When is it acceptable to kill someone?

For the purpose of this survey, assume that it refers to a healthy adult, other than yourself, who does not want to die. In other words, this survey is not about abortion, suicide/assisted suicide and euthanasia, as these are somewhat different questions.

Note: "Acceptable" doesn't mean "desirable" - it simply means that it wouldn't necessarily be morally wrong in these circumstances.

The "self-defence" options include you defending someone else who is incapable of defending themselves (e.g., a child), but not defence of someone else by police/security forces - there are separate options for these.

The police/army options are not exclusive - they can also refer to other official security forces, such as state troopers, national guard, etc - whatever is applicable in your country.

"Revenge" means that someone carries out the action themselves, outside the legal process (to differentiate it from judicial execution).

(Bill did a similar survey in 1999, but the options were different)

Votes	Answer
93	In self-defence, when your life is under immediate threat
81	By the police in defence of someone whose life is under immediate threat
65	By the police in defence of themselves
56	By the armed forces in time of war
53	Judicial execution of a convicted murderer
46	In self-defence, where you are in danger of injury but not death
35	By the police in defence of someone in danger of injury but not death
25	Judicial execution of a convicted criminal, other than a murderer
25	In revenge for the killing of someone else

Votes	Answer
20	Other
19	In self-defence of your property
17	By the police/army in maintaining public order (e.g., quelling a riot)
13	By the police in defence of someone's property
12	Never
11	In revenge for an attack on (or theft of) property
9	In pursuit of political aims (e.g., "liberation" movements or bombing abortion clinics)
9	In revenge for a non-fatal attack on someone else

User	Comment
daver	posted 25-Jan-2001 4:58pm I have a tough time envisioning a situation where I might run the risk of an injury serious enough to care about yet run a negligible risk of dying. That said, I don't think such a situation warrants killing someone.
anonymous	posted 25-Jan-2001 9:23pm dun touch my stuff..
Maarten	posted 26-Jan-2001 4:05am * In self-defence, when your life is under immediate threat * By the police in defence of someone whose life is under immediate threat * By the police in defence of themselves * By the armed forces in time of war
msgman	(reply to daver) posted 26-Jan-2001 5:31am I think any injury is serious enough to care about - if someone threatens to break my arm, then my life is not in danger, but I'd still want to defend myself against such an attack!
daver	(reply to msgman) posted 26-Jan-2001 9:32am My concern is that if someone has the capability and will to break my arm against my objections, they have the capability to kill me. I wouldn't trust the word of someone willing to break my arm that they would stop there. If I could somehow mystically know that I would get away with nothing worse than a broken arm I wouldn't be willing to kill to prevent it. A complicating issue is that while I might be willing to risk an injury if I could avoid killing someone, sustaining that injury could leave me unable to change my mind should I discover that my attacker will continue.
jettles	posted 26-Jan-2001 9:48am although i think that it is not acceptable in any case..... i know it occurs for many reasons. i know that i would be capable of hurting or killing someone if my life or loved ones were threatened, it still wouldn't be acceptable to me. i would have a hard time reconciling it with myself.
confetti	posted 27-Jan-2001 1:51am Damn, I was hoping this would be type essay survey so we could all say "When the victim invites your mother-in-law over", etc. It's better than the old one, though. (Sorry, Bill!)
msgman	(reply to daver) posted 27-Jan-2001 12:45pm I see what you're saying, but I still think that in practice it's reasonably easy to make the distinction. For example, someone tried to mug me once, but I fought him off. As he didn't have a gun or a knife (as he would have used these to threaten me in the first place if he had), I didn't feel in any serious danger of anything other than losing the fight - but, once I'd hit him a couple of times, he just ran off anyway. Some people would say that in such circumstances I would be justified in pulling a gun on my attacker (assuming I had one, of course) and shooting him, just because he attacked me first. If so, then they would select the "in self-defence when your life is not under immediate threat" option in this survey. Personally, I would not kill someone in those circumstances, and I don't think it would be acceptable to do so.
romkey	posted 28-Jan-2001 12:24am when you really, really feel like it...
cody	posted 28-Jan-2001 3:35am I can see an extreme case for everything being justified, but I have some reservation about by riot quelling one... it would have to be HIGHLY extreme. Ive never been one for thinking that humans had some divine right to life that could only be taken away by extreme hostility towards others: Some (a good number of) people are just such pricks that they need to die already, and if you want to risk jail to make it happen, go for it. Now, dont get me wrong, I mean morally acceptable, not societally acceptable. It would be a very bad thing if these were all labelled as excuses for murder... but if someone sufficiently pissed you off that you are going to risk going to jail to end them, then they most likely have it coming.
bill	posted 28-Jan-2001 10:45am I agree with daver - I suspect that the difference between someone trying to non-fatally injure me and trying to kill me would be too subtle to distinguish, especially in the moment of the attack.
they	posted 28-Jan-2001 7:49pm When they ask me to.
Zang	posted 1-Feb-2001 1:29am I picked eight, I'm not going to bother listing them all. There is one thing that isn't defined in the question though. I answered as though it read "When could it be acceptable..." if it had read "When is it always acceptable..." I would have only selected "Never".
Zang	posted 1-Feb-2001 1:34am After seeing the results, for clarification of my selections I will add: The top seven I agreed with...and the bottom one. I consider "political aims" to be no different ethically than "armed forces in time of war".
anonymous	posted 1-Feb-2001 8:00am It is not only acceptable, but required, to kill a "person" who is a danger to innocent people. Child rapists and abusers should be executed. Terrorists should be executed. Smirk Dumbya Shrub should be executed.
gilesmartin	posted 1-Feb-2001 9:24am Killing is only morally justifiable to prevent another killing you or someone who you have a duty to protect.
Dave	posted 1-Feb-2001 5:30pm In the event that a murderer goes free due to a mis-carriage of justice, I can see a moral justification for "vigilante" revenge killing. Of course, that does not absolve the vigilante of the LEGAL ramifications of the act. Just because something is moral doesn't mean it is or even should be legal. Vigilanteism should be discouraged primarily to prevent a dilution of the legitimacy of the courts.
Dave	(reply to msgman) posted 1-Feb-2001 5:34pm Are you saying that you do not believe an unarmed assailant could kill you?
msgman	(reply to Dave) posted 2-Feb-2001 6:52am No, but I believe that I could generally fight off an unarmed assailant without killing him. I agree that it's a grey area, and it isn't always easy to draw the line. But if you were in court for killing someone who had attacked you, your defence would have to be that you genuinely and justifiably believed that your life was in immediate danger if you did not kill the person. If you couldn't convince the jury that your actions were justified, you would be guilty of murder. The fundamental question would be whether or not your response was proportionate to the threat.
Dave	(reply to msgman) posted 2-Feb-2001 7:01am Absolutely. You've definitely got a good grasp of self-defense court issues. I would certainly have a tough time justifying killing an unarmed assailant, at 6'1" and 280 lbs. I'm not sure I could be convicted of murder if violent intent could be shown on the part of the assailant, but manslaughter, or negligent homicide are a distinct possibility. Regardless, it's the sort of thing it's important to think about before you're in the situation. The brain doesn't work particularly well under that kind of stress.
SightSeer	posted 2-Feb-2001 4:51pm I chose all of them (except never). I could see circumstances in every case where it would be acceptable.
nate9862	posted 4-Feb-2001 8:09am That would teach people not the be losers huh?
Ronin	posted 6-Feb-2001 7:15pm when the attacked feels there is no other way out except to end it right there, thats it, you know.
anonymous	posted 7-Feb-2001 3:25pm No one involved in the Judicial system has any right to take anyone's life. If they do, they are no better than the criminals themselves.
Confused	posted 7-Feb-2001 3:26pm all the time (by......THE SHADOW!!!!!!)
anonymous	(reply to Maarten) posted 7-Feb-2001 3:27pm DDDDIIIIIEEEEE!!! DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!!
anonymous	(reply to Maarten) posted 7-Feb-2001 3:28pm YOUR MOTHER WAS A CHESTNUT!!!! DIE DIE DIE!!!!
summer	posted 7-Feb-2001 8:36pm First I would try to get away, but if I cant, and If someone is coming at me trying to kill me, I'm certainly not going to stand around and wait for them to do it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it's either my life or theirs, that's just the way that I was taught. If I have kids, that's what I'll teach them.
shsu_brat	posted 9-Feb-2001 9:16pm it's spelled "defense"
SightSeer	(reply to shsu_brat) posted 10-Feb-2001 6:10pm "defence" is a British variant of "defense".
brodycog	posted 11-Feb-2001 6:24am I should be able to kill any person who wants to die, or even any person who lies to me or tries to steal from me. I don't hate all people, I hate ignorant people.
anonymous	posted 11-Feb-2001 6:27pm Do we teach our children not hit people? By hitting our children? Do we teach our citizen not to kill each other? By killing each other?
BigMike	posted 12-Feb-2001 11:04am Natural selection has ceased to be effective!
sunshine	posted 15-Feb-2001 9:20pm I hope that I never get in a situation where I would need to kill someone, but if the need arose it would be to protect my family.
d	posted 21-Feb-2001 1:59pm i wouldn't kill someone because they would suffer more in isolation
d	(reply to anonymous) posted 21-Feb-2001 2:01pm good point anonymous#6
Analog	posted 22-Feb-2001 12:02am The advanced stats for this survey are very telling. Every answer was more popular among men than among women except "never" and "judicial execution of a convicted criminal, other than a murderer." Only these two answers were more heavily favored by women than by men.
booboo	posted 24-Feb-2001 2:36pm When you won't get caught.

Last
Advanced_Stats

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/6946.html

Hits: 3 today (25 in the last 30 days)

Last	Type	Created	Category	Creator	Sort	Votes	Hides	Rating
Last	multiple	24-Jan-2001	ethics/morality	msgman	by votes	134	12	60.9%