Is it wrong to kill evil people?

Setanta, you were right to mention "Beyond good and evil", but you did put it in a way that implied that that book was the final word on "good and evil" which of course it certainly isn't.

Only so long as they have no redeeming qualities, I imagine.

You have to conclude that this is no longer (if it ever was) an area of agreement. It was once the western norm that life is sacred, that a man does not have a right to take another man's life, only God does. However, when the most powerful nation on earth, the leader of the free world, regularly adopts a policy of assassination (the latest target "high value terrorist targets"-what ever the hell that means) then it is no longer a norm that we live by.

The laws of this country would still find you guilty of a crime;
it doesn't matter whether it's moral or immoral.

You had options before creating any vigilante group,
and that is to call the cops for "them" to arrest the (multiple murder) criminal and bring him to justice.

Attempted murder or premeditated murder is a crime in the US.

Morality is a very subjective criteria that is not only different by culture,
but in history of the same culture.

This kind of "what if" scenarios are not realistic.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

The laws of this country would still find you guilty of a crime;
it doesn't matter whether it's moral or immoral.

True, but this is a separate and distinct issue.
For example, Jack Ruby knew for sure that he 'd be convicted
of killing Oswald, since he did it in front of the sheriff, half the town
and on national TV, but he did it anyway.
Apparently, in his vu, it was the right thing to do.

We can't separate morals and our laws, because the laws of our country is the final arbiter of what happens in the final analysis; it doesn't matter what each individual's moral claims.

Quote:

You had options before creating any vigilante group,
and that is to call the cops for "them" to arrest the (multiple murder) criminal and bring him to justice.

Yes.
That is the EASIEST way to handle it.
As a general rule,
that 's what I 'd do; or possibly just forget about it,
depending on how I felt about it.

Each individual determines how they will respond to any crime. Some will even get involved in the attempt to stop the crime, but I believe most will not take any action - during or after they witness a crime.

Quote:

Attempted murder or premeditated murder is a crime in the US.

Yes,
but analysing the law is not what this thread is about.
I was asking about what is right or rong,
not what is legal or illegal.

I believe that my above response answers this question; some will act, and most not.

Quote:

Morality is a very subjective criteria that is not only different by culture,
but in history of the same culture.

This kind of "what if" scenarios are not realistic.

Thay can be interesting, tho.


I remember an actor called "Mr. T" saying in an interview
that his mother complained of having been robbed
by someone in their neighborhood.
He said that he and his brothers hunted him down
and "you won 't see him no more."

If I were on a jury before whom he and his brothers
were prosecuted for homicide, under those circumstances,
I 'd find them not guilty.

I think that the reasoning in support of that is worth discussing.

Barring the legal aspects of any crime (although you would find them not guilty in the scenario you described), and addressing only the moral aspects of it, we will find that different people will have different responses to any one crime. There will never be an easy "consensus" as to the morality of any crime, because different people have different concepts of morality.



`

That comes as close to "evil" as we are going to hear. It may be BEYOND good and evil, with its matter of fact reference to the way things work, but, with regard to values it certainly isn't "perfectly o.k.".