Would it be immoral to kill a person even if he/she deserves it?

Question

Consider: If that person has done a lot of bad things in his life e.g. raping, stealing, killing, etc.

Or what if that person would be planning to kill another person and the only way to stop him is to kill him first? Would it be okay then or would it still be considered immoral?

Answer 1

nobody can judge another person at all.

we have our own differences and standards about a person,

but we really can't tell if one deserves to be killed or not.

so yes,it will be immoral.

think about this,what if i kill you for the reason that u deserve to be killed cause you have a smelly feet?u know what i mean?

Answer 2

I would think if he \was going to kill someone else and you were the only one who would be able to save that person it would be right to do it.  

But the cops wont understand so you will have some good time oi think over what youve done.

HA. self sacrifice to save that person. Who given enough time will die eventually. Is it relly worth it?  well you'd get time to think it through anyway.

(sorry, trrible mood I didn't mean that hte way it sounds)

Answer 3

Nah

Answer 4

Lots of differing positions here.  You bring in questions of morality, religion, law, judgment, etc.  Most of the world believes that capital punishment is wrong; that "an eye for and eye" hasn't proven an effective deterrent to crime. The U.S. is one of the few remaining countries that still allows the death penalty. Have you seen the Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report"?  It's about this very subject.  It poses the question that if you could predict who would commit a crime should you stop it before it happens. The problem (as Cruise finds out)is that none of these things is foolproof.  Clearly if there was one single way to deter crime then as a society we should implement it without further discussion.  Criminals however, come in as many varieties as there are human beings.  While our juducial system isn't perfect by any means it still seems to be the best of the alternativies thus far.  Innocent until proven guilty and judgement by a jury of your peers may seem archaic but we've yet to see a better alternative. Over time our system has adapted and will hopefully continue to do so. Seems to me we will only make significant strides in reducing criminal behavior when we begin to understand what it is that causes it in the first place. Why does someone rape, steal, or kill?  What factors are present to indicate this potential behavior?  How can these be recognized early enough to prevent an unwanted result?  We're not there, and I'm not sure we ever will be.  

Answer 5

Immoral according to what?? Who and What are you setting your standards according to?? Do you know that everyone across the nation has a different background, belief or religion? If you took an honest poll across the world, you wouldn't get an "absolute" answer.

If you are a Christian, yes.

If you are a Buddhist, yes

If you are an American (our government is against it), yes

(etc, etc, etc, etc)

It's dumb to place what you believe is right or wrong, according to what society says. For example, society used to say racism is right. Some religions change, but overall they are more consistent than society.

Answer 6

You used the operative word when you said DESERVES it. That which is deserved is never immoral when paid. The question is: Is death deserved?

Answer 7

the wicked should be punished, no doubt, but who are you do decide their punishment? you are human as well and you are flawed, as is every human.

think this over...why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?

killing, no matter the circomstances, is a sin because who are you, or any of us to claim divine justice over someone else? its an expample of the flawed leading the flawed. no person(s) have the right to play god...no man has the right to be the judje, jury, and exicutioner over the life of another.

but in the situation you are discribing, i would kill that person to stop them from hurting another. because my cause may seem worthy does not make killing "okay" by any means. a life does not equal a life.i would accept that what i did was still immoral, and accept my punishment at judjement day...

everyone will get their just rewards, weather it be by an almighty God, karma, or some other force...

Answer 8

Taking life is always wrong/immoral/unethical.

Your question creates a false premise. You assume that the only way to stop such a person is death.

On the short term if the bad person is "planning" to kill another person you have many options including warning the target and the authorities, disabling the attacker, disarming the attacker, and of course defending the target personally.

On a more long term view there are also more options: You miss the obvious solution of life imprisonment and the less obvious solution of disablement (example: surgical removal of the person's eyes) which would leave him/her helpless to commit serious crimes.

Most criminals are "anti-social" meaning they see no need to interact in positive ways with other members of society. Once disabled such individuals would find the need for social interaction would be critical. Death is not the only option for dealing with such people.

Answer 9

to take someone's life, no matter what they did, is wrong.    

Answer 10

Not at all. If a person has done a very cruel act which can't be given normal punishment rather to kill, then U NEED TO FINISH HIM OFF.

  This will also create a sense of threatness in the minds of others and such happenings can be reduced atleast upto an extent.

     SO there is no harm in killing him.( my point of view).

Ya but do try to tell him that what he has done is wrong and give him a chance to correct himself. Even after that he behaves the same way ...direct action kill him.

Answer 11

Define immoral...be careful with you words with a philosophy question, people who blew up the two towers thought that was the most moral thing they could do for there country , Most people thought it was immoral,so this question stands on no strong feet.

To  answerer i would say "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" direct quote from bible saying what ever you do to me or someone else im gonna to the same back. This is Wrong im my opinion it's hypocritical for killing someone for killing...can no-one see the irony there?

Answer 12

Ideally, killing isn't justified in any circumstances other than self defense or war. Even then the real goal isn't to cause death, but to remove a threat.

Removing the threat by locking up the bad guy is just as effective as killing them. For practical purposes, making them earn a living to pay for their incarceration should be mandatory.

We cannot predict the future. We are not qualified to decide who lives and who dies. What if we make a mistake? What if it wasn't the right person we executed?

I'm not against humane chain-gangs or penal farms where the inmates grow their own food and some extra to sell to pay for their facilities.

I just can't see a good enough reason to become a killer. I think it would be better to make sure the murderer isn't a threat and make them pay back their victims.

The problem is that prison's are just full of people who may not need to be there. Someone who steals a car or does drugs, should get some kind of punishment, but they shouldn't be locked away and forgotten about. In my opinion, only REAL threats or dangerous people need to be locked in cages. Death row doesn't do a thing to reduce prison populations because the appeals process takes so long. You can have a guy spend 50 years in prison before he's executed.

Whats the point?  Make him work until he dies. That way he contributes to society whether he wants to or not.

Good luck.

Answer 13

Who decide what moral or immoral is? Who decides on what is right or wrong, or what deserves death? Plus, if you are killing a person, taking away a life, something sacroscant, are you any better than the person you are killing? (considering that you think the person deserves to die). Plus, what if you thinks that a person deserves to die, but are wrong, or make a mistake? Taking a life away is irrevocable. Also, if you do kill a person you think deserves to die, will you feel that what the have done is right, therefore you ought not to be punished?

You can't really come to a very conclusive answer, because every situation is different and it's hard to peg something like this down into a single category.

I think that in defense of yourself, or those you love, death ought to be a last resort, but if necessary I guess it must be taken...

Mind you, if faced with a real-life situation (God forbid!), I doubt many of us would be able to make calm, rational decisions... This is all purely theoretical.

If you see the movie Wanted, the assassins get their killing orders from the threads of 'fate', and the orders followed can save many lives at the cost of one. But in the end, the assassins themselves need to be killed... As they become exactly what they are destroying.

Answer 14

depends on your own morals.  me - kill 'em.

Answer 15

first of all we're not really fit to see if a person deserves to die, mostly because hiwever you put it he's gonna end up in some kind of h**l.

secondly, it really depends on how. when this guy leaps for the attack or whatever and then you shoot him thats somefink like self-defense but its different if you capture this guy then hang him or electrecute him before anything.