, and you're in the black.

Any comments, views?

Click to expand...

Well, before I respond, I better be up front: I do believe in "greys." I believe in them very firmly. The world around us doesn't often present us easy "this is right" "this is wrong" answers. We often have to choose between the least evil or most desirable of several choices.

As for the question, "Is murder justifiable?" No, not murder. However, how we define murder is another question. If I walk up and see a man raping and likely to be willing to kill a woman it is my moral responsibility to stop him. It is quite likely I could kill him in the process if the situation is right. Would what I did be wrong? You bet, but walking away and leaving the woman to be would be far, far more evil.

That is my principle I would judge the monk's actions by. If he had feasible alternatives than actively slaying them, then I would frown on it. If, however, the situation were such that if he delayed that they would be able to carry through with their plans, then he would need to stop them...and use lethal force if necessary. The devil is in the details, and we don't really know them. It is possible it was the only ethical alternative.

One last factor is perception. None of us truly know what is around us. Rather, we interpret it. If, in my example or your example of the monk, the person honestly believes the situation requires it, then we really have a hard time calling it cold-blooded murder. We can never know that detail, which certainly changes the circumstances some...

I guess it comes down to if you see self defense as murder. It also comes down to whether you feel it is wrong or not.

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Romans 14:14

basically, if it is wrong to you, then it is wrong. But whether or not it is wrong, the important thing is that it is forgiveable.

I can't say I agree with that statement. If I see someone else being injured, and I do not come to defend them, I am a murderer because I didn't try. I could have stopped it and didn't. Likewise, if I were a father and had little children depending on me, it is my duty to raise those children. If I have to defend myself, then it is the lesser of two evils. I don't think we can relegate this issue to subjectivity...

Ever seen Minority Report?
Just because the monk happened to overhear a private conversation doesn't meant that the event would have actually come to pass. Based on his theory I should shoot any man I pass on the street late at night who looks at me funny if I feel they are a sufficient threat (when in reality taking the bin lid off my head would solve the problem with much greater ease and less bloodshed).

There's a big diffference between psychics foretelling a possible future, and people getting the culprits whether they've made a plan or not, and a monk stumbling upon people actively planning out murder.