Originally posted by Newjak
By real world sense I mean that I am not just treating these people as characters in a story but rather as real life breathing entities.I can not believe there are shade's of grey.
I don't think killing someone is right for whatever reason.
A question, what would you do with Hitler if he wa super powerful and only you had the power to stop him. And he will go killing everyone across the planet?
Not trying to prove a point just interested.
Originally posted by Entity
Killing one guilty to save countless innocents!I'm sorry but there's just some times a hero needs to take a sin onto themselves for the greater good.
Some heroes understand that and thou they hate it they do what needs to be done.
Other heroes refuse to and countless innocent people will continue to die or just suffer needlessly for it.
Ok, lets say someone murders someone, to stop them from murdering, then who is the murderer? the guy who you call a "hero"!!!!! By that logic they sound much more like the villain they are trying to stop.
But of course it's contradictory anyway ✅ If you were doing something because you were concerned about the greater good, if morality meant something to this hero, then they wouldn't kill. They consider morality/greater good important so they sin??? That's not only illogical it's hypocritical because in killing someone to uphold their morals, all they have truly sacrificed is their own sense of morality.
In other words, in this case "For the greater Good" just means "I can try and justify what I know to be morally wrong"
But that's just my opinion 😛
Originally posted by willRules
Ok, lets say someone murders someone, to stop them from murdering, then who is the murderer? the guy who you call a "hero"!!!!! By that logic they sound much more like the villain they are trying to stop.But of course it's contradictory anyway ✅ If you were doing something because you were concerned about the greater good, if morality meant something to this hero, then they wouldn't kill. They consider morality/greater good important so they sin??? That's not only illogical it's hypocritical because in killing someone to uphold their morals, all they have truly sacrificed is their own sense of morality.
In other words, in this case "For the greater Good" just means "I can try and justify what I know to be morally wrong"
But that's just my opinion 😛
Morally wrong or not its for the greater good.
Originally posted by Capt SpauldingSo ted Bundy wasn't a true serial killer?
A true serial killer is mental as it is, and once caught, doesn't escape.
Tell that to the women in Florida he killed after he escaped custody in Colorado.
He didn't escape a second time cause he's dead.
Berkowitz requested no parole because he found religion in prison. We can't expect every criminal to do the same though can we?
Gacy didn't escape because he was executed.
Fish also didn't escape cause he was executed.
Gaskins? executed
Burke? executed
Shankur? executed
Kudzinowski? executed
Etc.
Guess how many people the executed serial killers killed after they themselves were? 0
Bundy killed five after he was locked up. zero after his execution.
Originally posted by Citizen V
Yes, it does.If I had to one person to save two, I would.
It's morally wrong, but for the greater good.
The lesser of two evils.
Hey, I can empathise with it but it still makes no sense 🙁
wrong = greater good. That's not truly the greater good unless you take the greater good, water it down and punch it like a cheap prostitute. That's a cheap imitation of "the greater good" 🙁
Originally posted by willRulesGuy kills 31, and will probably keep killing if he himself is not killed. Do you allow him to be killed?
Hey, I can empathise with it but it still makes no sense 🙁wrong = greater good. That's not truly the greater good unless you take the greater good, water it down and punch it like a cheap prostitute. That's a cheap imitation of "the greater good" 🙁
If you answer no he kills 5 more. If you answer yes his killing spree ends permenantly.
What choice would you make?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Guy kills 31, and will probably keep killing if he himself is not killed. Do you allow him to be killed?If you answer no he kills 5 more. If you answer yes his killing spree ends permenantly.
What choice would you make?
I don't know. I can't justify murder but at the same time I want to minimize the number of deaths. All I can do is pray for another solution to the circumstances 🙁 I never said the choices were easy, all I'm saying is that murder is always wrong even if it seems like the rigth thing to do. Maybe in the situation you presented there is no right answer, only two wrong ones 🙁
Originally posted by willRulesThe situation I presented happened. That was Ted Bundy. His first trial he was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 4 college girls and a 12 year old girl. They caught him again and this time sentenced him to death. He hasn't killed since.
I don't know. I can't justify murder but at the same time I want to minimize the number of deaths. All I can do is pray for another solution to the circumstances 🙁 I never said the choices were easy, all I'm saying is that murder is [B]always wrong even if it seems like the rigth thing to do. Maybe in the situation you presented there is no right answer, only two wrong ones 🙁 [/B]
Originally posted by Creshosk
The situation I presented happened. That was Ted Bundy. His first trial he was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 4 college girls and a 12 year old girl. They caught him again and this time sentenced him to death. He hasn't killed since.
Well it's kinda hard to kill people once you've been killed yourself 😉
Originally posted by willRulesThink on that for a moment.
Well it's kinda hard to kill people once you've been killed yourself 😉
That's the essence of this thread. The villians whom are killed, cannot kill again, until they're brought back.
The question then becomes, is killing a person to protect people as bad as killing a person for fun?