Is it wrong to kill evil people?

Im sure that if any of your loved ones were the victims of an evil person (or whatever you wish to call them) you would all have the same oppinion. I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in their face and go home to a full night of sleep.

2 Replies

@Pigmie1,

I'm certain you'd probably sleep well even if it meant it turns out you killed the wrong person. So good for you.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

They may be ****, but I abjure killing them.

I just realized how old this thread is. May have spoken before. Will review. Likely similar.

0 Replies

@Pigmie1,

And if they killed your loved one out of revenge would your revenge killing of them not make you just as "evil" as they ?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

And if they killed your loved one out of revenge would your revenge killing
of them not make you just as "evil" as they ?

CLEARLY, it woud not.
The first act justifies the response thereto.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But what if their killing of your loved one was a "response" to the loved one's murder of one of their loved ones? What I'm saying is that in such a special circumstance you would be just as "evil" as was your vengeance victim.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

But what if their killing of your loved one was a "response" to the loved one's murder of one of their loved ones?
What I'm saying is that in such a special circumstance you would be just as "evil" as was your vengeance victim.

Thank u for an interesting question.
There is a potential, depending upon the factual history of these events,
of a great degree of difference of "evil" between the results of the 2 killings.

From an objective, neutral perspective, if the first killing were
morally justified vengeance for egregious misconduct,
then the second killing might well NOT be justified.

If the first killing were not morally justified, e.g. if it were incidental to a robbery,
then the second one woud be morally OK.

However, someone who executes vengeance must be prepared
for the consequences of that act; if not, he shoud remain passive.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

To label someone "evil" is self-degrading. First off, you would have to affirm your own belief that the dualism good/evil is valid or more beneficial to you than a different, perhaps more intellectually sound outlook. You are not doing yourself a favor, and in the interest of achieving an understanding that lets you say that life is good I'd say that doing this to yourself is wrong.

As for killing someone, aside from the social consequences of this, there are the consequences you face alone after such an act. History has shown us that taking human life tends to alienate the one doing it, creating more conflicts in everyday life.
So if you want to live a life that is good and free it is wrong to kill. "Evil" is merely a justification. There is no evil, only greed, selfishness and stupidity.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

To label someone "evil" is self-degrading.
First off, you would have to affirm your own belief that the dualism good/evil is valid or more beneficial to you than a different, perhaps more intellectually sound outlook. You are not doing yourself a favor, and in the interest of achieving an understanding that lets you say that life is good I'd say that doing this to yourself is wrong.

As for killing someone, aside from the social consequences of this, there are the consequences you face alone after such an act. History has shown us that taking human life tends to alienate the one doing it, creating more conflicts in everyday life.
So if you want to live a life that is good and free it is wrong to kill. "Evil" is merely a justification. There is no evil, only greed, selfishness and stupidity.

Lemme get back to u on that.
I 'm not entirely sure whether I 'll be able to address
your reasoning b4 I leave for Florida on Monday A.M.

In the meantime,
how do your remarks affect
considerations of self defense from violence ?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cryacuz, I appreciate the distinction between "evil" and "bad" as follows: "bad" is a simple evaluation of some event, condition or act in terms of its value for oneself, it's bad (as in unprofitable, dangerous, inconvenient, etc.) for me or for society. But "evil" is a virtually metaphysical construction. An objective and absolute quantity in reality. This I do not accept; that is an ideological construction passing as an objective quantity like gravity.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Well, if you end up killing someone in self defense, then your opponent defeated you too, in a way.
The same if you were driving a car and someone ran into the road and got hit by you. I don't think you will be emotionally unaffected by either circumstance, and I don't think the intent of the person who died matters in this regard.

If the choice is die or terminate the force directed at you, the sensible thing do is end the threat. Wether it's a sinking ship or a person coming at you, unless you take an appropriate action you are done for. The choice is down to live or die, and if this is immoral, so is making bread. It's simply needed for survival.

Of course, judgment is involved. If you are crafty you may have other ways to defend yourself. You may see the threat coming before it's any real danger if you are aware. And if you are of the general opinion that there's nothing sacred about life you are more likely to resort to killing.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JL, in a way "evil" is perhaps only the anticipation of someone who experiences "bad" from any source consistently. In that person's existence "evil" will perhaps be percieved as an objective and absolute quantity.
Good vs. evil/bad seems a pretty self centered categorization function.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

To label someone "evil" is self-degrading.

In one metafisical sense, I agree with u.

Cyracuz wrote:

First off, you would have to affirm your own belief that the
dualism good/evil is valid or more beneficial to you than
a different, perhaps more intellectually sound outlook.
You are not doing yourself a favor, and in the interest of
achieving an understanding that lets you say that life is
good I'd say that doing this to yourself is wrong.

As for killing someone, aside from the social consequences of this,
there are the consequences you face alone after such an act.
History has shown us that taking human life tends to alienate
the one doing it,

Alienate him from WHAT?

Cyracuz wrote:

creating more conflicts in everyday life.

Which conflicts do u have in mind ?

Cyracuz wrote:

So if you want to live a life that is good and free it is wrong to kill.

Without killing, we 'd starve to death.

Cyracuz wrote:

"Evil" is merely a justification. There is no evil, only greed, selfishness and stupidity.

I take exception to your characterizing, tainting greed and selfishness,
which I encourage in everyone (not stinginess).

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, if you end up killing someone in self defense, then your opponent defeated you too, in a way.

Maybe; that depends on the circumstances and upon the mentality
of the surviving killer. If it happens with police involvement,
a liberal D.A. may wish to vindicate the criminal predator,
at the expense of the innocent victim; that has HAPPENED.
That can entail great expense and annoyances,
but it is better to be tried by 12 men than carried by 6.

If u r attacked by a felon alone in the wilderness,
with no witnesses, if u r able to kill him,
u r better off just leaving him there (with no evidence)
and going on your way without further involvement.

In that event, he will not have defeated u, so far as I can see.
If u disagree, please indicate how n Y.

Cyracuz wrote:

The same if you were driving a car and someone ran into the road and got hit by you.
I don't think you will be emotionally unaffected by either circumstance,

That HAPPENED to a former acquaintance of mine, a boy around 18. He seemed unaffected by it,
as he had plenty of insurance.

Cyracuz wrote:

and I don't think the intent of the person who died matters in this regard.

That is a SHOCKING statement.
Its entirely opposite in the case of a careless pedestrian
whose stupidity causes his own death,
as distinct from
a malefactor who pounces on u, in violent depredation.
If u r so lucky as to kill him, every citizen who hears of it
shoud cheer and exult in that thay r no longer exposed to any danger from him.

Cyracuz wrote:

If the choice is die or terminate the force directed at you,
the sensible thing do is end the threat. Wether it's a sinking ship
or a person coming at you, unless you take an appropriate action
you are done for. The choice is down to live or die, and if this is
immoral, so is making bread. It's simply needed for survival.

Of course, judgment is involved. If you are crafty you may have
other ways to defend yourself. You may see the threat coming
before it's any real danger if you are aware. And if you are of the
general opinion that there's nothing sacred about life you are more likely to resort to killing.

Maybe. If u leave him alive, he can continue to manifest his violent malice
upon your fellow citizens, who might be less fortunate in self defense than u were.

If u come upon a visibly rabid dog, or rattlesnake in a city,
is it a GOOD thing to intentionally leave him alive ?

Leave other citizens to deal with him as well as thay are lucky enuf to do?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Alienate from normal, quiet everyday life as shared by the millions of people who never have to face the side of themselves that is capable of ending another human life. It's a pandora's box, I think, and once it's opened your world is changed. As to what kind of problems, look at war veterans and murderers. Ask any of them, how many do you think could honestly say they are where they want to be, both physically and mentally.

And without killing we would indeed starve. The idea of heaven, an existence of "good" without any counterpart, defies human perception and is thus impossible for a human being.

And your greed can hurt others. It is your ignorance if it does and you don't know about it. The same goes for selfishness. It's your stupidity if you don't care if you have many times more than what you need while others have nothing.
And the curious thing is that many times, those who will claim to be hurt by your selfishness and greed are themselves selfish and greedy people who are just offended.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

That makes sense: evil as a characteristic of a person who consistently generates bad outcomes for you. But this may be for reasons not essential to the "evil-doer"; the reasons may be circumstantial. An "evil person", on the other hand, is evil even when he is not generating ANY outcomes; it's his essential nature.
This, of course, does not exist except as a fantasy on the part of essentialists.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Alienate from normal, quiet everyday life as shared by the millions of people
who never have to face the side of themselves that is capable
of ending another human life. It's a pandora's box, I think, and
once it's opened your world is changed.

In other words, u r saying that it is better if emergencies do not occur.
I will stipulate that quiet life without problems is better.

If a puma, large dog, lunatic or robber attacks Cyracuz, he will need
to deal with that situation; I hope that u will survive.

Cyracuz wrote:

As to what kind of problems, look at war veterans and murderers.

Well, Stalin and Castro r murderers. Did thay regret it? Is there evidence of regret?

Cyracuz wrote:

Ask any of them, how many do you think could honestly say
they are where they want to be, both physically and mentally.

No. There is a bell-shaped distribution of their feelings.
Some regret their murders and other laff and say thay 'd do it again.
Don 't u know that??

Cyracuz wrote:

And your greed can hurt others. It is your ignorance if it does and you don't know about it.
The same goes for selfishness. It's your stupidity if you don't care
if you have many times more than what you need while others have nothing.

I certainly CARE: I wish to augment my resources, optimally.
I reject your characterization of "stupidity".

Cyracuz wrote:

And the curious thing is that many times,
those who will claim to be hurt by your selfishness and greed
are themselves selfish and greedy people who are just offended.

That is the natural way for everyone to BE.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The natural state of everyone to be is in a state of evolving.
I have experienced how selfless acts can offer greater rewards than selfishness, so I would like to evolve past my animal impulses and become more in command of my nature. We all evolve differently, and which way is the one that leads to the future I guess only time will tell. But I am pretty sure no one will get there alone.

0 Replies

A better question would be, "Is it wrong to kill good people?"

1 Reply

@Foley,

Does this mean that it is not a problem regarding the killling of "evil" people?

1 Reply

Is it wrong to kill evil people?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know