Hypothetical Situation: What is Ethical vs. Legal?

Question

Sister goes to her older brother's house in the middle of the night, badly bruised after being beaten by abusive husband. This is not the first time this happens.

Older brother sees battered sister... is fed up with abusive husband.

Sister begs older brother not to go confront abusive husband and continues to make excuses for him.

Older brother takes his shotgun, and drives to abusive husband's house anyway. Older brother shoots abusive husband to death, freeing his sister once and for all...

This is not legally justified, but what are your thoughts about the ethics behind the matter? Is the older brother justified in his actions?

Answer 1

I believe the older brother would be justified in beating the tar out of the abusive husband and then handing him over to the cops. Although, he'd probably go to jail for aggravated assault. Now the brother has given his sister freedom from abuse, but has imprisoned himself by committing murder. And yes, it's murder. It was thought out and planned. The sister begged the brother not to confront the abusive husband, the brother either picked up a loaded shotgun, or loaded it himself and then headed over to the home of the abusive husband and shot and killed him. It is neither legal or ethical, nor should it EVER be considered as such. We simply can not have citizens taking the law into their own hands.

Answer 2

Definitely not. One major justification for the existence of the government is to provide protection for its people. The government takes the action of depriving an individual of liberty based on the principle of fair trial, etc. The brother's act is inherently unjust, because he is taking the law into his own hands. This is the basis for anarchy. With every crime, there will always be a victim. And if every victim took it upon himself to punish the wrongdoer, then this 1. creates arbitrary retribution, but also nullifies the justification for the existence of the state.

The basis of justice is giving each his fair due. This is why we have a judicial system, to evaluate due. The husband is due jail time for being abusive, true. But the brother took it upon himself to distribute the due. This creates an arbitrary degree of punishment. In this case, the husband was wrongly given more than he was due, i.e. death does not equate to (non-torture) physical abuse. Another logical flaw is while there are strict doctrines for justice, there is nothing that defines ethics. Therefore, ethics should never be used to justify an action as everyone has different ethics. For example, this crime might not be as bad to one person as it is to another. Although, I'm also not saying that the world is free of ethical concerns, there is a line where basic morals must always come in to play. This is called deantology (the idea that no matter what, these basic universal moral codes should never be violated).

In short, no. The older brother's actions are not justified. They may have some basis, but they are by no means just. To argue that they are is to support anarchy, which, despite what some people might say, we all know is bad.

Answer 3

Take a page from Scarface huh? Killing is never right, he should advice her sister to seek a divorce. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, now she will live with the fact that she is the cause for her husband death and her brother in jail. Lose, lose situation....

Answer 4

No, he is not.

You said it happened before. The brother should have reported the sister's situation the first time it happened. With enough effort, he could have convinced his sister to leave/report it.

The brother's lack of attempting to take a legal route early in the crisis does not give him any right to take lethal measures now.

The brother could actually blame himself for allowing it to continue without intervention.

Answer 5

There is no ethics behind it. Two wrongs do not make one right. Killing another human being for any reason does not make anything right.

In this case, the older brother retaliated with deadly force. There are alternatives. A divorce? Family intervention? Counseling? Could even enlist the police for domestic violence. These will take time, but that does not justify killing someone for immediate relief.

Answer 6

This actually happened to a friend of mine. It was his older sister and after years of this abuse, he went to their house and shot and killed his brother-in-law with a pistol. I am from a small community and everyone knows everyone. The community generally agreed that maybe this was justified. I thought so. My friend who had never been charged with anything in his life (40 years old) was charged with manslaughter and was released while he awaited trial. He finally got sentenced to a couple of years and served about 6 months.

If someone was hurting anyone in my family like this I would hurt them back. Damned right I would.

Answer 7

Justified--No. Definitely understandable. I know big brothers love their sisters, but as much as much as big brother doesn't like it, lil sister will go back to hubby when all is said and done. This is from years and generations of experience. When lil sister is ready to leave, she will--if big bro kills the abusive hubby, as screwed up as it is, lil sister will probably blame and hate him forever! Then, it would have been for absolutely nothing.

Answer 8

I have to whole heartedly say no the brother was not justified.

He was under no direct threat from the brother - his sister was. His priority would have been to remove his sister to a safe place, and let the law handle the husband.

Answer 9

First of all, ethics is living properly BEYOND the scope of the law. That means following the law and then some. So there is not even an issue here- it is both illegal and therefore unethical.

Answer 10

I don't believe it's ever ethical to kill another being. However, I would be hard pressed to fault the brother for beating the abuser inside out. If he happened to die from injuries sustained from the beating, well then...thats just karma.