To Kill for Love

P

Prince_James

Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
I rather like taking moral dilemmas from popular mediums in a slightly modified form, so if anyone gets the reference please PM me with your answer and I will respond with a treat.

You are a man who has just lost the love of his life to a death she did not deserve, that is to say, she was morally blameless in the normal sense. There is a way to bring her back to life, but it is forbidden. Nonetheless, one steals away from your home by cover of night with the corpse wrapped in its funeral shroud and make a periless journey to a forboding land, where stands an ancient pagan temple, inhabited by the discarnate spirit of a God of great power.

You reach the temple and beg the God for assistance. He ascents, but only if you will pay his price. He commands you to slay a dozen specific men that inhabit the land.

Is it morally justified to kill them in violation of your society's laws, as well as even seek out this God due to a further law from one's nation? Let us assume that one's life would be one of abject misery without her and indeed, one all ready suffers enough to consider this a viable action, and have gone out of one's way in order to achieve this end, and at great personal peril, as each man is a consumate combatant and one must kill them without recourse to extensive weaponary, but perhaps only with a sword, wheras they may have weapons of great power and range, or such personal skill as to make one appear weak when compared to them. In essence: One is fighting far more than equal combatants which have no problem in killing you in return for attacking them and indeed, will show no mercy, and if one fails and somehow still manages to survive, one's life will be even more miserable, as one can never return to one's home. You might even be compelled to kill yourself if you do not get her back, such is your sorrow.

What is the morally appropriate thing to do? Let's also assume that the God has no authority on the matter to demand such things from you.
 
no. what about all of those peoples families? if each of them has a lover who does tha same thing, then that means that once they are finished, there will be 144 people doing the same thing, then 1728, then 20736. before you know it everyone is dead because of human selfishness.
 
Vslayer:

Suppose they do not have any families nor no avengers. Does your moral statement still stand?
 
Well, if they don't have no avengers, then that means that they do have some avengers, and his statement does stand.

But if they don't have any avengers, then it comes down to you taking revenge on someone. Taking a life out of revenge isn't very ethical now, is it?

(P.S. Sorry about nit-picking your grammar.)
 
Athelwulf:

Yes. Sorry. I made an error there and only realized it just before I read your post.

And as to revenge: I do not view it as unethical to kill a man who has wronged one. Nor indeed, is it irrational, to deal harm back for harm. That being said, there are few crimes someone could commit against one to sanction death dealt to another, but if such were commited, I can see no reason why a man oughtn't seek revenge.

Redarmy11:

Thank you for picking that out. I suppose I am too used to "ascend" and had thought if ollowed that pattern.

But you proclaim that all killing is wrong?
 
I think it's permissible to kill an assailant who is putting your life or your health in serious danger. The same applies where others who you deem worthy of protection are in danger too. It may be justifiable in other scenarios too, though none come to mind right now. However I don't think it's ethical to kill an innocent party for personal gain - not even in a gladatorial netherworld.
 
Redarmy11:

So even if one must suffer bitterly, one cannot victimize another, in essence?

And what about war? Do you view it as justified to kill in war?
 
Prince_James said:
And what about war? Do you view it as justified to kill in war?
Click to expand...
War is almost never justified. So this question is pretty much moot.
 
Prince_James said:
I rather like taking moral dilemmas from popular mediums in a slightly modified form, so if anyone gets the reference please PM me with your answer and I will respond with a treat.

.
Click to expand...

Presumably here Prince James you are talking about a form of terrorism, except the dead one is avenging cannot be brought back.

Lets assume the loved one is 'land' that has been taken
One sets about killing innocents that reside in the domain of those
that took the land (but not necc so) in order to gain the assistance of a greater authority that will promise their assistance in returning the land to its previous owner.

So the question, is attempting to kill those that are more powerful than yourself (and not necc responsible) justified in order to attempt to regain the land that was lost.

Well the answer as with all acts that seem without reason to onlookers is that we justify all things to ourselves if the promised rewards are great enough. Re the scenario presented 'Is it right? morally no, will it work? probably not, should we try though? Well we all spend a great deal of time in fruitless endeavour.

But if we trust that our rewards will justify the means then we DO tend to act.

Would I risk life and limb to restore 'justice' at the expense of others?

NO, I'd target the responsible source and blow their fucking heads off :)
 
Last edited:
Athelwulf:

Why do you think war is often not justified?

Theoryofrelativity:

A good addition to the topic! I shall, as I have been, refrain from commenting right off the bat, but let some other people see if they want to field this first.
 
Prince_James said:
So even if one must suffer bitterly, one cannot victimize another, in essence?
Click to expand...
Yes. I think we have the right to seek every possible remedy for our bitterness provided that we don't harm others.

Prince_James said:
And what about war? Do you view it as justified to kill in war?
Click to expand...
Again this comes down to us or them. If an enemy soldier poses a threat to your life or a serious threat to your health then killing him in self-defence is justified. It's a bit trickier to justify killing enemy soldiers where they pose you no personal threat but I'd say that, if defeat means that you and the people you care about will suffer unduly as a result, then killing the enemy is permissible. You could take 'people you care about' to mean family, friends, people of your nation or people of other nations, where these are suffering or may suffer because of enemy actions.

Why do I feel like I've just opened a whole can of worms? I think war is a special circumstance. Soldiers enter into a contract. All parties enter it knowing that they may die; that it could be a case of 'kill or be killed'. I think this is different from launching an attack on an innocent stranger with no prior warning. If, in your scenario, you forewarn the people you attack and they agree to fight you, without duress, knowing that death may result: in these circumstances killing them is justified.
 
Prince_James said:
Why do you think war is often not justified?
Click to expand...
Because often, if not always, it involves killing people, and sometimes it's for relatively stupid reasons.

I have other reasons, but seeing as it's almost four in the morning, I can't think of them right now.
 
Prince_James said:
You are a man who has just lost the love of his life to a death she did not deserve, There is a way to bring her back to life, but it is forbidden.
You reach the temple and beg the God for assistance. He ascents, but only if you will pay his price. He commands you to slay a dozen specific men that inhabit the land.

Is it morally justified to kill them in violation of your society's laws, as well as even seek out this God due to a further law from one's nation?

Let us assume that one's life would be one of abject misery without her and indeed, one all ready suffers enough to consider this a viable action, and have gone out of one's way in order to achieve this end, and at great personal peril, as each man is a consumate combatant and one must kill them without recourse to extensive weaponary, but perhaps only with a sword, wheras they may have weapons of great power and range, or such personal skill as to make one appear weak when compared to them.

In essence: One is fighting far more than equal combatants which have no problem in killing you in return for attacking them and indeed, will show no mercy, and if one fails and somehow still manages to survive, one's life will be even more miserable, as one can never return to one's home. You might even be compelled to kill yourself if you do not get her back, such is your sorrow.

.
Click to expand...


This slightly edited version may assist the posters in 'seeing' what this analogy represents IMO anyway.

Consider the arab/Israel conflict in this scenario

Although I don't think many advocate terrorism regardless of the 'need' for the terrorists to end their own sufferring.

It is counter productive and the wrong people suffer.

BUT if we were the ones sufferring, well that IS different, as our mind set is more for our needs than considertaion of others, impartiality does not exist when you are the one in the frame.

We all like to think we are moral and righteous and would not resort to these measures, but really we as men are no diiffrent to other men and so in that situation, while perhaps not actively involved ourselves we may be sympathetic and supportive.
 
Last edited:
If that's the intended analogy: well, I think abstract ethical dilemmas are more or less useless when it comes to making sense of real-world politics. Life just isn't that simple. Practical real-world solutions are needed, not abstract pontificating.
 
redarmy11 said:
If that's the intended analogy: well, I think abstract ethical dilemmas are more or less useless when it comes to making sense of real-world politics. Life just isn't that simple. Practical real-world solutions are needed, not abstract pontificating.
Click to expand...


It may not be the intended analogy but if it is, then surely the analogy is to try to 'remove' the bias that we have regarding this conflict re one side or the other and bring us to see both sides of the equation? Or to test us to see what side of the equation we fall.

IE Would we fall beside the side of the one receiving the 10 innocent men death threat and agree that a forceful and legal retaliation is justified or would we side with the illegal act at trying to return what was wrongly removed.

Or would we present an alternative?

Has anyone posed an alternative?

What do we ('we'for purposes of analogy) the sufferring side do to ease our pain?

How does the greater force seek to assist us easing our pain and thus thwart unreasonable assault?

Do they care to assist us?

Should we care about their losses when they don't care to assist us?

Does the 'law' over ride human need for 'personal' justice?
 
redarmy11:

"Yes. I think we have the right to seek every possible remedy for our bitterness provided that we don't harm others."

"Again this comes down to us or them. If an enemy soldier poses a threat to your life or a serious threat to your health then killing him in self-defence is justified. It's a bit trickier to justify killing enemy soldiers where they pose you no personal threat but I'd say that, if defeat means that you and the people you care about will suffer unduly as a result, then killing the enemy is permissible. You could take 'people you care about' to mean family, friends, people of your nation or people of other nations, where these are suffering or may suffer because of enemy actions."

Yet in the scenario here, can not protecting what one loves be counted as killing the only thing which is in one's way to the ressurrection of said object of one's love?

"Why do I feel like I've just opened a whole can of worms? I think war is a special circumstance. Soldiers enter into a contract. All parties enter it knowing that they may die; that it could be a case of 'kill or be killed'. I think this is different from launching an attack on an innocent stranger with no prior warning. If, in your scenario, you forewarn the people you attack and they agree to fight you, without duress, knowing that death may result: in these circumstances killing them is justified."

So consent vindicates?

Athelwulf:

"Because often, if not always, it involves killing people, and sometimes it's for relatively stupid reasons."

What are non-stupid reasons to kill people over?

Theoryofrelativity:

"This slightly edited version may assist the posters in 'seeing' what this analogy represents IMO anyway."

Thank you, TOR. Although it actually is only your interpretation, it is nonetheless an excellent edit to pronounce that.

"We all like to think we are moral and righteous and would not resort to these measures, but really we as men are no diiffrent to other men and so in that situation, while perhaps not actively involved ourselves we may be sympathetic and supportive. "

Well let me ask this: If a man steals from one, may one steal what he owes back?

Your insights into the virtues of ethical dilemmas of an abstract nature, as well as your questions posed, are great contributions. Thank you for adding them.

leopold99:

So killing someone is -never- justified whatsoever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top