Yes, it is a fairly wide and emotive subject – to be honest, I hadn’t thought of abortion or capital punishment in the OP either but these are certainly other related issues.

scribbler – I agree with your reasoning of intent and I hope that most judicial processes get this right in the assessments on a case by case basis. I have stated that I think this has occurred in the examples I quoted. In a perfect world, the laws and judicial system that apply them should reflect the morals, views and wishes of the people so your summary, if applied without perversion, is probably right.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the verdict of a case in Perth this week where a man was convicted of murder because he pushed another man in a pub who then went through a second story window & died from the fall. Accepting that I only know what has been reported in the media, it seems to me that the intent was to push him and not to kill him. Was he a drunken violent idiot? – probably. Did the victim deserve his fate? – no. Do I sympathise with the family for their loss? – of course. But I don’t think it was murder. He “caused” the death of course and should be punished accordingly.

sonofgloin – does ten years for embezzlement = ten years for murder? It may do depending on the circumstances. Again, the penalties are set and applied by a system that attempts to provide punishment that fits the crime. Sometimes they get it wrong. If the embezzler cause an investment fund to collapse and cost thousands of jobs and retirement savings to be lost, there is a huge impact to many people. How does that compare to a kid that takes a swing in the heat of the moment and the victim hits their head on the road?

Can you provide the details of the case of “If you murder somebody willfully but without horrid or distasteful overtones to the crime you get a decade non parole.”?

Great question. Interesting topic. I wanted to join the military when I was YOUNG, and police, more recently. Being a Christian I REALLY struggled with that question. We are born to survive and in my mind that question is easy when your life is in immediate danger or the life of someone else. I would kill to save my family and myself. No question.

Of course there are variables as others have pointed out and one of those for me was volunteering to put myself in a position where I could be forced to take the life of someone else. Self defence is one thing, but taking on a job where lives can be lost is something else, in my opinion ... at the time.

In the end ... long story, short, etc ... I came to the conclusion that the internal debate for me was about intention. Or my personal reasons for joining the police or military. Ultimately, you will still be taking life to preserve other lives and those lives you might take come at you KNOWING your role in society and the possible outcome of taking on an armed police officer with potential life threatening weaponry.

Complicated topic, and that just touches the tip of my internal dialogue about it. I wound up not doing either of those jobs because the one I've got pays better, and is safer.

When is it ok to kill?

To me human life is so sacred that I would
like to be able to say - never.
But I can't. I have to be honest. I would
fight to protect myself, to protect my
family, my children and my grandchildren.

I also believe that a person who has a terminal
illness and is suffering greatly and the
preservation of their life helps no one
and is desired neither by that person nor by
those who love them most dearly, then their
doctors should be allowed to let that person
die in peace and serenity. They should not
hook that person up to machines that sustain
their lives and prolong their suffering.

I am against the death penalty
because I don't think its really about deterrence
but retribution - about society's revenge on a
person who takes another's life. Whether such
retribution is justified is not a matter of
measurable facts. It is a moral judgement for
each individual to make.

War - which has long been one of the nastiest of
all human endeavors - now threatens the survival
of civilisation as we know it - and perhaps even
the existence of our species. The nuclear age is
here and we are living in its shadow.
All over the world, hundreds of thousands of
scientists and engineers devote their skills to
planning new and more efficien ways for humans to
kill one another; millions of workers labour to
manufacture instruments of death; and tens of
millions of soldiers train for combat -
and some actually go to war. From a moral and even an
economic point of view, this vast investment of
human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic waste.

Excellent post Lexi - I agree totally.

Why no death penalty in Australia? If a dog bites a man, then by law it is put to death!

It is all hypocrisy and mere convenience to claim that human life is "sacred" and other life is not. Nevertheless, those who believe that humans are "special" in some sense or another must side with Runner. Further, those who believe that life must not be taken, should not produce life either, because every living being is bound to die!

No, human life is not sacred. The reason we do not and should not kill others (human and otherwise) is not because of the dead (and his/her family and friends), but because of what that makes of us - murderers!

I leave the legal issues for another day (as they stand they are quite arbitrary) and turn to address the moral aspects:

The great moral injunction is Hillel's Golden Rule: "What you hate done to yourself - do not do unto others". So to tell whether it is OK to kill X, ask yourself: "Had I been in X's circumstances, would I hate being killed?". There is no universal answer, so you must be honest with yourself:

Sorry, I clicked on the "Post" button by mistake while these were still my raw, unedited thoughts on the matter.

So to continue where it left off, with Hillel's test, you have to be honest with yourself: suppose X was about to do something bad - would you in his place have preferred to be killed rather than to proceed with that crime? If your answer is 'Yes', then you wouldn't hate being killed under those circumstances and so it may be moral to kill X, but if it's 'No', then it would be immoral to kill X.

The same test can apply in other circumstances. Euthanasia, for example - "would I, being in the position of this miserable patient, hate it if I was killed?" If 'Yes', then it's immoral to kill the patient. If 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Or take abortion: "Would I, in place of this embryo, hate it if I was terminated, as opposed for example to being born to parents who don't want me?" If 'Yes', then it's immoral to abort, if 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Or take war: "Would I, in place of this enemy soldier, hate it if I was killed instead of killing the 'good ones'?": Well if indeed the 'good ones' are so good, so morally and otherwise superior than the 'bad ones', then the answer may be 'No', in which case killing the enemy may-be-moral, but not otherwise.

Or killing animals: "Would I, in place of this cow, hate being slaughtered and eaten by people?": If 'Yes', then it's immoral to slaughter, if 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Hillel's test is NOT UNIVERSAL. Different people may give different answers and therefore it's quite possible that killing someone is moral for one and not for another. Much depends upon one's level of spiritual progress. So long as you feel that it's worthwhile to stay living no matter what, then you shouldn't kill others, no matter what! Once your conscience tells you that you rather die than conduct an atrocity, THEN it may-be-moral for you to police and kill atrocious criminals.