Would you kill a stranger to secure the safety of a loved one?

If you thought (but weren't sure) that someone you loved was at risk would you kill an (innocent) stranger to secure their safety?

Is it right to do so?

For myself.
Question 1 = maybe
Question 2 = no

What are your thoughts?



If you want to create a valid discussion, simply post the premise for that discussion.

The members of the Senate are quite capable in that regard, and everyone will appreciate your academic honesty.

There's no reason to try and "trick" anyone just to promote your own misconceptions.

 

Is it right?

No, it's not.

Would I do it to secure the safety of my son or daughter or wife or girlfriend or brother, etc?

If I had no choice or way around it... yes.

 

Yes. For my Significant Other, I would. I would hate myself for the rest of my life... but if it was either my lover or the stranger... I'm sorry stranger, but she takes the cake.

JMA

 

the greatest love one may have is to die for one's friends.

Now killing is another story.

however, if my friends or family were being threatened I would do everything and anything in my power to protect them, even if that meant killing.

so yes.

 

Kind of a vague question. Really depends on the situation.

 

uhm...If they are innocent then HOW would killing them secure the safety of a loved one?

If someone is threatening my wife or son. I WILL kill them.

 

Aside from bombing foreign nations or paranoid-schizophrenic hallucinations, I can't think of a real life situation that mirrors this scenario.

Personally, unless the threat was real, direct and imminent, violence would not be my course of action.

Defence and bunker down while awaiting the arrival of the authorities is the first course of action. Next comes tactical retreat to a new safe point. Lack of a means of retreat or a safe point would necessitate the use of violence - but even then the attempt is to incapacitate or restrain the assailant whilst my family gets out of harms path. I can't imagine killing someone unless it was an absolute last resort.

 

I would do anything for my family, but kill an INNOCENT person to secure their SAFETY? Errr...no.

But I really think that question has to be better defined. How would killing an innocent person ensure their safety? What constitutes safety?

 

Someone's seen Saw recently.

 

Better him/her than my family.
It's not the right way to think yes, but hey, when it comes to my loved ones the anamil instict emerges.

 

Depends on whether or not I thought there was a real danger. If I didn't have proof, I wouldn't do anything, but if I knew that someone was trying to harm someone I loved, I would kill easily.

 

End this travesty.

 

The "necessry" civilian casualties of war were what I had in mind.

The details of this scenrio were hidden in order to present the chooser with only stakes and consequnces.

The recent war in Iraq is an example. We invaded because we perceived a possible threat though we were not absolutely certain of it.

Civilian casualties were to be expected as they always are in war. This is never in doubt.

In effect. We killed civilians to ensure the safety of our nation.

According to the respondents, the killing of innocents to secure the safety of our loved ones is a natural reaction but it is not right. And certainly nothing to be proud of. It is at best a terrible necessity.

Why then do some argue that killing innocent strangers while under a banner of war is different?

Now that the scenario's purpose has been revealed, the defenders of the "just"ness of the war will no doubt rally and insist that this is "different" somehow. If I had initially presented this in a war context, it would have sabotaged the inherrent ethical question because people would have factored in their political and nationalistic dispositions (as well as cultural comparissons) which tend to change some people's ethics.
Their minds will now force them to make arguments for the justness of the casualties in order to defend their hypocracy of unjustifiable casualties in one scenario and justifiable ones in another despite the fact that the motivations are the same for this hypotheticaal context and the war in Iraq.

Apologies to the admins and to any who feel tricked but a new thread ws necessary to gain honest opinion. Had the quetion been posed in the Iraq thread, people would have modified their opinions in suspicion of having to justify this scenario in a war context and tempers are running too high there for me to believe that the opinions would have been objective. But here, there was only a scenario specifically devoid of national pride and political issues in order to promote greater objective analysis of the inherrent ethics involved.

And besides, if national pride and political issues are all it takes for some people to consider the deaths of strangers just, then they're already warmongers beyond reason with no concept of the value of someone's life just because they don't know them personally.

But to those who find yourselves in conflict over why you can't justify innocent death in one scenario but can do so in another I beseech you, don't just go running for a rationalization as to how you can reconile the two but consider for just a moment that maybe the reason you're in conflict is because the war really may be wrong.

Let what you know to be true define you rather than what you want to be true. Once you start doing that, you're no longer being honest to yourself or to those around you. If your core beliefs aren't honest, then how can anything else be that has grown out of them?

Killing strangers to potentially save our loved ones may be natural but it isn't right. It isn't righteous and its certainly nothing to be proud of. Don't let any presdient or any person tell you otherwise.

It is a travesty to be avoided at all costs until there is absolutely no other possible choice.

Don't let a flag trick you into thinking otherwise because innocent life is far important than any flag will ever be.

 

I'll still stick by my answer. I have to feel there's a legitimate threat. Iraq isn't imo.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't kill Iraqi's because I feel that they aren't any threat to my family.

 

The problem, Star Wars Fan X, is that I don't think any proponents of the Iraq war on these pages responded to your question...

 

well Iraqi's shot at Marine Corps Prowlers on a daily basis, and we are a band of brothers, so, they had it coming!

 

I don't think I would. I don't think I am capable of that kind of calculated murder.

Besides, I don't think it would be right to take my pain and give it to someone else. That innocent person probly had a family and loved ones and I don't think it's right to just dump your pain and darkness on someone else like that.

And I think my loved ones would rather die than have me kill someone for them. We aren't really even that religous.