[MBTI General] To kill or not to kill...

[Sponge]

I'm a pretty strict pacifist. There is absolutely no way I could ever kill anyone, regardless of the situation. If someone has a gun to my head, then I'll be like "Bye bye, world!" and hope for the best >_>

Seriously though, as antireconciler said, you can practice self-defence without ever killing someone. I'm not that keen on physically attacking someone either, but I would certainly try non-lethal ways to protect others if I could, but killing is never the answer in my mind. To me, there is not a single thing in the world that could justify it, as there is always an alternative. I can't put a value on life, even those that would do loved ones harm. That's just me

It's probably not a logical belief, but its one of the strongest ones I have. Everyone has reasons for why they do the things they do, every action and belief can be explained, and thus I would not want to hate or blame someone if they took an extreme action. It surprises me how many F types I have met (Not necessarily NF's) that really believe in punishing the 'evil' and then give a very loose definition of what 'evil' is. You don't solve anger, hate and death with more anger, hate and death.

But, I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to kill someone else in the first place.

 

[Frank]

I'm a pretty strict pacifist. There is absolutely no way I could ever kill anyone, regardless of the situation. If someone has a gun to my head, then I'll be like "Bye bye, world!" and hope for the best >_>

Seriously though, as antireconciler said, you can practice self-defence without ever killing someone. I'm not that keen on physically attacking someone either, but I would certainly try non-lethal ways to protect others if I could, but killing is never the answer in my mind. To me, there is not a single thing in the world that could justify it, as there is always an alternative. I can't put a value on life, even those that would do loved ones harm. That's just me

It's probably not a logical belief, but its one of the strongest ones I have. Everyone has reasons for why they do the things they do, every action and belief can be explained, and thus I would not want to hate or blame someone if they took an extreme action. It surprises me how many F types I have met (Not necessarily NF's) that really believe in punishing the 'evil' and then give a very loose definition of what 'evil' is. You don't solve anger, hate and death with more anger, hate and death.

But, I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to kill someone else in the first place.

Ok. Let me give you a scenario. When I was robbed my fiance and her three year old son were upstairs. I did not know whether or not the robber was going to search the rest of the house. If he did and was startled to find others he may have begun to shoot. There would be absolutely no way I would take that chance with their lives if I could help it. Are you saying you would just hope for the best and leave it to chance even in a situation where your loved ones stand about a 50/50 chance of making it out alive?

Of course if there were some other way to defend and not kill that would be ideal but in situations like this the only thing quicker than his sawed-off shotgun would be pulling the trigger first.

 

[Lady_X]

on one hand...i think i would absolutely not under any circumstance kill another person because i wouldn't give anyone the power to turn me into something which i am not...a murder. i feel like i control that and i alone hold responsibility for that.

on the other...if put in the position where it was me or them...or some other innocent person. then i would feel the need to protect them or myself but...i do think i would do everything possible to just stop them and not aim to kill.

 

[Sponge]

Generally, in the country I live, guns are not legal, I think there would be more of a chance of the robber having a knife than a gun, which gives you a higher chance of disarming them.

But if my loved ones were in a room that a potential robber could sneak in to, then I would try and disarm them first. If they had a knife, I suppose I could whack them round the head with a baseball bat or something, enough to try and knock them out, rather than kill them. Although I don't like violence, in situations like that I think it's okay to use non-lethal violence.

I have no idea who that robber is, what his life is like, his personality, his motives. I wouldn't instinctively shoot a underfed teenage that broke into my house to steal bread. I don't know who that person is at all, so I don't feel like I have the right to kill him or her. I really don't like guns though, but if I had to use one, then can't you aim for somewhere that wouldn't kill? Blow their arm off or something? Chances are they'll be in so much pain they wouldn't be able to fight back.

More than likely it wouldn't be me, but my partner, that would try and wrestle the person to the ground. He's pretty good at that.

I should have pointed out that my opinions were based on my own life. I wouldn't judge someone else for killing in self defence, because they too have reasons for why they would do that they did. Self defence is a lot different from, say, being a member of the army and killing someone. When you join the army you expect that, at some point in your career, you may well have to kill someone. Generally in every day life, if you don't go walking down back allies, you can expect that you won't have to kill anyone.

Edit: Frank, I assume you shot or otherwise killed that robber?

 

[Frank]

Generally, in the country I live, guns are not legal, I think there would be more of a chance of the robber having a knife than a gun, which gives you a higher chance of disarming them.

But if my loved ones were in a room that a potential robber could sneak in to, then I would try and disarm them first. If they had a knife, I suppose I could whack them round the head with a baseball bat or something, enough to try and knock them out, rather than kill them. Although I don't like violence, in situations like that I think it's okay to use non-lethal violence.

I have no idea who that robber is, what his life is like, his personality, his motives. I wouldn't instinctively shoot a underfed teenage that broke into my house to steal bread. I don't know who that person is at all, so I don't feel like I have the right to kill him or her. I really don't like guns though, but if I had to use one, then can't you aim for somewhere that wouldn't kill? Blow their arm off or something? Chances are they'll be in so much pain they wouldn't be able to fight back.

More than likely it wouldn't be me, but my partner, that would try and wrestle the person to the ground. He's pretty good at that.

I should have pointed out that my opinions were based on my own life. I wouldn't judge someone else for killing in self defence, because they too have reasons for why they would do that they did. Self defence is a lot different from, say, being a member of the army and killing someone. When you join the army you expect that, at some point in your career, you may well have to kill someone. Generally in every day life, if you don't go walking down back allies, you can expect that you won't have to kill anyone.

Edit: Frank, I assume you shot or otherwise killed that robber?

No. Actually I got pretty lucky. A cop car drove by and when the robber saw this out the window he seemed to switch into survival mode himself. He snuck out the back door and began running. If i would have had a gun and he persisted to go about the house I'm sure I would have shot him. You see, in the area of the country we were living at the time armed robberies most often led to death. The robbers have figured it was best not to leave someone behind to call the police. In fact on the news that evening were three stories of robbery deaths. One robber killed four children and a woman. My father who is a retired Police Chief has also told me that as they get away with more they also become more and more violent so I have no doubt if not this time, this guy would be killing soon.

 

[Sponge]

That's really sad, that they would be willing to kill children just to ensure there are no witnesses.

Obviously I don't have experience of living in a country where gun ownage is legal and thus I could not honestly say how I would react living in a place where such violence is almost commonplace. Of course, the UK has it's problems with gun crime in places, despite being illegal. My home city has had terrible problems with gun crime and people being killed, but it's a different kettle of fish, because even if those people attacked me with a gun, I wouldn't have a gun to protect myself with anyway.

 

[Wiley45]

I'm a pretty strict pacifist. There is absolutely no way I could ever kill anyone, regardless of the situation. If someone has a gun to my head, then I'll be like "Bye bye, world!" and hope for the best >_> ... killing is never the answer in my mind. To me, there is not a single thing in the world that could justify it, as there is always an alternative. I can't put a value on life, even those that would do loved ones harm. That's just me

I understand this feeling, because I'm inclined to feel the same way myself. I still describe myself as "a couple steps short of pacifist." I hate anger, violence, etc. and envision/hope for a world where there is none. However, I figure if I value life so much, to stand by and do nothing while innocent lives are being taken does not show that I value their lives.

It surprises me how many F types I have met (Not necessarily NF's) that really believe in punishing the 'evil' and then give a very loose definition of what 'evil' is. You don't solve anger, hate and death with more anger, hate and death.

I don't look at killing in self defense as a matter of "punishing evil." I think what we've been describing in terms of a fast decision made in an instinctual attempt to protect one's self is different. The goal isn't to punish, it is to protect, as quickly and effectively as possible. If a murderer came to my house and tried to kill me, I would kill him in self defense if necessary. However, if I got away and he was put in jail, I wouldn't advocate his execution.

 

[kiddykat]

I could not. I would probably duck & cover, hide out somewhere? When it comes down to it I'd rather be shot than shoot (not in video games- of course). Sounds wimpy- but that is how I am. =)

If someone hurt my family members & friends (in the case mentioned earlier- sexual assault, robbery, for instance), I'd probably knee that person where it hurts the most, male/female. I'd probably give them a black eye, given the circumstances of that situation.

 

[ConchShell]

Generally, no. I'm vegetarian. (Any other vegetarians, while you all provide your answers to the main question?)

As a form of self defence in the case of being viciously attacked, yes I might kill someone. I would prefer to use some other tactic to avert the attack, but how much time do people have to think in those circumstances? Therefore I cannot rule out the fact that ending up killing someone could be the outcome.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I believe I am capable of killing if the kill can be rationalized to my standards. But I know that that would only ever happen if I can't see any other way to survive. So only under very dire circumstances. I do not see any reason in extinquishing life whatsoever, so absolutely a last resort, but without hesitation.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'm a pretty strict pacifist. There is absolutely no way I could ever kill anyone, regardless of the situation. If someone has a gun to my head, then I'll be like "Bye bye, world!" and hope for the best >_>

Seriously though, as antireconciler said, you can practice self-defence without ever killing someone. I'm not that keen on physically attacking someone either, but I would certainly try non-lethal ways to protect others if I could, but killing is never the answer in my mind. To me, there is not a single thing in the world that could justify it, as there is always an alternative. I can't put a value on life, even those that would do loved ones harm. That's just me

It's probably not a logical belief, but its one of the strongest ones I have. Everyone has reasons for why they do the things they do, every action and belief can be explained, and thus I would not want to hate or blame someone if they took an extreme action. It surprises me how many F types I have met (Not necessarily NF's) that really believe in punishing the 'evil' and then give a very loose definition of what 'evil' is. You don't solve anger, hate and death with more anger, hate and death.

But, I would never put myself in a position where I would be expected to kill someone else in the first place.

Agreed. Then again I come from the UK as well. People here generally have a different policy when reacting towards criminals in their home.

 

[antireconciler]

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.

Is this true? I've never been in such a threatening situation so I couldn't say, but even on adrenaline, it's not like you become single-minded like a furious ape, but more like you have very temporarily heightened ability to process information holistically and very rapidly, including a sense of control, I should think. But then, I have training to refrain from killing in situations dealing with an assailant, so maybe that is a bias for me.

I mean, even on adrenaline, you have comprehension of the outcomes of your actions, and even on adrenaline, humans have a very real natural inhibition toward killing which is amazingly resilient. If I had a gun, for instance, I can't imagine not shooting someone in the leg or in the shoulder first if it came to it (and then calling the police for an ambulance) before deliberately aiming for the head or vitals. There are a lot of places you can get shot and recover from with treatment, or sliced, or cudgeled, or what have you.

 

[antireconciler]

Generally, in the country I live, guns are not legal, I think there would be more of a chance of the robber having a knife than a gun, which gives you a higher chance of disarming them.

This is a bit off-topic, but there is evidence to the contrary on this one. I'd like to know if it is true or not.

 

[Quinlan]

I'm not the best at taking orders anyway so when it comes to killing "doing my job" wouldn't come into the equation, I'd need to know why we're killing them before taking action. I would do what I think is right and would not blindly follow orders and that's why I've never had any intention of joining the army.

 

[Sponge]

This is a bit off-topic, but there is evidence to the contrary on this one. I'd like to know if it is true or not.

That article was from 2001, I would have to look up statistics closer to this year to see if that were still true. In some places, gun crime is pretty bad, like certain areas in London and cities like Nottingham, where I used to live. I, nor the people I have ever met, have never suffered from gun related crime though, but obviously that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; just that I personally have never experienced it.

Knife crime is still pretty high though I believe.

I think adrenaline can cause you to act quickly without thinking sometimes, and if you have a lethal weapon to hand, you're obviously more likely to use it..

 

[Wiley45]

Is this true? I've never been in such a threatening situation so I couldn't say, but even on adrenaline, it's not like you become single-minded like a furious ape, but more like you have very temporarily heightened ability to process information holistically and very rapidly, including a sense of control, I should think. But then, I have training to refrain from killing in situations dealing with an assailant, so maybe that is a bias for me.

I mean, even on adrenaline, you have comprehension of the outcomes of your actions, and even on adrenaline, humans have a very real natural inhibition toward killing which is amazingly resilient. If I had a gun, for instance, I can't imagine not shooting someone in the leg or in the shoulder first if it came to it (and then calling the police for an ambulance) before deliberately aiming for the head or vitals. There are a lot of places you can get shot and recover from with treatment, or sliced, or cudgeled, or what have you.

As far as I know, it's true.

"When we are in fight/flight mode, our brain chemistry is altered. The part of the brain which controls our rational thoughts is bypassed, and we move right into "attack" or "run" mode." (Psybersquare: The Fight or Flight Response)

"By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us into 'attack' mode." (http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/wellness/fight-flight-relaxation-response.pdf)

I'm not sure how authoritative those sites are, as I just did a fast search, but you can look into it if you want. I think it's a pretty commonly accepted idea.

Also, as for guns, 60 Minutes recently did a show on guns (4/12) where they had volunteers (including trained gun users) get "attacked" in a lecture room to see how they would respond. Most of them didn't respond fast enough. Some couldn't get the gun out of the holster, and I don't even think any of the people who did shoot hit the attacker. It's easy to say we'd aim to maim and not kill, but in the heat of the situation, it's probably not that easy unless you're a cop, who regularly trains for that sort of thing. Even cops on the show said they lose their response time within just a few months off the job.

 

[antireconciler]

"When we are in fight/flight mode, our brain chemistry is altered. The part of the brain which controls our rational thoughts is bypassed, and we move right into "attack" or "run" mode." (Psybersquare: The Fight or Flight Response)

"By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us into 'attack' mode." (http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/wellness/fight-flight-relaxation-response.pdf)

...
It's easy to say we'd aim to maim and not kill, but in the heat of the situation, it's probably not that easy unless you're a cop, who regularly trains for that sort of thing. Even cops on the show said they lose their response time within just a few months off the job.

I see. This does make a lot of sense. Thank you for your reply. Maybe then we can draw a distinction in the severity of the response. I've heard that a small level of stress can be beneficial, and help focus the mind on a task it perceives as important, but a lot of stress simply overwhelms us and is very counterproductive and fearful.

And probably, in a life-threatening situation, even though I would very much hope to not lose my better reasoning while still gaining the benefits of fight or flight, realistically ... I don't know. I can't permit myself to say there may be a time where I won't be there for myself, but I can reasonably say I'll make mistakes and learn from them, and that that's okay. I really really want to be able to look down a gun barrel pointed right at me and with my own will (not that of some animal conditioning) take the actions I believe are right. I really really want that.

 

[Frank]

Is this true? I've never been in such a threatening situation so I couldn't say, but even on adrenaline, it's not like you become single-minded like a furious ape, but more like you have very temporarily heightened ability to process information holistically and very rapidly, including a sense of control, I should think. But then, I have training to refrain from killing in situations dealing with an assailant, so maybe that is a bias for me.

I mean, even on adrenaline, you have comprehension of the outcomes of your actions, and even on adrenaline, humans have a very real natural inhibition toward killing which is amazingly resilient. If I had a gun, for instance, I can't imagine not shooting someone in the leg or in the shoulder first if it came to it (and then calling the police for an ambulance) before deliberately aiming for the head or vitals. There are a lot of places you can get shot and recover from with treatment, or sliced, or cudgeled, or what have you.

I can tell you how in my situation it worked, but everyone is different. You don't completely lose your rational mind other than the fact that the only thing it is able to process is survival for you and your loved ones in that moment. Thoughts and scenarios do run through your head but at lighting speed with the most conducive to the goal of survival somehow standing out. If ,as you stated you would do, the legshot ensured your chance of not being killed I'm sure you would take it. But let me be clear, at least in my case, when your life or your loved ones lives are literally on the line the last thing you give a shit about is the recovery time of the person who put you in this position. I'm sure if you did have to kill him there would be some rough feelings to deal with afterwards, but it simply doesn't matter in the moment.

 

[Wiley45]

I really really want to be able to look down a gun barrel pointed right at me and with my own will (not that of some animal conditioning) take the actions I believe are right. I really really want that.

I find this desire extremely admirable, and I am so glad there are people in the world who take these things very seriously.