Commiting murder in different situations

[r3vbr]

1)If you are on a deserted island with no food, is it correct to practice canibalism in order to survive? (this was done in a plane accident in Chile a few years ago)

2) If you and your child or (insert loved one) are at a transatlantic cruiser when a storm hits and it starts to sink, you are trapped underwater with an unknown man, he somehow has an oxygen tank. Do you kill him or try to steal his oxygen in order for you or your family member breath? What if instead of a man it were a female child?

3) Killing a guilty man is how much lesser a moral offence than killing an inocent man? How about an inocent man who provoced you? Does that change anything?

[Spence]

1) You are referring to situation ethics, and yes I view it as perfectly ok in an effort to preserve yourself as long as you don't "speed the process up". Just about anybody would do it, as evidenced by many different scenarios (of which yours is one incident). The reasons not to do it would have more to do with religious beliefs and your own belief system in general about what life after death entails.

2)Are you asking if it's morally correct? I would say no, but fortunately life is not an Axiom, and I will likely never be faced in a situation where this is no other possibility /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

3) Good question. I personally would view it as much lesser to kill a guilty man over an innocent. I'm sure others would disagree, and of course it depends on what you mean by guilty. I'm assuming you mean a capitol offense, and he/she had a proper trial etc. Also would depend if the incident hit close to home. If he murdered my parents, I would view that as much less of a moral offense, than if you happened to hear about him killing somebody and you just randomly offing him. Hope that makes sense.

If an innocent man provoked you? I don't know how to answer that, much too broad, and yes it changes things greatly.

[godBoy]

no

[Duke]

1) You should practice it on a daily basis or else you won't be very good at it if the situation comes up. Be the boy scout.

2) Share, and get the hell out from under the boat together.

3) Guilty of what? Maybe yes, maybe no. How sure are you of his guilt? If all you have are the results of a trial, then I'll say no. Trials are ridiculous shams, in my opinion.

[r3vbr]

[ QUOTE ]
1) You should practice it on a daily basis or else you won't be very good at it if the situation comes up. Be the boy scout.

[/ QUOTE ]
You use sarcasm when you feel logicially trapped because your answer probably contradicts your religious beliefs or whatever.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Share, and get the hell out from under the boat together.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume the tank is designed so that sharing is impossible. Or that the person is unwilling to share and will fight you for it.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Guilty of what? Maybe yes, maybe no. How sure are you of his guilt? If all you have are the results of a trial, then I'll say no. Trials are ridiculous shams, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's say he threatened you, like if some person I meet threatened to harm me, he will become my enemy, and thus killing him will not be such a big crime because the other party initiated the dispute and you simply made a move.

I think vigilante justice should be permited up to an extent. Also I think that a provoced killing should be dealt a very small penalty (think a person in a nightclub who starts cussing at people calling them obceneties and looking for a fight, i think if someone killed this person in response to the provocation, the penalty should be extremely light, because he knew what was comming).