Are there circumstances when WE CAN KILL with justification?

Question: Are there circumstances when WE CAN KILL with justification!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I've seen all the 11 answers so far you got! "Self Defense" covered majority!. I feel embarrassed to reply you! Because, "in favor of a killing" there can't be any so-called "JUSTIFICATION" indeed, I'm sorry!. There could be "NECESSITY"----not justification!. Being not at all a supporter of the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq, I did took his death as necessary for the USA! There were no justification at all!. Let me tell you a story: You're standing by your car at some fuel pump, with gun in your hand by the by & you, all of a sudden, noticed that someone with gun moving towards you by shouting your name to kill you! Would it be justified to fire at that guy before he kills you!? Yes, he meaningfully running towards you to kill you! I'm sorry, there were no justification!. You were supposed to save yourself by either running or taking a safe shelter!. If that killer yet chased you & if you had no way out-----it's NECESSARY then to proyect you!. Well, does self protecting need killing always!? You could shot him on legs, arms or elsewhere so that he were not KILLED!. By the way, JUSTIFICATION is such a word with great meaning indeed! Though this word is used here & there for simple cases!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

there are a few circumstances or a few conditions!. like when someone attacks with the motive of killing you or you can say in a self defense!. and when someone asks you to kill him\her this possible condition arise in few cases as only people who are ready to die as they may be suffering from any disease which is incurable so you can kill them if they want you to do so you are not actually killing them in fact helping them!. and when someone attacks your country you can kill a person and while saving a another personWww@QuestionHome@Com

Since this is in the philosophy section, there are philosophies that allow killing!. Utilitarianism is focused on the greatest good for the greatest number of people!. In some instances "greatest good" is interpreted to be "greatest pleasure," so using that definition, if the majority felt pleasure watching people be killed, it would be justified!.

However, the more common interpretation is "greatest benefit," which reduces the circumstances where killing is allowed!. If a person walking down the street is shot, it may provide benefit to the shooter (who could be after life insurance, freedom from a bad marriage, etc) but it would harm that person's family and children!. Therefore it's not justifiable!. If that person were slowly poisoning the entire town, though, killing him or her would benefit the majority and be justifiable!.

Just for the record, I don't like utilitarianism!.

Another philosophy that allows for justifiable killing is Deontology!. Unlike utilitarianism, Deontology is more focused on the means than the end!. It provides for the death of a person, only if that death will save the lives of more individuals than the one lost!. This doesn't provide for killing one person to harvest organs to save five others, but it does provide for using the death of one individual to prevent a mass murderer from killing hundreds more!.

Legally, several states have self defense laws in their statutes so according to the law such killing is justified!. Morally, this would be justified if your family was threatened by an intruder!. War is justified by Congress and the President!. Morally, it would be justifiable if the deaths from the war saved the lives of more people than those being lost or benefited the majority!.

Utilitarianism would be more likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq than Deontology, since Deontology focuses on the means, while utilitarianism is concerned with the end!. In the end, if the oil we gain from the deaths is valuable enough to benefit the majority, the war is justified!. Deontology would consider the means and see that Iraq posed no initial threat to the US, and never attacked us so the invasion was not the right means, regardless of how much oil we get from Iraq!.

I suppose it depends on which philosophy fits your beliefs!. Or which philosophy feels like your truth!. Granted, you could always question these philosophies and address morality in a completely different manner!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes, there are!. One of them is to kill in self-defence!. Another is in war!. Still another is to prevent murder!. Even another one is to kill an intruder within our houses while it's still dark!. Once the sun is out, it's murder!. This last is also a Biblical injunction which has also
been adopted by Western culture!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Circumstances!?!?!?
In this age of intercontinental missiles with atomic warheads, we don’t even will get time to think about any thing except to immediately fire to counter the attack by enemy, be it justified or not!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I personally do not beleive we have the right to take another life, however, if it were it self defence, it would not be justified morally, but it would be understood and accepted!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

When it benefits you, and you can get away with it!.
- NietzscheWww@QuestionHome@Com

When doing Comedy it is essential to KILL!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Self-defense and defending liberty!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Self Defense or defense of others!. And I thoroughly believe in revenge!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In self defense, or you are fighting a greater evil!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

certainly!. i believe in the death penaltyWww@QuestionHome@Com