Morality

**~Bowl** · 30th January 2018, 1:00 AM

Cross posting this from acid

Let's say in this hypothetical situation that you could revive a human being, but only by killing another.

Now, do you think it would be 'right' to kill a murderer to revive the innocent person that he killed?

If yes, then what about a serial killer? How would we determine who to revive? It's one for one, so obviously families of the dead would all want theirs alive. So who do we choose, and how?

Another question, would you kill someone just to revive a loved one?

Where does your morality lie?

**TropicalYeti** · 30th January 2018, 4:36 PM

Killing an innocent person is immoral. Killing a murderer is moral, if their death means the innocent person comes back to life. That's where my personal morality lies.

**Bluelightning** · 30th January 2018, 7:02 PM

But if you murder a murderer, doesn't that make you a murderer?

**Lego-man945** · 31st January 2018, 4:42 AM

(30th January 2018, 7:02 PM)Bluelightning Wrote: But if you murder a murderer, doesn't that make you a murderer?

Ok, so killing has been around forever.
There have always been punishments for killing.
So if you were to kill the murderer it would technically sate that hunger for justice.
And if you can in fact revive the dead that has been murdered than win win.
See you lose a bad unlawful person, and gain a good innocent citizen.

This is just my opinion though so...

**Robobot** · 31st January 2018, 9:54 AM

As long as there's due process of law in regards to this entire hypothetical situation, I wouldn't see a problem with killing murderers.

**Cobble** · 17th April 2018, 8:22 AM

Use people who are already dying to revive others. Pay people to get registered for this, similar to organ donation. Fund the process using life insurance payouts. Turn murder into a form of property damage.

**Zelante** · 17th April 2018, 9:06 AM

This could, however cause other problems.

Let's say there are some selfish people out there, who only care about themselves and their family. A person from their family dies, and they claim that they "cannot live without them" and would "do anything to bring them back to life"...

They can kill anyone to bring one person back to life. Now imagine a lot of these people on earth, from the entire population of 7.5 billion people. Moral or not, the amount of murderers/assassins would increase by a rather large number, unless there's a law against it. Then again, people can still do it secretively.

Anyway, your question can be answered in two ways; one for moral and one for immoral.

i) It is moral: Getting rid of the murderer and bringing back the innocent, and letting them live. One murderer less (if you don't count that as murdering the murderer)

ii) It is not moral: Everything happens for a reason. It is of no use trying to kill the murderer and bring someone back to life. What you're basically doing is taking away all your freedom. You become a murderer, for murdering a murderer for murdering someone. Now imagine a thousands of people who do the same, all locked up for the same reason: murder. It may even upset the balance of nature, however it may relate.

**An|0n** · 18th April 2018, 7:08 PM

(30th January 2018, 1:00 AM)~Bowl Wrote: Cross posting this from acid

Let's say in this hypothetical situation that you could revive a human being, but only by killing another.

Now, do you think it would be 'right' to kill a murderer to revive the innocent person that he killed?

If yes, then what about a serial killer? How would we determine who to revive? It's one for one, so obviously families of the dead would all want theirs alive. So who do we choose, and how?

Another question, would you kill someone just to revive a loved one?

Where does your morality lie?

By line number:
3: No. The murderer should be sentenced as per law in his country.
4: No. The murderer should be sentenced as per law in his country.
5: No, unless said person directly killed said loved one. Of which there are currently 0. Even then, I wouldn't want the loved one to be brought back. Revenge is enough.

6: **** YOUR morals, got my own.

**Ashley766** · 3rd May 2019, 8:40 PM

(by line number also)

3. I feel like it is okay to kill a murderer because that innocent person gets another chance at life

4. Don't really know how to answer this one, we determine who to revive based on their lifestyle.

5. I would not kill someone to revive a loved one, yes I love them, but killing another person just to do that is just wrong IMO and I believe that my loved one wouldn't want me to do that

**John m.** · 20th June 2019, 11:04 PM

Its god's choice what everyone fate is

**DivineZerinus** · 9th July 2019, 10:58 PM

(30th January 2018, 1:00 AM)~Bowl Wrote: Cross posting this from acid

Let's say in this hypothetical situation that you could revive a human being, but only by killing another.

Now, do you think it would be 'right' to kill a murderer to revive the innocent person that he killed?

If yes, then what about a serial killer? How would we determine who to revive? It's one for one, so obviously families of the dead would all want theirs alive. So who do we choose, and how?

Another question, would you kill someone just to revive a loved one?

Where does your morality lie?

1. Reviving a person in exchange for someone else's death is quite selfish, murderer or not.
2. Reviving a person in exchange for a murderer's death may very well make you a murderer yourself. Especially if you are seeking justice.
3. This would create problems because suppose many people would seek justice because murderers killed their loved ones. Suppose someone who you killed for someone you loved also had loved ones and they sought justice unto you. This creates a vicious cycle.

So no. I don't think vengeance is right.

**JEEJAYEM** · 11th November 2020, 8:19 PM

To revive someone but at the cost of killing another is selfish. Its wrong.

It would be okay to revive someone who was murdered at the cost of the murderer dying except if they were both fighting to the death where someones bound to die.

Also except if it was a serial killer. Choosing who to revive would cause unnecessary drama and conflict understandably. But if it had to be done, probably revive the most recent victim.

I wouldnt kill someone to revive a loved one. That would be selfish and i wouldnt have the balls to do that anyway

**gemj** · 12th November 2020, 9:23 AM

I don't buy into it. I don't plan to mess with fate.

**1amayzingman** · 12th November 2020, 12:04 PM

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-05-28

**Camer the Dragon**

I think it'd be too much weight to bear even having the decision in your hands.

line by line:
3) Depends, was the murder in self-defence or out of malice? Even when out of malice then there are moral things to consider, e.g. were they abused until they were pushed over the edge? There would have to be more information than "they were a murderer" to feel 100% justified in the choice.
EDIT: I see it says innocent, if the person who was murdered was innocent then I feel that there is much more of a case for this although as stated at the top it would feel like too much weight to bear even having the decision in your hands let alone doing it.

4) If killing a serial killer for this I feel like the right option would be to gather all of the families and have them decide together, e.g. some stories may be more tragic than others and some families whilst devastated by their loss may decide to give someone else their chance at life back (e.g. if they were much younger or for other reasons).

5) Nah, firstly it'd be too much weight to bear (much like in general for 3 and 4 also) and secondly I doubt the person I revived would feel happy with me doing that even for them.