Rationalizing murder

I am a very unemotional person at times, or at least I try to avoid displaying in signs of distress, anger, or even pleasure. Throughout my life I have found myself more strict about rationalizing every action I or those around me make, or my own thoughts; I don't even shift my weight without thinking about what the situation I am in can interpret that change to be. I've also been fascinated with ancient warfare, and detest modern history mainly because of the advancements in the means of murdering others. I can go on, but let me get to the point of this, hopefully, lively discussion.

I don't believe anyone should be murder, let me just say that; I value human life greatly- even that of a criminal (capital punishment is subjective/case-by-case). But this isn't about capital punishment. This is about whether or not you could go out into any situation, whether a stroll through the park or on the battlefield, murder another human being.

As the topic implicates, somewhat neutral, is I have rationalized for myself the ability to murder. I believe that if I were given a gun that I would have no trouble using it to murder someone. The popular phrase "Guns don't kill people, bullets do" comes to mind. Obviously, no one knows what they are capable of until they are put into the situation, but for the sake of the discussion lets accept that it's the thought that matters. Like I said in the intro, I am a fan of ancient warfare. Why? Because in the old days you had to be willing to be within 10 feet of your opponent, and then slice or thrust a piece of metal into another person, and get their blood on you, and see the life fade from their eyes. That, I can not do. But with a gun, all my body will know is that I pulled my finger towards my body, and there was some resistance (the trigger). Even point-blank, it wouldn't be that difficult.


I am interested to hear if others have had similar thoughts and, obviously, differing thoughts. I'm open to judgment on what I've revealed about my psyche.

Hrm, interesting question really. How to rationalize murder. Now that name by itself, implies that there was no motive aside from perhaps anger or the like, and is therefore not related to self-defense, which by definition is not technically murder.

To do it for no reason other than being mad at someone is something I probably couldn't do. Self-defense is another matter, would I hesitate to kill someone who may hurt myself or family or some friends I have over? Of course not, by attempting to hurt myself/other around me, that person forfeits their right to live, cause they intend to take away mine.

However, people randomly going on rampages (no matter what the reason) are beyond any measure of rationalization anyway.

Okay, first you say "some who may"[not certain] and then you go into "cause they intend"[certain]. That is not the same thing man.
I wonder then. Would you kill someone who you're not sure would harm your family?

Also, I fail to understand what the OP meant. Is it if I would feel less remorse to murder a stranger with a gun instead of having to engage in close combat?
If so, then my answer is no. I would not feel any less remorse to have killed someone using a gun, even if my act wasn't to be known by anyone else (no witnesses).

If someone is threatening my life or those of anyone I value I will try to stop him/her even if it results in his/her death.

If they make the decision to harm/kill another then they better be prepared to face the consequences of someone else trying to stop them which can lead to their own death.

I don't exactly agree with the death penalty though. It costs more than just giving someone a life sentence and most of the death row inmates don't get killed for many years. Also it doesn't seem to be deterring crime at all.

The main question is whether or not you can rationalize the act of murder given situation, personal make-up, etc.
A sub-question I slipped in there, which you found (kudos), was, "Does the weapon play a factor?" Like I said in the OP, based on the assumption that the thoughts now will be the same in the situation, I would be less likely to take someones life with a blade than that of a gun.

Seconded.

Huh? Rationalize the act of murder? I still don't understand what you're asking. If someone does understand, please give me a hand here.

If anyone seriously hurt my daughter I would KILL them.
My partner and I have spoke about it.
There is a Pedo in my family on my mothers side.
We do NOT talk to that side of the family.
But if anything like 'that' ever happened to my child I would gladly kill :D
As I woud not be ablt to live with myself not doing anything.
They dont get long in jail either, a couple of months is nothing to the memorys and suffering a child goes through.

Well thats my view any way...

I'm pretty much loose on most things like premarital sex, smoking, and, at most, marijuana.

The act of Murder, which legally means planned killing to an obviously unwanting victim, is against my convictions. I find no valid reason whatsoever to kill another human being, and you can instead, if you play it right, can profit from the guy, so why murder him? I consider Abortion as a murder because it is planned and the person is willing to do it to the victim.

But killing a person by an innocent accident (this includes mentally disabled persons) or necessary self defense (overkill much to kill a person who's unarmed, right?) are the only times I can say that the act is rationalized, but never justified, for whatever act you do is upon you, no matter what your end may be.

Kill only if you can carry the burden. I can't even forgive myself for disabling an enemy, let alone killing.

Add. Info: Murder is planned killing. Homicide is killing the person in the spot for something that happened then. Example, a person who assassinates somebody commits murder, while a jealous bastard, who happened to carry a sharp object, who stabs a guy who is with the bastard's girl at the time commits homicide. Murder is worse because you had time to think about what you are doing, while homicide is like a violent reflex.

For the sake of answering your question:


I have bolded the most relevant pieces of his post and deleted the worthless shit.

Basically, do you think you would be able to murder someone? As he mentions, it would be much easier for him to murder with a gun than with a sword, because with a sword you have to get up close and personal and the result of your action is more gruesome.

Edit: Don't worry, you're not the only one in this thread who didn't get it.

Ooooooooh now I understand. He's asking if we're sure we could murder someone.

So then, no. I don't think i'd be able to kill someone. Maybe knock them out cold with a random object. But not kill them completely.

I don't think I'd be able to rationalize it in anyway that's a very deep question, but would I pull the trigger? Yes, with no hesitation what so ever. I also think I'd be able to thrust a sword into someone and watch the life drain slowly from their eyes as their blood falls from the tip of my sword. That might seem a little heartless but in the world it is the strong that prevail.

In addition I like what you said in the beginning about how you can be emotionless at times. I find myself to be the same way and I laugh at people that get out of control and angry. Its that I think rationally about things all the time. I also don't like to project my insecurities on other people I'd rather think deeply about it then get all worked up. It's more like I can't allow myself to be filled with sadness or anger because then you have given up all rational thought and are acting on emotions alone. That can cause bad things to happen.

FYI, the popular phrase you mentioned in your first post, Soul_Slayer, is, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Just getting the idioms straight.

And like others, I doubt I would be able to kill someone unless I was forced too, and even then I wouldn't be unfazed by it either.

I believe that certain people are more important than others and their lives from a logical point of view are more important and have more value. Like for example the life of a homeless person has far less value than the life of the President. An Extreme example yes but as the gap in importance gets narrower people would say that neither life should be taken but if they were to really look at the lives of the two people and not let emotions get in the way then one life, most of the time, would clearly be of more value than the life of the other and the person with the least value to their life would be killed.

Completely ignored the question.

@Kuroneko1/2 The bold is a great example of what I meant by rationalization. A good definition I found on dictionary.com: "to remove unreasonable elements from." Such as emotions, etc.

@Hentai-Legacy I think we could be friends :P

In response to other answers, I do accept the protection of others (loved ones, etc), even though it still reveals and emotional reaction. I, in fact, agree with the concept of defense.


That is a more well known one, but the I was correct in the phrase/idiom I used. The one I used is more commonly associated with stray bullets being shit into the air and landing miles away and killing someone. But I use that phrase because I am a humanist, and so I hesitate to tarnish human nature with such a phrase.

He kinda ignored the question. Though I disagree, he did give justification for the loss of life, but left out the elements of his actions causing that loss of life.

A stray bullet without the intention to actually kill an innocent bystander is "manslaughter", which is very different from actually trying to kill your intended target, aka "murder." Thus your idiom usage does not apply to the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but this is just too good to not quote.