Moral doing about guilt. Whats right and whats wrong?

Question

One asks what happens if a man kills.

#1person- "then one way or another he'll be punished."

#2person-"if he's caught"

#1person-"If he's not caught that which originates from a black deed will blossom in a foul manner."

#3person-"if he can do it and get away with it, and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he's home free. Remember, history is written by the winners. And if the n***s had won, future generations would understand the story of World War II quite differently"

Does either position strike you as being more plausible than the other? Is there an 'in-between' position that you find better? If so, what is this position.

Answer 1

Person #1 is assuming that justice will come to the killer wether he is caught or not, making this person a believer in karma of some sort. They can point to anything bad happening in a person's life and say they brought it on themselves at some point.

Person #2 believes justice will only be served by your fellow man once you are caught.

Person #3 believes that there is no crime if you are on the winning side, thus justifying any actions taken as necessary to achieve the end. Only the losing side will be tried for committing crimes.

Each position has plausability, depending on your own background and beliefs. You will find yourself behind the position that reflects your own morality. It might even be possible for one person to share more than one position.

Answer 2

where are you going with this because I don't think you are going anywhere with this.