[Liberator]

Before I finish the question begun above, I realize this is the completely wrong forum for this, but I wanted to get the opinions and thoughts of people learned than myself on this thought.  So if a mod could move this into General that would be awesome.

Okay, so I was listening to NPR while doing the dishes a bit ago(I was waiting for Echoes to come on) and the host and guest were talking about the guests book about Charles Deslondes who planned and led the 1811 German Coast slave revolt.  It sparked a "discussion" between me and my father not only as to the benefit of talking ad nauseum about what in his mind was a small and forgettable event, but also what the difference between Deslondes and the historcal slave revolt leader of Spartacus whom history has largely treated as a hero, so I ask the following:

When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?

That is what I seek opinion and deeper thinking on.

[General Battuta]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

[Rodo]

When you feel your freedom is more important than the person's life you are about to take.

But remember you'll have to live with that decision, so...

[Thaeris]

Ah yes, the classic question: how many crimes must be committed to achieve justice - bearing in mind that your own justice might very well be a relative one. For better or worse, our world is built on that premise.

Just keep in mind that (as Battuta was saying) there is no "absolute right" here, as some wrongdoing is always present; ultimately, he or she who is responsible for the lives and deaths of others must bear that burden.

[zookeeper]

When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?

At the same point at which it becomes ok for any other reason as well.

But then again, the slave owners would definitely not have agreed with the notion that killing is wrong. So if we have a slave owner who doesn't think killing for stupid reasons is ok (such as if your slave just decides to leave) and then their slave kills them for freedom or pretty much whatever other reason, who am I to say that it was wrong? The slave owner didn't think killing was wrong and then he was killed. If the slave owner doesn't have a problem with being killed (and they can't have a problem with that without also having a problem with killing slaves, which they didn't have a problem with) then I don't have a problem with it.

[Nuclear1]

It never does.

[Scotty]

It is never okay to kill for your freedom or ideals or what have you.

That said, sometimes it is necessary, in the defense of some of what is covered in the above two terms.  That said, if you have to kill someone to preserve either, someone, somewhere ****ed up very, very badly.

[NGTM-1R]

When there are no other options remaining. Not for you, necessarily, but as a group.

So basically, like the others, but without the boilerplate "killing is always and only wrong" disclaimer. It is the option to be taken last, certainly. This means it is less valid, not invalid.

[iamzack]

meh. life, death, who cares in the longrun anyway.

[Mars]

It depends entirely where you derive your ethics. I think that someone who "owns" you and expresses a disregard for your life represents a clear and present threat to that life. Thus, killing them is as justifiable as self defense.

If not, then if they threaten you while you escape, then that becomes self defense.

Honestly, I don't imagine having any great difficulty killing someone who claimed to own me that way; no more than I'd have in killing someone with a gun to my face.

[Grizzly]

"You reap what you sow, Artyom. Force answers force, war breeds war, and death only brings death. In order to break this vicous cycle one must do more then just act without any thought or doubt" - Khan, Metro 2033.

The problem with many slave revolts is simply that they all get themselves killed without actually having changed anything, and then get portrayed as 'terrorists'. It's ineffective, especially in today's world. Non violent protests attract much more attention.

[Goober5000]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

um...

Here's a situation.  You are facing a madman with a chainsaw.  He will kill you if you do nothing.  You have a pistol and are an expert marksman.  You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.

So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary.  By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.

Do I summarize your position accurately?


EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom.  Were they wrong to do so?

[Dilmah G]

When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?

At the same point at which it becomes ok for any other reason as well.

I agree.

As for the general topic of killing itself, my opinion is that it's always contextual. I don't believe there's a blanket example you can use and from then-on apply it to say that killing is either okay or not okay in any circumstance.

I think for the most part, people do not have to die. Everyone, no matter who you are, has a family, friends, people who care about them. When you kill a man, you affect at the very least, two other people, whose state affects the people around them. This ripple effect is almost as bad as the death itself, if not even worse in some cases.

Also, Goober, whilst my personal belief is that it would be permissible by my view to shoot the chainsaw wielding bloke and inflict lethal force, I don't believe that it's the only option. What if he's at a distance from you, could you not attempt to get him talking? If you could get him to calm down and drop the thing without anyone being wounded or killed, that, in my opinion, would be the most positive conclusion to the series of events possible from the point at which you became involved.

And on topic, I agree with NGTM-1R's response. It's definitely not the first option to be taken, but if there's no other way, having your freedom taken isn't okay either. And it is a rather significant issue. Especially if other people are affected and their freedoms are also taken, I think one would be in the wrong to not do anything.

[Nuclear1]

EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom.  Were they wrong to do so?

The differences between 1776 and 2011 are so vast this is almost like comparing apples to oranges.

1776:
1)  Colonies under rule of a monarchy.  King later declared insane.
2)  Colonists several thousand miles away from their government.  Messages would often take weeks to travel.
3)  Not much difference between colonists' arms and the military's arms.

2011:
1)  States under the rule of a representative democracy. 
2)  Citizens may be far away from Washington D.C., but messages and petitions travel virtually instantaneously.
3)  Huge gap between the citizens' weaponry and military arms.

So actually, let me clarify:  There's no excuse in a modern, Western democratic society to resort to violence for liberty's sake.  I can't say the same for other societies, but it should be Western democracies' responsibility to push for reform and human rights in those countries where violence is seen as necessary.

"We should be pouring our heart and soul into politics....but no one should have to spill their blood."

[Mefustae]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

um...

Here's a situation.  You are facing a madman with a chainsaw.  He will kill you if you do nothing.  You have a pistol and are an expert marksman.  You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.

So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary.  By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.

Do I summarize your position accurately?

You make a good point. Morals are a fluid construct, and can never be nailed down. Hell, look at the arguments over software or digital media piracy. One man will say it's theft, while another will argue the principle and defend the act. Morals can't be used as an accurate gauge to determine the validity of an act, and this only becomes more apparent in an argument with widely-varied viewpoints and opinions.

But the fact remains; to take the life of another human being is wrong. There's no reason, at all, ever, that justifies murder. It's always wrong. As in your example, it could perhaps be necessary, but it's still a ****ing bad thing to do. I fail to understand how a logical argument can be constructed that results in the portrayal of murder in a positive and just light.

In that vein, "taking a life for the cause of freedom" is such a vague concept. Should it be truly necessary, like if the President is about to turn the orbital G.O.D. satellites on the Earth's surface, then it's probably a good idea. That said, if the rebellion is truly just, any deaths would be noted and those responsible held accountable when the dust settles. If you're truly taking a life for the cause of freedom, then you should be able to accept that murder is wrong and those who do so should lose their hard-won liberty.

[StarSlayer]

That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished?  By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less? 

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

I am a little curious about your stance on this.  I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences.  Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature.  Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act. 
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies.  If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded.  The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.

[General Battuta]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

um...

Here's a situation.  You are facing a madman with a chainsaw.  He will kill you if you do nothing.  You have a pistol and are an expert marksman.  You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.

So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary.  By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.

Do I summarize your position accurately?

EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom.  Were they wrong to do so?

Indeed you do, and of course it is wrong; it is simply less wrong than the alternative. I doubt that many men or women would say 'I wish I were in this position'; they would, after the fact, regret that it had been necessary and even occurred.

Killing is always wrong. It is somehow, however, necessary. Don't confuse the two.

That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished?  By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less? 

Ah, but the inaction of failing to kill may permit an even greater evil, meaning that those who kill for a cause may do less evil than those who do not. For example, a man with a gun who stands by and allows the axe-wielding psychopath above to butcher someone is clearly doing a greater wrong than he would if he fired the gun.

[StarSlayer]

That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished?  By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less? 

Ah, but the inaction of failing to kill may permit an even greater evil, meaning that those who kill for a cause may do less evil than those who do not. For example, a man with a gun who stands by and allows the axe-wielding psychopath above to butcher someone is clearly doing a greater wrong than he would if he fired the gun.

Which I agree with, but I think we got are debate wires crossed.  I was arguing that Mef's point that in a revolution those who acted to bring about the change should in turn be punished for their actions, was silly.  If you fought to bring down a tyrannical government you bore the greatest weight to bring about that change for your entire society.  The only ones who could try and punish you afterwards would be the do nothings, who benefited from the revolution but sacrificed nothing to attain that freedom.  To me that is fiundamentally wrong.

[General Battuta]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

I am a little curious about your stance on this.  I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences.  Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature.  Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act. 
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies.  If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded.  The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.

Oh, my stance on this is formed from a completely (well, partially) synthetic morality that I don't believe has any empirical basis. It's proscriptive, not descriptive. Reality is totally amoral and killing is advantageous all the time. I just advocate a moral system in which killing is proscribed as always wrong.

[StarSlayer]

It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.

It may sometimes become necessary.

I am a little curious about your stance on this.  I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences.  Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature.  Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act. 
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies.  If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded.  The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.

Oh, my stance on this is formed from a completely (well, partially) synthetic morality that I don't believe has any empirical basis. It's proscriptive, not descriptive. Reality is totally amoral and killing is advantageous all the time. I just advocate a moral system in which killing is proscribed as always wrong.

Aw    I was hoping you had something a lot more empirical up your sleeve.  You know, MIT Studies, genetic imperatives...  something we could have a super awesome debate about.