U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 16,256,138 times
Reputation: 2833

Advertisements

Say someone was beating your family member to death (for whatever reason, it's a hypothetical) and you had a gun. You were fairly sure that they intended to kill said family member, and you had the opportunity to save their life but killing this person. So you shoot to kill and kill them.

A few questions:

Would this be a moral action?

Or would it be morally neutral/a necessary evil.

Is killing an evil person a morally positive action, or morally neutral, or simply morally justified but kind of amoral. Is the act of getting rid of a potential murderer to be seen as a heroic act?

Now imagine the same scenario. Your family member is being kicked to death. You have a gun but decide to do nothing.

Does this make you bad/immoral? Is it an immoral action?


Would the most moral option be to disable this person?



I think if there was clear intent for this person to kill my family member, I would shoot indiscriminately, not necessarily to kill or maim, but just to stop the person from continuing. I wouldn't see myself as heroic, or a moral action per se, but I would see it as necessary and morally justified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2013, 04:34 AM
 
Location: Phoenix Arizona
718 posts, read 1,551,984 times
Reputation: 1637
First I would fire a warning shot and command that they stop the beating/kicking of the family member.

If they continued after the warning then I would shoot them in a non fatal area such as the leg or stomach. Unlike the LAPD around here you can effectively shoot someone without necessarily killing them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 04:46 AM
 
10,361 posts, read 9,388,551 times
Reputation: 15974
If a loved one's life was in jeopardy as the OP described: shoot to kill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Eureka CA
8,260 posts, read 11,124,485 times
Reputation: 12580
I don't own a gun and never will but my approach would be something like Mountain Guy's. A cleaver or a 2x4 could achieve the same result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,497,588 times
Reputation: 29076
It would be an unfortunate but possible outcome. Specific to your questions:

Would this be a moral action? Following a verbal warning unless they have a visible weapon, yes!

Or would it be morally neutral/a necessary evil. A moral action can be a "necessary evil."

Is killing an evil person a morally positive action, or morally neutral, or simply morally justified but kind of amoral. Is the act of getting rid of a potential murderer to be seen as a heroic act? Morally positive given the scenario you established.

Now imagine the same scenario. Your family member is being kicked to death. You have a gun but decide to do nothing.

Does this make you bad/immoral? Is it an immoral action? Yes to both and a lily-livered coward as well.

Would the most moral option be to disable this person? No! Attempting to would be stupid. You shoot to hit and stop, not to wound. That means you aim for center of mass of the largest target area presented to you. If it kills them, oh well. If it only wounds them - the more likely effect - so much the better. If it doesn't stop them, keep shooting.

Last edited by Curmudgeon; 09-09-2013 at 12:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Back at home in western Washington!
1,490 posts, read 3,950,064 times
Reputation: 3226
Quote:
Originally Posted by eureka1 View Post
I don't own a gun and never will but my approach would be something like Mountain Guy's. A cleaver or a 2x4 could achieve the same result.
How odd that you would be willing to use a more "intimate" weapon on someone when defending yourself / loved one. A cleaver or knife would put you in harms way when trying to stop an assault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
It would be an unfortunate but possible outcome. Specific to your questions:

Would this be a moral action? Yes!

Or would it be morally neutral/a necessary evil. A moral action can be a "necessary evil."

Is killing an evil person a morally positive action, or morally neutral, or simply morally justified but kind of amoral. Is the act of getting rid of a potential murderer to be seen as a heroic act? Morally positive given the scenario you established.

Now imagine the same scenario. Your family member is being kicked to death. You have a gun but decide to do nothing.

Does this make you bad/immoral? Is it an immoral action? Yes to both and a lily-livered coward as well.

Would the most moral option be to disable this person? No! Attempting to would be stupid. You shoot to hit and stop, not to wound. That means you aim for center of mass of the largest target area presented to you. If it kills them, oh well. If it only wounds them - the more likely effect - so much the better. If it doesn't stop, them keep shooting.
^^This^^ I agree with these comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,497,588 times
Reputation: 29076
Default If you had to kill to protect a family member, what would that action represent to you?

One more comment to directly respond to the first question posed in the title. It would represent a good shoot!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:37 PM
 
12,886 posts, read 15,442,166 times
Reputation: 14854
To me it would be representative of the fact that I value my loved ones life above the persons assaulting her. I wouldn't even have to give it a second thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 04:44 PM
 
18,363 posts, read 23,541,961 times
Reputation: 34427
instincts would kick in- if a family member is getting beat to death,,,,yes..id shoot..


if it were me getting beat to death,,,,id be hoping id have a family member that would shoot them,,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 16,256,138 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
To me it would be representative of the fact that I value my loved ones life above the persons assaulting her. I wouldn't even have to give it a second thought.
Not only that but the person who attempts to murder your love one also forfeits their life in a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top