Killing people

When do you think people cross the line that allows you to kill them while retaining your morals?

Imo the line is when they stop fitting your idea of society, when they are an unwanted element of your local society. You want the best for your society, the interest of the many > interest of the individual, so you have the right to kill them if they don't want to leave find a new society (country, etc).

Your answer is pretty vague, and slightly disturbing.

If I caught a paedophile in the act I'd probably try my best to murder them. I imagine the act of killing would irreversibly **** me up, but I'd rather take that and a likely prison sentence for me than the chance of them ever getting to hurt anyone else.

If anyone says green day isn't punk, they're getting iced.

Whenever they annoy me.

I also consider this one idea that there's obviously some inherent value of typical human being. For instance, random low-wage person within the west Europe provides the world with, let's say, 500 000 dollars worth of work across their lives. I think it is quite moral if you kill this person, but the benefit from the death is above what they would provide to their country/world.

We are morally totally fine in the west with the destruction of property as long as it is accurately paid back. We usually don't have a problem with people destroying our stuff when drunk and angry after they apologize and pay the proper amount of money. I don't think human life is outside this logic if it applies to property, animals, and human health.

So fatties who use lots of health care and have no job equal negative moral value and it'd be morally positive to kill them?

In theory: when it would improve aggregate utility to do so

In practice: on a personal level, only in absolutely necessary self-defense/defense of loved ones or some war/apocalyptic situation

This is difficult. They don't provide anything to their community. If it's moral to repay for damage done to property or health, it should be equally moral to repay for killing people. If people are okay for paying for the car's destruction, they should be okay by paying the value of someone you kill. If that person is worthless, then probably the proper payment should be the value this person would have been of if he was used as a slave? I guess that would be the fair solution.

I also think the taboo the west world has for killing people is definitely weird. We see killing being a natural part of the Arab world; if someone doesn't fit their society, they just remove him by killing the guy, providing peace and stability.

Found the utilitarian Thanos fanboy^

No intelligent utilitarian would support MCU Thanos lol, Malthusian economics is BS enough for Earth, let alone the f*cking universe.

Originally posted by JKBart
When do you think people cross the line that allows you to kill them while retaining your morals?

Imo the line is when they stop fitting your idea of society, when they are an unwanted element of your local society. You want the best for your society, the interest of the many > interest of the individual, so you have the right to kill them if they don't want to leave find a new society (country, etc).

Albert Einstein got f's in school.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste is true.
live and let live

I don't kill people unless they're completely irredeemable.

I’ve always wanted to kill someone that was deemed a pariah to societal standards and my own. I wouldn’t consider my life complete until I take another. It’s entirely problematic and incriminating to do so, therefore I’ve refrained.

The urge is always constant.

When they're black.

Gandhi said to accept peace and to let the world go on.

When the answer in life from society is that healthy people get to kill while the sick get blamed for it will never succeed.