Should Someone Who Kills A Murderer Morally Be Arrested As A Murderer?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

We've all seen these kind of situations, where someone kills someone who was a murderer for various reasons.

On a moral perspective, is the killer of a murderer, a murderer? Should someone who was caught in the act of killing someone, who turned out to be a murderer, still be considered as an equal to the person he/she killed?

[removeduser_052420]

Of course. Suppose we have three gangsters.


Gangster A kills gangster B,


and then Gangster C kills Gangster A.

Does that mean that Gangster C should not be punished? of course not.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Of course. Suppose we have three gangsters.


Gangster A kills gangster B,


and then Gangster C kills Gangster A.

Does that mean that Gangster C should not be punished? of course not.

But what if murderer A is killed by distressed civilian B?

Civilian B did the world a favor, should Civilian B still be treated as a murderer, the same as the person she just rid of the Earth?

[Elfdude]

But what if murderer A is killed by distressed civilian B?

Civilian B did the world a favor, should Civilian B still be treated as a murderer, the same as the person she just rid of the Earth?

And what of murderer A's family? What about those who care for him and he in turn kills for? Are we assuming all murderers are sociopaths? What about the parents who couldn't properly convey morality to their children (be it because of abuse or poor parenting) are they too responsible? What if it's a child who kills another child? What about the fact that many antisocial disorders are reversible if they're caught early? Should we blame their doctor? How do you possibly quantify the death of someone else as being equal to the death of someone else?

[The Dude]

Of course. Suppose we have three gangsters.


Gangster A kills gangster B,


and then Gangster C kills Gangster A.

Does that mean that Gangster C should not be punished? of course not.

These people are all gangsters from the outset.

Two gangsters are not the same as a serial murdered and a father who wants revenge on his murdered son, for example.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

It depends. If the 3rd person kills him in cold blood, then he is a murderer, yes. But if he has some sort of legal authority (ex: a police officer, fighting in self defense, or court order to kill the man, etc), then killing the murderer would not be murder, but carrying out justice.

[Prodigal]

Methinks it would depend on the situation.

[Gordon Freynman]

Generally, only in cases of self defense would I say it's OK to kill a murderer. Killing a murderer spares them a lifetime of miserable existence (and potentially butt piracy) in prison.

[Strelok]

Methinks it would depend on the situation.

Same. If It's Dexter style then I vote "No" (which I mean to say: it's justified according to my view on ethics).

Generally, only in cases of self defense would I say it's OK to kill a murderer. Killing a murderer spares them a lifetime of miserable existence (and potentially butt piracy) in prison.

It also stops them from potentially escaping any prison from hurting any other innocent beings. Should protection of the innocents not be more important than vegeance on the guilty? Though at the same time, I agree with rehabilitation, some 'murderers' are mentally compromised in the most severe ways.

[Elfdude]

Conventional wisdom is that something can be considered moral or right if it can be justified and justified in only one direction. The question then becomes how do you justify killing? Is it ok for soldiers to kill in the name of their country? What if their country is corrupt? What if their ideals are wrong? Are they still murderers?

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The international community says no.

So how do you ever justify a killing then? When you kill someone you're not just killing them, you're destroying the timeline of everything they ever could be or ever would be, you're denying thousands of potential relationships that could and would happen in that person's future. How can you ever justify doing that?

The infamous biblical reference (an eye for an eye) may be utitlized here in turn killing someone who killed is dealing out divine punishment. If said divine backing for the law does not exist or there is no evidence of them existing how is this justification right. In the end we must look back to the realm of the physical not the realm of the metaphysical. For our ethics and moralities are not metaphysical but physical decisions with physical influences.

In this we must turn to the ultimate law of life and that is survival. Yet, even this definition has it's loopholes, how is one to know which person is most deserving to die, should the old and experienced give up their lifes for the young and naive? should the young and naive give up their lives to the old? Self defense? Kill or be killed? This definition does not satisfactorily answer the question, 'who deserves to live?'

In the end we come up to a wall. The only way to justify the death of another is via divine right to do so. If the divine right doesn't exist the right to kill doesn't exist. It follows then that it is never moral to kill. The best you can do is a situation where moral blame falls on neither party (an accident) or both parties, self defense, protection of others etc.

As such, killing a murderer is still murder.

[Prodigal]

I think the question you're trying to ask is whether or not it's morally justified.

[Armenum]

The only time it's justified is if you kill the murderer when the murderer is in the process of committing a murder, you will end a guilty life while saving an innocent one. Other than that paticular situation, a citizen does not have any right to kill a supposed murderer, let justice take care of it.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

The only time it's justified is if you kill the murderer when the murderer is in the process of committing a murder, you will end a guilty life while saving an innocent one. Other than that paticular situation, a citizen does not have any right to kill a supposed murderer, let justice take care of it.

But what if Justice can't? What if the authorities do not have the needed evidence to convict an otherwise guilty person?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Um, yes, obviously.

[Nimthill]

And what about revenge? Let say Man A shot my brother, and I would soon after shoot and kill Man A. Legally, I am a murderer but am I also morally compromised? What if he raped my sister? What if he raped me?

[removeduser_487563287433]

The law is there to prevent revenge as much as it is to prevent the crime that causes it. Revenge is not objective, it is not justice.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The law is there to prevent revenge as much as it is to prevent the crime that causes it. Revenge is not objective, it is not justice.

I agree with you, however this means that any law enabling death penalty is unlawful - the state becomes the murderer and violates the very clause it was founded upon: to protect the lives of its citizens.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I would agree, I am against the death penalty.

[the Black Prince]

If you murder a murderer of course thats wrong.

If you're talking about killing in self defence, then thats not murder anyway. There's a difference between killing someone, and murdering them.

[spanish_emperor]

depends, would by killing the murder save 100 lives? If so yes but only after every other possible option has been exhausted, including capturing him, rehabilitation, etc. And those previous options would 9 out of 10 work out so killing someone should be unnecessary. Unless he were defending himself.