☿ // 006; [anonymous text]

[fionnuisce]

A few questions for you.

If someone's existence or action is so reprehensible as to require a form of vengeance, is it then 'right' to act against them? Does one evil act justify another?

Furthermore, does any act justify murder in the name of what's 'right'? (Assume our example is in a place where death actually has normal consequences.)

Comments

[text] [anon]

[crouching_sin]

Of course. Sometimes it must happen for the greater good.

Alternatively, it can be justified to the person, but not to others. It depends on your point of view.

[permanon text]

[fionnuisce]

Good is subjective. One acting as what they believe is a force for good could easily be evil to others.

[text] fuck coding I'm mobile

[bloodyashes]

For the second, death shouldn't be used as a punishment. It should only be used to prevent someone from doing further harm to others.

[He's unsure, on the first point, when he thinks about it. That one will have to go unanswered.]

[permanon text] s'cool

[fionnuisce]

Is the distinction really an important one? An individual could mean their actions to be the latter, but they may well have some shades of the former to their motivations.

text

[puppy_lancer]

sure
why not
kill them

permanon text

[fionnuisce]

And you're so confident that course of action is always morally correct?

[AnonText]

[oathshackledbird]

You ask for a black and white answer to a grey question. The answer...is not so easy as that.

[permanon text until they're stupid]

[fionnuisce]

I'm well aware of that. I sought opinions more than I did a 'yes' or 'no'.

[text] [anon]

[chevalier_mal_fet]

I cannot Judge without Knowledge of the offenses of the Accused. For many have claimed the right to levy Justice on others when such a Right was not theirs to exercise. Such as these are nothing more than executioners.

As to your second question, I cannot say for certain. I would only caution that Righteousness requires Selflessness. Your Right Action must be on the part of an Innocent-- it should not benefit yourself.

[permanon 5ever]

[fionnuisce]

It's a hypothetical matter. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head.

No one is truly and completely selfless. Or at least, I don't think they should try to be if they have any intention of remaining sane.

[permaanon text is the cool thing to do now apparently]

[destructiveprinciples]

yes.
evil begets evil and all that.
what kind of scenario are we talking about here?

but hmm, nah. you can't justify murder for anything really, much less in the name of something unreliable like what's "right." that could mean anything.
but murder is murder
why do you need to justify it?
more importantly
what do you think is suitable? you personally miss/mister anon.

[totes]

[fionnuisce]

It's a hypothetical scenario, that's all.

And I imagine some might want to find some justification. Murder is something of a big deal to people when death actually sticks after the first time.

gilles doesn't type | forever non-anon audio

[monstrueux]

[Oh, a philosophy game! He's not great at these, but he likes them. It takes Gilles a while to figure this out at first, so enjoy the garbled noises and radio silence.]

To repay murder with murder, it makes little sense, but nonetheless, it is amusing! To think that these "good" men will roll in filth with the "evil". Those who would murder a criminal would stain their own hands with blood. I can speak on it. I was executed. Did it undo my crimes, did it change my heart? It did not.

These killings are seldom righteous. Those who murdered me did not even do so because of my crimes. They wanted my land, that was all. How just!

Murder is never justified. It is beyond justification. Is it justified to paint a portrait, to kiss a lover? No, these things are purely acts. They exist, and we give them meaning. A sword blow is heroism on the battlefield and murder in the drawing room.

permanon text; i'd be shocked if he could type with those nails

[fionnuisce]

[UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH WHAT IS HIS LUCK]

[worse yet he's comprehending where you're coming from, gillybean]

'Seldom', rather than 'never'? I'd think it would make sense to kill a murderer in order to stop him, if that was in fact one's motive.

[anonymous text]

[midgarhorizon]

[He normally wouldn't have responded to this, just lurking around on the network for the day, but... things like this had been heavy on his mind for the past year. Carefully, he types out his response.]

Is it evil killing someone who nearly destroyed a planet, because we did, and we sacrificed most of our number.

Is it evil killing the man responsible for the past thirty years of terror, because they did, and I let them go. And then they saved the world for the second time.

Is it evil letting what created us die, when we were sworn to protect it, because we knew what it had done. We saved the seed to let it grow again.

Every act involved murder. Kill or be killed. I don't think what you call evil is, I'd call it keeping balance. Natural cycles. Nature is neutral in its decisions on who lives and who dies, but it absolutely requires a balance. If we survive, if we can save our lives, that will need a balance too.

But then, I've committed acts that you could call reprehensible, so maybe I'm not one to talk.

[anonymous text]

[fionnuisce]

Survival of the fittest, then. I might call that a better reasoning than most would have.

[careful anon]

[seventhsong]

Define 'evil'.

[less than careful anon]

[fionnuisce]

Something you find reprehensible or unforgivable.

[text]

[notsogrimreaper]

There are some times when it's right. There are multiple ways of handling a situation like that, but they're not all bad. Sometimes getting rid of something evil is the only way to move on.

[text]

[fionnuisce]

Even so, is one just supposed to live with 'I did what was right' as some form of comfort? Death seems like the kind of thing that might be heavy on one's conscience.

[greyerrant]

Yes, absolutely. Purging a traitor cannot be considered evil, anymore than civil soviety can be considered evil for imprisoning or destroying a criminal.

As for murder, are we speaking of extrajudicial killing outside of a strictly military context? Then I would say no, that is the place of society to do what is right, and bring the transgressor to justice. To say that you are the only one who can define or bring justice is the most ridiculous sort of pride, and I've seen the unfortunate results.

[fionnuisce]

And in a place where 'society' lacks any concrete justice system? What happens then?

text

[warriorscribe]

I would rather only kill in defense of myself or another. I believe the only situation in which this is "right" is if the person in question is going to harm someone else.

permanon text

[fionnuisce]

Does it being the most viable option automatically make it some value of 'right', though? Or is it just answering a terrible action with another terrible action?

text

[thirtybits]

[It takes Judas a long while of staring at the screen to decide what to say. Or rather, how to say it. But he feels he needs to weigh in.]

No act justifies murder, even if it's 'for the greater good', or 'what's right'. That is, in the sense that it's a great sin to take a life, regardless of the reasons. I believe that in the eyes of God, murder is always the same. There is no way to be vindicated to Him without repetance.

However, it's necessary. If it's 'what's right', then someone has to do it. Sacrificing one to save many is often the reason. The lives of many are more important than the single one. And while capturing a criminal may be enough to save the lives they might otherwise destroy, it's important for us to carry out punishment. So we all will fear the consequences of our actions, not only in death.

[It turned out a lot more religious than he meant it to, woops.]

permanon text

[fionnuisce]

I'll admit that's a perspective I wouldn't have thought to consider. I more or less lost most of my faith some time ago, if I ever had much.

Even so that sounds roughly like how I have to look at it at this point. if one has to take 'justice' into their own hands, they should probably be prepared to be damned in some capacity. Whether that should be by themselves, others, or some higher power isn't entirely relevant.

[anon text]

[culbutiri]

[What an interesting question. Nesir quickly checked no one was around before turning the computer anonymous, she had learned that skill quickly] No.

If you believe murder is an 'evil' then it is evil, no matter who you are killing.

You cannot say that people should not be murdered but then claim murdering someone is right, because you don't agree with what they have done.

Unless you say that anyone can be murdered as long as they have a different ethical or moral background than you.

[permanon doot doot doot]

[fionnuisce]

I would hardly go that far, of course. 'Anyone' is a bit too loose a definition, but at the same time even killing one in the name of what's believed to be 'right' is a slippery slope.

If I had to speak on the morality of the act itself, I'd likely say 'necessary evil' depending on perspective.