KIlling in the name of, How different is from murder |
KIlling in the name of, How different is from murder |
Mar 27 2008, 11:33 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,141 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 2,048 |
Greets,
It is a bit of a moral dilemma for me and I am trying to figure it out. What makes a runner a professional killer? Is it that they take money for it, or is there a kind of steely professionalism that creates mental barriers so that you are not killing Smith, but the henchman that got in your way. If the runners are hired to kill someone in a club. In one version of the scenario one of the character's seduces him so that he drinks from a poisoned cup, dying of what might be a stroke or heart attack (until the autopsy of course). In a second version he is lead to the back alley of the bar where the PCs wait and confront him and kill him and his bodyguard in an action movie style hale of bullets. In a third version the PCs corner him in the back alley and beat him to death with tire irons and fists. It seems to me that the difference between killing and murder is that killing seems to involve James Bond like adversaries and methods and is murder involves plebian weapons with plebian motives. Am I off base here? Is there a limit to what you consider to be acceptable violence? Is it really about seeing the sensible guns, but not seeing the senseless act? |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 02:39 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Most evils begin with emotionally detaching oneself from the victim, and killing someone depends on this more than most. Premeditated murder is commonly perceived as more evil than killing someone in the height of battle because the emotional detachment required is both more sustained, lacks the immediate and attributable cause of a momentary anger or threat and, particularly, indicates a lower threshold for achieving the mental level of intent to kill. I.e. if you kill for money as opposed to because you found someone attacking your partner, that indicates that the necessary level of intent is arrived at too easily as far as society is concerned. Therefore it's considered a greater problem to be rectified with punishment. In your poison - tire iron progression, one might consider the beating to death to be worse because it demands a greater degree of emotional detachment. It might even indicate a pleasure in such methods if it is chosen over the method of poison. But I think all distinctions are heavily over ridden by the simple fact of pre-meditated murder. If some bizarre circumstance (such as only happens in movies and RPGs) happened whereby someone murdered another for "the greater good" etc., then the quick poison method would be considered a lesser evil than the tire irons, because it would be kinder. But you can't tell the difference between two shades of grey when you're standing in the bottom of a coal mine. (Figuratively speaking). |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 02:52 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,263 Joined: 4-March 08 From: Blighty Member No.: 15,736 |
If some bizarre circumstance (such as only happens in movies and RPGs) happened whereby someone murdered another for "the greater good" etc., Bizarre circumstance that only happens in movies and RPGs? It's done every day by all manner of people; religious, secular, professionals, amateurs, Americans, Europeans, Britons, Africans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders. Intelligence services do this on a regular basis, although you can claim that it isn't murder because it's done to protect others from misfortune - in which case nobody can ever get murdered for the greater good either. I'll now contribute to the topic constructively; the world of 2070 is full of people that value the lives of others little, as you might expect in a world that is so full of problems and low living standards. The kind of person who is willing to kill others in order to survive is not going to be rare, the only abnormal thing about Shadowrunners is the amount of effort they're willing to put into this earning their pay and the amount of danger they accept as part of their lives. |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 04:25 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Bizarre circumstance that only happens in movies and RPGs? It's done every day by all manner of people; religious, secular, professionals, amateurs, Americans, Europeans, British, Africans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders. Intelligence services do this on a regular basis, although you can claim that it isn't murder because it's done to protect others from misfortune - in which case nobody can ever get murdered for the greater good either. People murder each other for the greater good everyday in these countries and these professions? I require evidence of that. As to the view held by several here that murder is only murder if condemned by society, I disagree completely. The act remains the same act regardless of whether your culture or leader congratulates you for it. The argument extended above exonerates every Nazi perpetrator of the Holocaust, Ariel Sharon and countless others. And to say that a soldier is not murdering someone because he's "defending his buddies" in no way changes that he has just shot someone dead. That he may or may not be able to justify it (and if he is not defending someone that did not themselves force the attacker to resort to violence, then he probably cannot without recourse to personal profit), does not change what is done. To define murder as "unlawful killing" is to declare the legal system an arbiter of morale action. We have seen repeatedly throughout history that this is hopelessly fallable. |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 04:48 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,263 Joined: 4-March 08 From: Blighty Member No.: 15,736 |
People murder each other for the greater good everyday in these countries and these professions? I require evidence of that. Let me first ask you how you so define the "greater good" with regards to scope. Is it that you believe that the "greater good" requires that the whole world benefits? Or that some small part of it benefits? For the former, we are dealing with fewer people; those that believe that the world would be improved by the group they kill in the name of. Muslims with the unquestioned belief that only Islam can save people from eternal torment can be said to be killing for the "greater good", as can Christians or Hindus that do the same. Patriots that believe that their country is beneficial for humanity in the military or intelligence services that are ordered to kill are doing so for the "greater good". The racist that is also a patriot that kills "those durned black folk" because they believe that only a racially pure country is stable (and therefore best able to benefit the world) and the ecological extremist that blows up buildings for their cause because they believe that humans are killing the earth both are doing it for the "greater good". For the latter, anyone who kills for the interests of a group is killing for the "greater good". One can make an argument that since any benefit to one small part of humanity still benefits humanity as a whole, so this position is valid. You can take issue with my definition of the "greater good" as a purely subjective phenomenon, but there can be no agreement as to what the "greater good" entails in universal practical terms and whether one goes for a utilitarian sum of all or individual benefits is something else that not all will agree upon. |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 05:26 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Let me first ask you how you so define the "greater good" with regards to scope. Is it that you believe that the "greater good" requires that the whole world benefits? Or that some small part of it benefits? A universal agreement on what is the "greater good" is going to be hard to reach, but I think we can rule certain things out that you wont dispute. Murder for revenge on personal slights, infidelities, dislike of a person's ethnicity or religion, for personal profit or to satisfy personal desire to kill. Murder for just about any cause that isn't to prevent further harm qualifies, I think. Agreed? If not, why not? Now your comment as that QUOTE (Heath Robinson) It's [murder for the greater good] done every day by all manner of people; religious, secular, professionals, amateurs, Americans, Europeans, Britons, Africans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders. Intelligence services do this on a regular basis I require evidence of that. I don't believe that murder is committed every day in these places for reasons that don't fall into the above. As you think they do, please provide some examples. As to the intelligence services doing this on a regular basis, I have to point out two things that undermine this: Firstly, under international law (and even the US has committed to this one), extra judicial killings are prohibited without exception. So if you were in a position to say that such things were occurring on a regular basis, you certainly wouldn't be posting that on a role-playing forum. Secondly, as far as instances of extra-judicial killings taking place that we are aware of publically, I can't name one that has been done for "the greater good." In fact, most of the instances I'm aware of are ones I've heard word of mouth ones about targeted killings in Iraq of bothersomely popular figures. That definitely falls under the motives of political advantage and / or profit. Certainly not "for the greater good." You asked for the definition of "for the greater good" and it's hard to give you a perfect one off the cuff, but I'd say any motive that has the gain of one particular faction at the expense of another is on extremely shaky ground. QUOTE (Heath Robinson) Muslims with the unquestioned belief that only Islam can save people from eternal torment can be said to be killing for the "greater good" Firstly, there are over a billion muslims alive today and the incidences of violence picked up on by the Western media are firstly a tiny minority, and secondly almost always to do with a political situation in the area, not the fact that someone is a muslim or an arab. It's offensive to use Islam as the go to example for incidents of violence. Secondly to your actual point: that a murderer might say an incident of violence is for the greater good does not mean that it was so. I am not discussing whether murders are considered to be for the greater good or not. I'm questioning your off-hand belief that there are murders "every day" that actually are for the greater good. As I've stated above, killing someone for the benefit of one faction at the expense of the another is really hard to understand as being for the greater good. If you can provide examples of killings being done every day to prevent further harm, we might be talking. But other than that, I'm going to have to ask you to post examples of killings that you think are done for the greater good. I'm serious - we can argue sementics for page after page, but if there are killings done every day for the greater good in the UK, then it ought to be fairly easy to substantiate. You can take issue with my definition of the "greater good" as a purely subjective phenomenon, but there can be no agreement as to what the "greater good" entails in universal practical terms and whether one goes for a utilitarian sum of all or individual benefits is something else that not all will agree upon. As you can see, your options were not the only ones. I think we have a rough, working definition of "greater good" to go on. |
|
|
Mar 27 2008, 06:59 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,263 Joined: 4-March 08 From: Blighty Member No.: 15,736 |
Snipped everything because I intend to deal with everything in as short a space as possible The fact that you also failed to notice that I intended to say that all groups kill for the "greater group" and instead misconstrued what I said as it occuring every day in every single country is rather vexing, and possibly an attempt at strawmanning. That you acknowledge the idea that no one can come up with a definition of the "greater good" that is universal (i.e. it is not objectively definable) but ALSO reject the idea that the "greater good" is subjective (that a "murderer might say an incident of violence is for the greater good does not mean that it was so") in the same post is confusing and annoying because it's obvious that you're attempting to state contradictory things and then cherry pick them to defend yourself when I attack those statements. Add to this the fact that you refuse to define what you think the definition of the "greater good" is and I can't actually answer your questions at all. You only actually pay attention to my Muslim example of people who might kill for the "greater good" and I want to know why. Is it that - because it's a sensitive issue in the UK - you want me to rescind my statement in an attempt to show that I'm not sure of my positions so that you can use that to argue me down? Poor show old chap, poor show. I'm not scared of the threat of being hated and Muslim extremism is as much a threat as any other extremism, including secular extremism. Anybody that refuses people the ability to make harmless choices is evil. My position is thus; if their moral outlook factored in support of their choice to kill him - no matter how little - then it was in the name of the "greater good". If it didn't then it was not. Whether or not I agree with their morality does not matter, it was for the "greater good". Anywhere in which the death penalty serves as a punishment for a crime people are being murdered by a state for the "greater good". Some intelligence agent murders are for the purpose of the "greater good" and some for other reasons as well. If they are ordered to do this then someone may consider it as in the interests of the "greater good". The law empowers its agents to kill in certain circumstances and therefore condones those deaths as for the "greater good". Therefore people die every day in the name of the "greater good" no matter how it may be presented. I've communicated what I think, come and get me. |
|
|
Mar 28 2008, 10:36 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
The fact that you also failed to notice that I intended to say that all groups kill for the "greater group" and instead misconstrued what I said as it occuring every day in every single country is rather vexing, and possibly an attempt at strawmanning. Ah, I see. We're having an argument in which one party must "win." Not my intention and no strawman was intended. You stated: QUOTE (Heath Robinson) Bizarre circumstance that only happens in movies and RPGs? It's done every day by all manner of people; religious, secular, professionals, amateurs, Americans, Europeans, Britons, Africans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders. Intelligence services do this on a regular basis I think it was reasonable to interpret that as you saying that these "murders for the greater good" happen every day. If you are now saying that they don't, then I'm happy with that. It is closer to agreement with my own position that such cases are extremely exceptional if they exist at all. That you acknowledge the idea that no one can come up with a definition of the "greater good" that is universal (i.e. it is not objectively definable) but ALSO reject the idea that the "greater good" is subjective (that a "murderer might say an incident of violence is for the greater good does not mean that it was so") in the same post is confusing and annoying because it's obvious that you're attempting to state contradictory things and then cherry pick them to defend yourself There's nothing inconsistent in my post and nor am I cherry-picking. I said that it was difficult for me to define what would constitute "greater good" in these circumstances and that obtaining universal agreement on a definition would not be possible. But I did list a number of motives that I felt we could rule out: personal revenge, personal profit, to gain respect, for example. I asked you if you disputed any of these as not falling under the category of greater good. If you do, then I'd really like to hear why you feel they constitute greater good. And if you don't, as I assume, then I was interested in some of these murders that fall outside these reasons. You've amended your statement from these happening "every day" but you're still implying that they're pretty common. when I attack those statements. Add to this the fact that you refuse to define what you think the definition of the "greater good" is and I can't actually answer your questions at all. I've given (second time now), a working definition in that we can rule a lot of justifications for murder out. Sufficient for you to either provide examples or dispute the definition. But please don't consider it necessary to "attack" my statements. I am interested in discussing it without it becoming an exercise is proving the other wrong. When that happens, it becomes hard to be critical of oneself for fear of the other party taking it as an advantage. You only actually pay attention to my Muslim example of people who might kill for the "greater good" and I want to know why. Is it that - because it's a sensitive issue in the UK - you want me to rescind my statement in an attempt to show that I'm not sure of my positions so that you can use that to argue me down? No. It is not an attempt to make you rescind your argument to make you look unsure of your position. Where do you get this stuff from what I wrote? I commented on your reference to "muslim extremists" not because there are no such people, but because there are about a billion muslims on this planet who are not suicide bombers out to destroy the US. The mainstream media in the UK, and even more so in the USA, really strongly create an image in people's minds of "muslim extremists" to the extent that its becoming one of, if not the first, mental image people have when they hear the word muslim. It's grossly unfair and naturally I address it by emphasizing its lack of validity. One billion muslims? And how many terrorist incidents involving how many people? The repeated referencing to incidents in Iraq as "terrorist" when it's an occupied country in a state of episodic civil war further drives home this misrepresentation as having to do with being muslim when it is to do with the chaos within the country. You can bet that Shia or Sunni militias would not, if the US withdraw, all suddenly head over to the US to perpetrate bombings there, but that is the image that is presented in the media when people are told they're fighting terrorist forces. A deliberate and incorrect linking of the strife in Iraq with memories of 9/11 in order to shore up support for US activity there. This is why I commented on your reference to "muslim extremists" - because powerful parties deliberately foster such an association and it needs countering because it is detrimental to the rest of us. My position is thus; if their moral outlook factored in support of their choice to kill him - no matter how little - then it was in the name of the "greater good". If it didn't then it was not. Then you are arguing that there is no such things as murder for a greater good in which case you are agreeing with my statement that murders for the actual (minimally subjective) greater good are bizarre exceptions normally encountered only in RPGs and movies. You are saying that many muderers consider their actions to be for the greater good. That's fine - it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. There is no argument, though I doubt many people kill, thinking to themselves - "this is for the greater good." Most people who kill aren't thinking at that level at all. Some intelligence agent murders are for the purpose of the "greater good" and some for other reasons as well. If they are ordered to do this then someone may consider it as in the interests of the "greater good". See again, you're stating this but I refer you to my previous comment. Extra-judicial killings are forbidden without exception under international law (and the USA's), so you're certainly not in a position to off-handedly say these things "happen on a regular basis" and the incidents that I am aware of, whether substantiated or not, certainly don't fall under the subject of greater good. - they only fall under the heading of seeking political or military advantage. I've communicated what I think, come and get me. Maybe I don't need to. You are talking at cross-purposes to what I have said and there's no need for us to have an actual argument about this. Regards, -K. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd January 2025 - 12:54 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.