Correction

[avevale_intelligencer]

In the previous post I said that the only thing that mattered about Jared Lee Loughner and Timothy McVeigh was that they wanted to kill.

I was wrong. I'm sure many people have moments when they want to kill, and then they move on. So the *other* thing that mattered about them, that maybe mattered *more*, was that they saw no (EDIT: sufficient) reason not to.

Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and atheists, and agnostics, and Hindus, and Buddhists (especially Buddhists, perhaps) all see (EDIT: sufficient) reasons not to kill. ()EDIT: as do pagans, of course, and worshippers of the Spaghetti Monster and anyone else I hadn't thought of.) Some reasons are given in religious scriptures, some arise naturally from the consensus codes of morality by which we live, some are deeply personal. They're all good.

Let me be very, very precise about this: nothing justifies murder. No political ideology, no sacred precept, no failure of justice, no crime, no iniquity, nothing. Murder is never justified. Not even in those rare cases where it becomes necessary, when even I would admit that there was no other choice. Never.

To see no (EDIT: sufficient) reason not to kill is to see no reason. It is to be lost. It is to be pitiable and dangerous at the same time. And it is true of too many people.

EDIT YET AGAIN: and just in case anyone was wondering, I do not believe abortion or contraception are murder.

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. Necessity is insufficient justification. What looks like necessity at the time can be the result of a whole series of wrong decisions. It might seem necessary, at some point in some bizarre and hopefully improbable future, for me to try to kill someone, perhaps to protect the Countess (though I would probably fail completely) but I am not so pragmatic as ever to imagine being able to persuade myself afterwards that I had done "the right thing" when I could have avoided being in the situation to start with.

If murder is wrong absolutely, then it's wrong absolutely. If it's right when it's necessary, then anything can be justified on those grounds. It's necessary that I take this old lady's jewels to buy myself another shot of heroin. It's necessary that I get this old man out of his flat so that my company can bulldoze it and build a car park. It's necessary that I stop this man taking my wife away from me. It's necessary that I show this bastard that nobody pinches *my* parking space. There can be no room for anything on the other side of the line, because if it once moves away from that far end of the scale it can slide all the way across.

There's a reason Nyronds have the deathblock, and there's a reason I'm opposed to capital punishment. You may disagree, but my reasoning makes perfect sense to me.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

If necessity is insufficient justification, then the murder isn't necessary. You could choose to die (or watch others die) instead of doing the murder -- I would honour and respect that, as I honour and respect those many who were objectors in wars and many of whom did die for that.

The thing I will not accept is "necessary and not justified", it makes no more sense than "1=0". If it was not justified then it was not necessary, there is always a choice to avoid it.

Note that killing is not the same as murder. The latter is generally premeditated (thus giving a chance to think and to do it deliberately knowing (at least some of) the reasons why it is a bad thing), is usually against a person who is no direct threat, and is often done with greed or other gain in mind. Killing in self-defence, or in defence of others, may be considered necessary (or may be consequent to attempting to stop them but not intended), but by definition the person killed was guilty of initiating force and so take part of the blame for their own death.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm going to think about this some more. You may be right, but I'm fighting a really strong gut reaction allied to my firm belief that "necessary" and "justified" are not synonyms and therefore one can be true without the other. However, since I can't think of any other examples, I'll let it percolate a bit.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

They are certainly not synonyms: There many things that are justified but not necessary, and that's the whole basis of forgiveness and redemption: A punishment for some given harm done is justified, but is not carried out because repentance and/or forgiveness makes it unnecessary. See also "suspended sentence", where a justified punishment is witheld as unnecessary, *unless* the criminal goes on to demonstrate an unwillingness to mend their ways (by committing a further crime or breach of the conditions of their sentence).

However, the question is whether anything can be necessary but not justified.

Also, I think from reading your pervious comment that there's some confusion between "apparently necessary at the time", and "actually necessary in the final (objective, omniscient) analysis (assuming there can ever be one)". [ETA:] Of all the things that might count as justification for an act, necessity is pretty much a clincher, PROVIDED you can prove the necessity is real, or at least that you had very good reasons for being convinced it was real.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly, that's what I was trying to say. ^{But is this a suspended sentence?} It falleth from above _{like the TullimoreGentle Dew.}