Right or wrong.... - Page 14

Killing a human is not a preferred solution but the only times it is justified is when it is already happened. War and capital punishment are the only acceptable methods of killing humans. But war is often the most awkward one. In the case of war it is not wrong to rise up against an opposing army or when a nation is a serious (and legitimate) threat. But war as with capital punishment must be carefully deliberated before carried out

killing out of love is ok, i beliieve,killing in defens of some or your self i also beleive is ok/ or not evil i should say.

Does it cease to be murder if love is the intent? Becuase then Hitler was not a war criminal because his war was fought out of love for his nationality.
When a display of love is an act of hate you must question it's validity.

yes, and thats where opinions come in. we are in disagreement therefore there can be no absolute answer/value. htler killed the jewish because he hated them. not because he loved the christians. from now on i'll put this (""" and that means st least thats what i think, because im getting tired of typing that over and over agian.

quote:

---

htler killed the jewish because he hated them. not because he loved the christians

---

He hated them because he thought they were ruining his beloved nation. He also then would have killed them to defend the purity of the German race (so love based self defense killing). War Hitler a war criminal?

if that is why he did it, then no, he is not a crimanal of war. but that doesn't mean we have to let it go. we dont need to be "right" to justify our actions. the only thing w need is a want to do them. thats justification enough.

yes killing for love is ok. and yes if he killed for that reason he was justified. and as absurd as it sounds, that is exactly what i am doing. he was justified, if thats why he did it. but i dont care if he was justifeod or not, i would have shot him in the face with out thinking twice.('''

quote:

---

but i dont care if he was justifeod or not, i would have shot him in the face with out thinking twice

---

What makes you more right than him? If he was a justified killer as you suggest then it would be murder on your part to kill him making him a martyr and you a criminal.

I don't agree with moral subjectivism or cultural subjectivism, so, instead of exhausting myself with a long argument why, I'm just going to copy my Ethics' teacher's handout on moral relativity. Hooray for community college!

Is Morality Relative?

1. The claim "morality is relative" has two forms: Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism.

2.Subjectivism is the theory that morality is person-relative (like food preferences).

3. Subjectivist compare moral terms (such as "right" and "wrong" ) to other allegedly subjective terms: for example, "interesting," "boring," "delicious," "disgusting," "funny," "attractive."

4. The main argument for Subjectivism: Since (a) people disagree about morality, (b) morality must be relative to each person.

5. This argument fails because interpersonal disagreement about X doesn't prove X is subjective (person-relative): for example, consider interpersonal disagreements in science, history, and mathematics.

6. Subjectivism has the following dubious implications:
*If I approve of A (for example, failing you just for giggles), that makes A right.
*No one's moral code is truer than anyone else's (all are equally true): for example, the moral codes of Hitler and Christ are equally true.
*Changing your moral opinion changes morality (for morality is what you think).
*No one's moral beliefs ever really improve or decline (become more or less correct); they just change.
*No one can be mistaken about morality; everyone is morally infallible. Consider Eva Braun's diary entry for 10 May 1935; she describes Hitler as "the greatest man in Germany and in the world".

7. Cultural Relativism is the theory that morality is culture-relative (like traffic rules, rules of etiquette, and spelling rules). (I use "culture" and "society" interchangeably).

8. The main argument for Cultural Relativism: Since (a) different cultures accept different moral codes, (b) morality must be relative to each culture.

9. This argument fails because inter-cultural disagreement about X doesn't prove X is culture-relative (see analogous point 5).

10. Cultural Relativism has all of the dubious implications:
*No culture's codes is really better than any other's--just different: for example, the Christian code is no better than the Nazi code.
*No culture's code really improves or declines--it just changes: for example, the abolition of slavery wasn't an improvement in the U.S. moral code, just a change.
*Moral truth is discovered just by discovering what your society thinks: for example, if your society thinks gassing mentally retarded children is right, that makes it right.
*Any reformer of a society's moral code is automatically mistaken, because a reformer is someone who denies some part of the society's code, and, for Cultural Relativists, moral truth is determined by society.
*No society can be mistaken about morality; every society is moraly infallible: for example, Nazi Germany in its genocidal practices, Sudan in its practice of female circumcision, Canada in its acceptance of gay marriage, and the U.S. in its acceptance of slavery (in the pasy) and abortion (today).

i am just as justifeid as he is, a martyr to myself and everyonr that agrees with me. i dont need right on my side to act. hitler did not have right on his side. he had ambition and thats all i need to be justified. justification does not make you right, it just makes you valid, and i beleive validity is all a person needs for action, and validity is the easiest thing in the world to have. the will to do so is valid enough to shoot him in the head, your will to disagree is valid enough to call your point of view justiied, my will to shoot him in the head is valid enough. why does it matter if i killed a martry if i had a justified 'cause. that cause being that i wanted to stop his genicide.

You have no justified cause. You say that Hitler was justified that makes him subjectively right (right by opinion). To shoot him would simply be cold blooded murder based on the fact that you do not like his plan. To be justified in killing him you would have to put him on trial and determine wether or not his actions deserved death.

did he put his people on trial, everyone of them? no. i am justified, and its not cold blod, im doing it for a reason. a damn good one. genocide should always be challenged.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING, AND HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW ME? have you read anything i said, if i disagree with there opinions i would still say they had all the right to act, and i wouldnt stop them. and i dont feel jealosy. EVER! and why should i care about "another person". what about all the dying children in the middle east you do so much to help. your the hipocrit, wheres your bleeding heart for them? huh? as long as they beleive it is love. and yes, i do hate what he did. and yes i do defend him, and yes, i do have that freedom. even more, i have faith in humanity. enough to think that they would not kill themselves. i am a good person, i help those who need it, i acpect nothing in return. how dare you?

quote:

---

if i disagree with there opinions i would still say they had all the right to act, and i wouldnt stop them

---

Except that you want to kill Hitler.

quote:

---

wheres your bleeding heart for them?

---

Where is yours? You make open accusations of other people based on the assumption that you are better than them. How do you know that Decius doesn't go over seas to help starving children, maybe he is part of a charity organization that raises money to provide the needs of those people. You know nothing of the situation and yet you act like you do, you have never given us any reason to believe that your heart bleeds for them you seem to believe that the governments who keep their people in poverty are justified in doing so.

quote:

---

i am a good person, i help those who need it,

---

Hitler needed help not a bullet in the head.

i ment no accusations. i wouldnt stop them if it didnt hurt me or anyone i love. sorry, that was a stupid thing to say. and i never claimed it did. i cleay said that i didnt care about them. and yes they are justified, that doesnt make them right. and i dont think he did need help. i think he needed a bullet to the head. that would be help enough.