Is it wrong to kill?

Question

In war, self defense, jealousy etc. ?

Answer 1

Well being an intelligent person,its just common sense.
You only kill or hurt someone if there is no other choice.

Everyone knows this.

In a War you have no choice.Self defence no choice.
If your jealous you deal with it and if you can't without violence you probaly need help.

Oh and a side note...The God of the Old testemant was retarded to this fact.He needed alot of help.

Sorry just sick of people sticking in their better then thou biblical knowledge when it comes to issues of common sense.

Answer 2

Not always. Its called the just war doc. It was set up shortly after Christianity became the religion of the roman empire. In the face where an invading army is attacking your country and to do nothing would lead to countless deaths and massive destruction it would be unethical not to go to war.

When is a war "just"
* Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

* Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

* Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

* Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

* Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]

* Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Conducting a "just war"

* Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
* Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
* Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.

And ending a "just war"

* Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
* Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
* Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
* Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
* Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

Any other time is wrong.

Answer 3

It is wrong, but justified. In a war, yeah, unless you want to BE killed. Self defense, yup, same principle applies. Jealousy? Not always. Unless it's self defense in a fight that's grounded in gealousy. It all depends on what your adversary is doing, really. Then you have a choice. Some choose to live. Others chose to live with it. SUch is life.

Answer 4

War and self-defense--yes. Jealousy--no.


The 10 Commandments say, "Thou shalt not murder." The King James unfortunately translates that as "Thou shalt not kill," but the Hebrew word is "murder."

Okay, I had to come back to reply to outtahere. The Old Testament has God even commanding the people to kill when they took over the Promised Land (then called Canaan). Even the New Testament says the government does not carry the sword in vain.

Jesus didn't fight or kill, neither did his disciples, because his kingdom is not of this world. He said, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my disciples fight." Notice in Revelation he will kill millions when he comes again.

Answer 5

In war the object is to complete the mission or prevent the enemy
from completing theirs. In order to accomplish this you must
neutralize the opposing force by capturing, injuring, killing and or
destroying their weapons . killing in war is just one of many tactics
it can never be complety right, only justified by the nature of warfare.

To kill in self defense is justified by the inherent right
to protect your life or another life.

To kill out anger ( jealousy or rage ) is not justified you are not protecting your self or others from injury or death.

Answer 6

It is wrong to commit murder, not to participate in self-defense, war for your country, etc. Jealousy doesn't count as a viable reason for killing though.

Answer 7

Not at all I believe that we owe ourselves the right to kill we have been given choice as a gift and if we feel the choice we want to make is to take someones life then so be it. An individual who chooses to kill knows societies response to this act (if they get caught).

We make wrong choices every day and we govern ourselves and are responsible only to ourselves.

an example of choice: My friend was raped repeatedly as a child by 3 men, she has eliminated 2 so far and she feels the choice she has made is the right one...To tell was to easy for her and she now lives a lonely life with no partner and no way of having children so what has she got left but REVENGE

Answer 8

Not wrong in war or self defence. Jealousy on the other hand is very wrong.

Answer 9

War - Depends on what you're fighting for

Self Defense - No

Jealousy - Yes

Answer 10

In war - no.
Self defense - no.
Jealousy - yes.
In the commission of a crime - yes.
In defense of another - if the victim's life is in danger - no

There are just too many other situations, but I think common sense should prevail.

Answer 11

A matter of your own faith and personal philosophy.

Alvin York had been a hellion, was riding home one evening and the mule he was on was killed by a lightning bolt.

He got religion in a major way.

When World War I came along he was a CO, was convinced by a clergyman that killing in war was not sinful. Most decorated soldier of the U.S. in that war.