Rationalizing murder

KG's small list of acceptable and non acceptable murder circumstances:

.... be a little more lenient with my diction. Though "murder" implies the legal system, I was hoping the word "Rationalize" would off-set such useless distractions.


That's probably the best typo I've ever done. "shot*"

I will not be lenient on diction, especially in Serious Discussion. (Nothing against you personally, but just saying.) Especially when we can't see others face to face, what we write is what we are conveying, and if your words are just slightly mispelled or used wrongly, it will completely misconstrue your intent in posting. Even in the legal system, the charges for manslaughter and murder are still very different, obviously that the latter is more punishable than the former.

To be honest, given that you take your distance with anything, you can minimize the problem or issue at hand until it is no longer a concern. Guns allows us to shoot over a long distance, and spacing oneself far enough can detract one from the reality, or "rationalizing" so to speak. It still doesn't erase the fact that you killed someone, but because it did not happen in your face it seems less real.

Alright, seems I missed part of the point here.

Given what I think on the matter, could I kill someone? That answer is yes.

While the reasons may be different, I wouldn't break down and have a moral dilemma or anything, I may be a little bothered by it, but again that depends on the circumstances.

I'm still not 100% sure what was being asked even after reading all the replies, so if I'm still off, enlighten me.

Point taken. If it counts for anything, I just thought "murder" would get the message across better than "Rationalizing the act of taking another human beings life." Unfortunately, I do see the flaw in doing this, as murder implies immorality (wrong, yes, but I tend to discredit moral-judgments).

On the latter bit, though the fact that guns can allow one to further distance themselves from the act of taking a life, and I did mention the gruesomeness of close-range combat, I do believe I said shooting at someone point-blank would be easier on me than more "primitive" means.


I like the effort. You faced the question and admitted to something a majority of society deems a flaw in human nature. I hope you take that as a complement, as it is meant to be.

I understand why a lot of people are being confused by my topic. I am fairly confident a large part of that is because of my "free" writing habits. I hate structure and I try to convey the meaning and understanding of something rather than risking losing important information through editing. It has it's shining moments, but even I have difficulty sometimes if I ever do go back and read what I've written.

I'll see if I can put it in another way then how Ive been explaining it, but I can almost guarantee it wont help too much: Either give the easy answer if you can justify the act of taking another persons life (self-defense, vengeance, etc); or give an answer that requires you to look in the very depths of your mind and Reason and find how far you can detach yourself from society's norms and distracting experiences that have formed the filters of your mind...

I like to think of myself as a philosopher, so it is hard to ask those that haven't thought of these questions to give a straight answer right away. But I am hoping to stimulate new thoughts in this community, thoughts that are seemingly unpleasant.

I can understand why most would deem it a flaw in human nature, but despite how wrong that is (Humans are exceedingly violent by nature regardless of if we try to deny it) sometimes murder is necessary, plain and simple.