Is it right for a mother to shoot her son to prevent him from killing his father?

Question

This is not a trick question.... it is a straight moral one.... seek your views and reasoning.

Answer 1

Hello,

Well if the father has done terrible things in his life towards his child and wife then the boy might have snapped and could not take it anymore - thus killing the father then the mother should have not killed her son.

If the father was an normal person and the son would have just jumped on the neck of his father to kill him then the mother is right killing her son to prevent 2 tragedies - lost of son in prison and lost husband in death.

But maybe there were some unknown things between father and son that the mother did not know. So the son killed the father maybe in an act of defence for future - possible things that might have happened. (like killing his mother and taking money or any other scenario)

Then the main point to this story you made: Killing should not even happen but it is and it is an part of life even if we don`t like it and it is not "normal".

But I agree the mother should have killed her son to prevent 2 tragedies but in real life I have to say to you even in the worst stories mothers can`t kill they`re sons - if she has no psychological problems.

Even so in the end it is an act of defence.

Answer 2

In all seriousness, it depends on the father, and it depends on the son. It also depends on who is putting whom in harms way, since the only real justification for shooting anyone in this case, is in self defense, or in the defense of your household, or someone you love. There are a thousand ways that this could go back and forth by manipulating the circumstances, but the bottom line is that the father would have to be in harms way, and the son would have to be doing something unquestionably evil, and would have to be the one putting the father (and potentially the mother) in jeopardy.

For instance, if the son were a drug addict, or paranoid schizophrenic, beyond reasoning with, and irredeemable, the circumstances might be extreme enough that the mother would be forced to defend one loved one against another.

It would be more likely that the mother would be frozen in fear, there would be no weapon available, or that the weapon would be of little or no use since the mother may not be able to load, arm and fire the weapon in time to be of any assistance. This would be equally true if the roles were reversed by the way. Most weapons stored in homes are under lock and key, kept unloaded, and have cumbersome devices attached to keep them from going off accidentally. Most of the time having a weapon in the house raises the expectation that the weapon will be involved in an accident rather than an instance of self defense.

The real tragedy would be for the individuals that had to live past this moment. No parent should have to live longer than their children. The regret and self doubt following such an action would be a cross that no one should be asked to bear. Even if the son was absolutely dead wrong and posed a credible threat, the parents would be left with the inevitable questions as to how the child was raised, what influences brought him to this point, and if there was anything that could have been done to prevent this calamity.

Answer 3

It will depend on the character of the two people. If the son is purely evil and intends on killing the father for malicious purposes. The mother has a moral dilemma but will be justified in shotting the son.

If the father is evil and the son is shooting him as revenge for a bad thing that he did to him, then martenal insticts will make the mother not stop the son from killing the father.

If the son is a man, then he has an independent character which the mother has say in. In this situation the mother is justified in saving the one she thinks is right.

Answer 4

It depends. If the mother hadn't bothered to call for help or even tried to talk to her son, then it would sound like that she respected her husband more than her son. That would mean that after learning that her son was about to kill her father, the immediate answer she had was to kill her son.

But I guess if I were to not consider other factors, and were to simply figure out who should die first, it would be the father. Evil, probably, because there doesn't seem to be a reason for the father to be evil. But when there's a child who's ready to kill their own father, then it must have been hate ricocheting between the father and the son way back, starting from the father.

Answer 5

very interesting question....
I don't think it is. The son obviously has something against the father and has thought about killing him. He has a hatred towards his father. The son deserves to do the time in prison. If the mother intervened, then the son wouldn't be punished (cause the son doesn't know hes dead) and the mother would possibly do time depending on where you live.

Answer 6

Why would the son want to kill his father? If the son has no provocation, then the mother is defending an innocent life.

If, on the other hand, the son is using deadly force in self-defense or even in defending someone else, then the mother is wrong to interfere.

Answer 7

The relationship is irrelevant.

If the son has just cause to kill his father, than No.

If the son does NOT have a good reason, than Yes.

Answer 8

There are many variables missing to provide a valid and justified answer. However, with what I have, I will say yes. A wife's obligation to her husband is always greater than that to her son. The same with a husband's obligation to his wife. A husband and wife is bound by an eternal commitment, while their commitment to their children is only to provide the necessary guidance to be able to eventually *leave* and start their own lives.

Answer 9

if the father was wrong and bad then so is the mother for killing her son ?/?.

Answer 10

HELL NO... Children should always come before their father.

Boyfriends, Husbands, etc. are replaceable. Children are not.