Personally, I think killing in self defense or rushing to the defense of others is justified. If my friend was being raped or beaten and I was physically able to kill her attacker, I think I would do it without any hesitation.
I met a neat INFJ guy awhile back who (while having a delightfully beautiful belly button) posed an interesting question. Is it ever okay to kill someone else if it was your job to do so. For instance what if you are a special ops soldier, is it okay to kill the enemy and could you, personally do this sort of job?
That places the interests of the to-be-killed individual below the interests of whatever entity provided your job. If you can justify that, then one could probably personally justify acting as a tool for that entity.
And, like, INFJs? Are they ever going to put themselves in that role? Naw. They'll kill on personal principle only. "Yah had it comin'," they'll grimly tell the corpse.
And then head home to nurse their anguish over Being the Sword of Justice.
(Which might be where the question comes from: can you pragmatically submit to temporal authority for the purpose of Being True Authority?)
Is it right? No. Am I the kind of person who would do such a thing? If I'd put myself in the situation, yes, probably. I don't have much emotional value on human life. But I probably wouldn't put myself in the situation.
Okay so I thought this would be fun to do since the topic came up on an earlier thread.
It seems that personality type will have a pretty big impact on how we interpret various rules/morals in society. I think Fi vs Fe can have a very large effect on our viewpoints sometimes.
For this particular question:
I met a neat INFJ guy awhile back who (while having a delightfully beautiful belly button) posed an interesting question. Is it ever okay to kill someone else if it was your job to do so. For instance what if you are a special ops soldier, is it okay to kill the enemy and could you, personally do this sort of job? What sort of personality would it take to do this job and is it right or wrong to do so given the standard rule of thou shall not kill?
If not are there other circumstances where breaking this ultimate social taboo would be okay?
I wouldn't be a special ops. I'm having a hard time even thinking about to kill someone. I can think about it if I reach my "non-emotional state" and just see the practical lines.
I have to feel deeply disturbed and out of balance to reach such written state though.
I could maim my target, make my target unable to move; if the target is threatening/being hostile in the sense of intentionally wish to harm the object in question.
Could I kill the person if he held his hand towards an A-bomb to destroy everything around us and perhaps half the world.. That is if he was alive after 30 min, the bomb would go off. Fuck, I don't know.
I really don't know and I hope that I never have to find out.
I don't think it's alright. You have to have a justified reason to comitt such an offense. At the risk of loosing your job as an assasin or something, I would never ever in a million years kill them, it is against my moral compass. I simply wouldn't be able to get myself to do it.
On the other hand, and in almost reverse, if I had a justified reason to kill someone, even though it'd be risking my life or at the stake of getting in a heap of federal trouble, I would. If someone broke into my house and started touching or hurting any of my family, there'd be no question that I'd kill the intruder. In another example, I'd kill a cop if the cop was wrongfully assaulting a civilian or anyone to the point of death.
I read in the news about a peaceful protestor in the UK at the G20 protests who was beaten by cops for no apparant reason and suffered from a heartattack. I'm not completely sure if I'd kill the cop who did it, but if I saw this going on, I'd instincitevly run to his aid, even if it meant violence towards the cops.
My moral in the case of all of this, is that I would never kill a person if there was not a good reason to. I would easily and most certainly kill if they were physically harming my family. To take it an extreme example, if this was Nazi Germany, or the USSR under Stalin, I'd devote my whole life and effort to attempt an assasanation on them, like in Valkyrie.
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?
Is it ever okay to kill someone else if it was your job to do so.
Although, the question isn't quite sharp enough, since presumably you have chosen this job, and so you have chosen to put yourself into a position where you would have a measure of legal protection or feeling of justification for killing. A draft is no exception to this, since you have chosen to comply. Never mind whether others think it is justified or not. Whether it is or isn't won't have anything to do with that.
Originally Posted by Jewelchild
Personally, I think killing in self defense or rushing to the defense of others is justified. If my friend was being raped or beaten and I was physically able to kill her attacker, I think I would do it without any hesitation. Along the same lines, if I consider the reasons for a war to be sound, I am not morally opposed to killing for those specific reasons (ie: defending one's country against invasion.) However, if there is any situation even within war where killing can be avoided, I think it should be.
I think I agree here. The beautiful thing about self-defense is that it does not require killing, and if you can avoid killing, then taking the extra step to kill or failing from trying to refrain from killing appears only as a kind of unjustified and unnecessary vengeance. Anger does not really solve anything. Determination, sure, but not anger, and this is an easy point to agree on. It only serves to deteriorate our own sense of humanity.
What is right when it comes to defense? I don't know. Freedom always came from struggle. It was never just given because it couldn't be. The "just given" was always the opposition to freedom. The "just given" can only appear as an obstacle and a limitation because it is foreign exactly because it appears as just given and not as something derived from ourselves. So freedom arises only from our active assertion of it. And this is necessary, but does this action require killing? Jesus asserted perfect freedom exactly by not killing, so maybe not. Perhaps in every violent revolution are already the seeds of the next tyranny. And who does not fight because they do not feel threatened?
Still, even without feeling threatened, maybe it is right of you to prevent someone from taking your life by killing them if it comes down to it. Are we not quite justified in our will to live EVEN IF we are not attached in a clingy way to our own life? The order of the universe is for you as a finite being to perish, but is it not also that its finite members should strive to live because of their value for life and for their will that their unique will be represented in the grand will of the universe? This seems reasonable to me. If so, then it would seem that Jesus's lesson is not to deny ourselves and give ourselves up, at least not in the entirety, but that this message is absorbed within a greater one, which includes this aspect, but includes also the natural affirmation of life which finite life is filled with. So, we struggle to live, because of our value for it, and our accepting the inevitable outcome that death will take us does not appear to conflict with this, because it is in the scheme of the universe for finite life to struggle for its preservation, and so we are at every point obeying the grand will of the universe. Our struggle to live is almost a kind of play life makes of itself out of its enjoyment of itself. In this sense, struggle is never out of desperation, but it is the very stuff of life which makes it what it is, and gives it itself. Life resists itself. Love is resistance in a way ...
I would have no problem killing if it was neccessary.
I agree with this. I believe that with enough motivation, depending on the situation, people are capable of doing anything. Afterwards I'd probably feel extremely guilty but at that moment, I think I would have no problem with it. And I don't think I'd even be thinking about ethics or moral at that moment, I would just act.
Being in the army/special-ops: personally, I think that the fact that humanity even needs armies makes me sick. But if a person chooses to go to the army then he/she has already considered the possibility that they might end up killing somebody. I probably wouldn't even join the army. But if I had to, I would and I probably would kill "the enemies". I probably would kill myself after that as well, out of guilt.
I believe that no one on this earth has the right to decide who gets to live or die.
I believe that with enough motivation, depending on the situation, people are capable of doing anything.
I agree. Absolutely.
Originally Posted by antireconciler
The beautiful thing about self-defense is that it does not require killing, and if you can avoid killing, then taking the extra step to kill or failing from trying to refrain from killing appears only as a kind of unjustified and unnecessary vengeance. Anger does not really solve anything. Determination, sure, but not anger, and this is an easy point to agree on. It only serves to deteriorate our own sense of humanity.
If somebody is attacking you or your loved ones, as Frank mentioned, you're not going to be sitting around thinking about how to spare the attacker's life. If you tackle him, knock him out and handcuff him, sure, then you have time to think, and killing him would be unnecessary. However, most of the time in this type of situation, you have a very limited amount of time to think, and you will be operating on adrenaline. All you're going to be thinking about is getting rid of the attacker, by whatever means possible. I don't know if this is as much anger as it is just instinct to protect one's self.