KIlling in the name of, How different is from murder Options

[Fuchs]

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.

It's the only definition I can accept. Deciding what's murder, what's manslaughter, and what's justified killing is what I do for a living. It is by no account "hopelessly fallable" since deciding whether or not a justification like "I was ordered to" is standing up in court is a central part of this process if brought up. It generally means that an execution ordered by a state is not considered murder when the basic standards of fair trial had been followed. That's the international standards, not the standards of individual states.

[ArkonC]

I think the idea that all shadowrunners are mentally unstable or just plain bad people is flawed. Some shadowrunners are good people, trying to do good things, and hopefully earn a living doing it...
I've played my share of benevolent people in SR3, not taking any wetwork runs, planning other runs to such an extent that during the whole campaign, only a handful of people actually died...
On the other hand, the previous character I played was a complete psycho, ice cold and all that...
So I'm not saying shadowrunners are good people, just that they can be, it takes all kinds...

On the subject of murder, any justification is only a point of view. It used to be justified to duel someone to the death over matters of honour (and we just don't see enough of those nowadays). Everyone understands freedom fighters killing for their own freedom. Well, everyone but the people they kill... D&D makes it easy, here's black, here's white, now go kill... Shadowrun is just shades of shiny neon grey...

[Critias]

Note, at no point did I say all Shadowrunners. I said "your average Shadowrunner." Just like your average death row inmate isn't there over a mistake the courts have made (the vast majority of people on death row are guilty of their crimes), but there may be one or two that are... the average Shadowrunner is very likely a mildly sociopathic mercenary who can't hold or won't hold down a real job for some reason.

There are Robin Hoods and Sam Verners out there, but I imagine the greedy, murderous, assholes outnumber them pretty heftily.

[Slymoon]

Ah yes, the question of Morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism


and finally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Convicted of manslaughter, though by definition it should have been murder since that was the intention.




Overall, killing something is 'murder':
The social acceptability is another matter, whether it be acceptable as defense but not as stepping out and random shooting/ stabbing. Killing for sport or to eat (in the case of animals for the most part) is what the debate from persons is today. As I spoke before I am a hunter and the term 'murder' when hunting offends me, but bluntly that is exactly what it is. It is acceptable to me as I do not just do it for kicks.
And in some societies (rare these days) it was socially acceptable to eat people.

So the question should be:
In Shadowrun 2070 is it socially acceptable to be killed randomly or not. Based on society today, I have to assume it is still not acceptable and therefor Society(as a whole) would never justify a Shadowrunner. However, a corp sec guard would be justified in killing "Terrorists/ 'Runners". At least that is my opinion.

[Drogos]

This also begs the question of how romanticized are shadowrunners by the media of 2070?

[Critias]

Of course a security guard would be "justified" by society in killing a Shadowrunner. It's his job. Hell, they might even get a raise for it.

If society didn't expect security guards to kill Shadowrunners, the position of armed security guards wouldn't exist. Shadowrunners wouldn't carry such fun guns. Security guards would...do what? Politely ask you to leave?

[Fuchs]

Given the acceptance of gladiatorial games and similar Bloodsport by the masses, and the only slightly less deadly combat bike and urban brawl leagues, I do not think SR's society sees killing in the same light as we do. It's still a crime, but I think society as a whole is more dehumanised, and does not see murder as as wrong as we see it.

[knasser]

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

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.

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.

[Spike]

Of course a security guard would be "justified" by society in killing a Shadowrunner. It's his job. Hell, they might even get a raise for it.

If society didn't expect security guards to kill Shadowrunners, the position of armed security guards wouldn't exist. Shadowrunners wouldn't carry such fun guns. Security guards would...do what? Politely ask you to leave?

Now ask me why I classify Demolition Man as a horror movie.

[knasser]

Of course a security guard would be "justified" by society in killing a Shadowrunner. It's his job. Hell, they might even get a raise for it.

If society didn't expect security guards to kill Shadowrunners, the position of armed security guards wouldn't exist. Shadowrunners wouldn't carry such fun guns. Security guards would...do what? Politely ask you to leave?

Well we can go back to issues of the right to own land and there's room for ethical debate on whether it's acceptable to claim something as yours. But for purposes of this debate, I think it's pretty clear that the security guard can claim some level of self-defence against the armed intruders breaking into his workplace to justify his actions to himself, whilst the Shadowrunners have to look quite a bit harder to find a moral justification for shooting at him.

[Critias]

Well we can go back to issues of the right to own land and there's room for ethical debate on whether it's acceptable to claim something as yours.

For the most part, in Shadowrun (as in real life), it's pretty well settled that if something is legally yours (as defined by the laws of the nation-state involved), ethical debates get a big ol' "fuck you." In Shadowrun, especially, only in the most lawless of places (the dark nooks the corps don't like to pay much attention to directly) does anyone dare say otherwise. Indeed, most cyberpunk-genre worlds revolve around the ideas of ownership and profit.

But for purposes of this debate, I think it's pretty clear that the security guard can claim some level of self-defence against the armed intruders breaking into his workplace to justify his actions to himself, whilst the Shadowrunners have to look quite a bit harder to find a moral justification for shooting at him.

Quite so.

He's there doing his legally accepted job, collecting his paycheck and walking his beat, protecting what every other position in the megacorporation has worked so hard to create. You're there knowingly and willfully breaking the law, specifically in contradiction to his stated and socially accepted position, and are both ready and willing to murder him in order to keep him from stopping you. That puts, by default, the Shadowrunner in the "bad guy" category, as society as a whole measures such things.

Society as a whole is not Shadowland or ... or... whatchamacallit, the new Shadowrunner hang-out message board thing, by the way.

[WhiteWolf]

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?

Morally speaking murder is a consious act of willing taking someone's life where killing is a consious act of unwilling taking someone's life. Examples of murder would be every act you described. Unwilling would be self-defense and during the course of defending yourself the other person's life was taken from them. Everyone has the right to defend themself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Moon-Hawk]

You guys can go 'round and 'round, but it's all based on assumptions like: "killing people is wrong", and "people have free will". Especially the "killing people is wrong" assumption. Bear with me a sec, you're talking about "sociopaths" killing people, and that's exactly the kind of group you need to convince on the whole "killing is wrong" issue. There's the 4-year-old-child "why" defense (you know, the one where the little rugrat just asks "why?" after everything you say, and sometimes you can't tell if they're seeking deep fundamental truth or just trying to piss you off) that can be a little tricky to get around on issues that "normal" people consider obvious.
Normal person: Killing people is wrong.
Sociopathic 4-year-old: Why?
Normal person: Because then they're dead.
Sociopathic 4-year-old: So? That was the point.
Normal person: But you wouldn't like it if someone killed you.
Sociopathic (and evidently very precocious) 4-year-old: But I wouldn't be alive to not like it. Besides, that's all the more reason to kill them first.

[Fix-it]

the can is open...

the worms

are everywhere

[Fortune]

Normal person: Killing people is wrong.
Sociopathic 4-year-old: Why?
Normal person: Because then they're dead.
Sociopathic 4-year-old: So? That was the point.
Normal person: But you wouldn't like it if someone killed you.
Sociopathic (and evidently very precocious) 4-year-old: But I wouldn't be alive to not like it. Besides, that's all the more reason to kill them first.

Sounds about right to me! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Heath Robinson]

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.

[hermit]

The capacity for such work -- and by this I even mean gunning down an unlucky security guard while in the middle of a b&e style job, not just pure wetwork -- is one of the reasons I've long been of the opinion that your average Shadowrunner is somehow fundamentally flawed.

Like the average Blackwater employee or US special forces soldier is? Honestly, I don't see why. People are always capable of murder, if they need to.

I think you really do have to have a bit of psychopathy to be able to work as a Shadowrunner. To be able to go to violence from zero to a hundred demands a certain type of personality. The kind that scares people more than any intimidation roll might.

An explosive temper is, if you ask me, rather detrimental for a shdowrunner, who needs to be more capable of self-control no matter what, ideally. Think Jack Bauer. Of course, hurting others and not giving a damn about it when you do is nescessary too, but that, everyone can learn.

Everyone has the right to defend themself.

Fun. How far does that go? When directly attacked? When threatened by a superior enemy, do you have the right to attack them first, knowing they'll attack you anyway? And where does that end? Kicking their backs? Shooting their backs? Sniping and running? Planting roadside IEDs when their cars drive by?

Shadowruns don't really need killing most of the time, the way I see it. You can B&E without bloodshed, if you plan accordingly and are somewhat lucky. Wetwork being the exception, but you can also pull that off with minimal bloodshed (the target's), with some luck. Tasers re useful weapons anyway (and firing twice at some person will fairly surely kill them, at least under SR3 rules, so if you really want to kill you still can). For wetwork, stelthy methods usually work best, so in the example from the start, I'd say the poisoning, as well as the beating to death in a dark alley, are more professional than the "Tikki goes to town and kills everyone with her leet vindicator" type of approach.

[Fortune]

Being able to exhibit extreme and sudden violence does not necessarily equate to 'an explosive temper'. In fact, I think it's the very lack of an explosive temper accompanying that type of instant violence is more what Critias is referring to. Most people display some extreme emotions when they commit a violent act, but those with sociopathic tendencies can usually commit those kinds of acts dispassionately.

[Moon-Hawk]

Being able to exhibit extreme and sudden violence does not necessarily equate to 'an explosive temper'. In fact, I think it's the very lack of an explosive temper accompanying that type of instant violence is more what Critias is referring to. Most people display some extreme emotions when they commit a violent act, but those with sociopathic can usually commit those kinds of acts dispassionately.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. The ability to be enjoying a beer at the bar, have some dude attack you, beat him until his face is squishy and shoot him three times, then sit down and finish your beer, without getting upset. That's scary.

Me? I would be very upset. But hey, it's good beer, what are you supposed to do, waste it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

edit: Hmmm, all my posts today seem to involve beer. You can tell what kind of day I'm having.

[Wesley Street]

Very, very dubious. What were the motivations for the run again? If it's money, I think you've failed at morality.

Shadowrunners are fighters. Warriors-for-hire, but warriors never the less, trapped in a society where violence CAN offer reward without repercussion. And when is war NOT about money... or at the very least forcing a favorable economic outcome? I'm not necessarily talking about war on a national scale ie: U.S. vs. North Korea. How many rap songs are there about a young thug saying he's a "soljaboy for life"? I'm not trying to be flip here but war/conflict and money go together like peanut butter and chocolate. Feeling like you've done your patriotic/tribal/gang duty, an adrenaline rush, or cash: they're all some form of payment (be it material or philosophical) and that's what drives a man to pick up a gun and shoot another (when you aren't being threatened first, obviously).

[Wesley Street]

No, it's murder. Like most criminals, you can make all sorts of arguments about how "she had it coming" but murder is what it is. Your character is a the same moral level as the guy who shoots people in a 7-11 for $213.

I cry a little for Mrs. Greedo's baby boy. Gunned down by some shitbird redneck drug-smuggler in a backwater bar.

Shadowrun deals with more shades of gray than your average RPG but in RL the shades are nearly infinite. When we start talking about absolute morality, we start in with fundamentalism.

[hermit]

Being able to exhibit extreme and sudden violence does not necessarily equate to 'an explosive temper'. In fact, I think it's the very lack of an explosive temper accompanying that type of instant violence is more what Critias is referring to. Most people display some extreme emotions when they commit a violent act, but those with sociopathic tendencies can usually commit those kinds of acts dispassionately.

So you're more talking about Jack Bauer types?

Besides, as I said, staying cool while killing people can be trained, or mass armies wouldn't be possible.

Very, very dubious. What were the motivations for the run again? If it's money, I think you've failed at morality.

Morality is very much subjective. One's hero is another's terrorist. One's good reasons are another's despicable motives. There is no common morality. Morality is purely culturally defined. And aren't corp guards in it for the money too?

[Arethusa]

Quite so.

He's there doing his legally accepted job, collecting his paycheck and walking his beat, protecting what every other position in the megacorporation has worked so hard to create. You're there knowingly and willfully breaking the law, specifically in contradiction to his stated and socially accepted position, and are both ready and willing to murder him in order to keep him from stopping you. That puts, by default, the Shadowrunner in the "bad guy" category, as society as a whole measures such things.

I don't think the distinction is really that clear. A professional criminal who does not enjoy hurting people can still rationalize his violence as essentially a state of war: police and security guards are essentially analogous combatants, and the objective of the criminal is hardly to cause as much destruction and violence as possible (a rational criminal would indeed minimize it). The differences here between a professional criminal and a professional security guard really aren't that significant: one is mercenary guarding the private interests of an employer and the other is a mercenary paid for certain objects (as Fallout put it, "making the things of others your own"— or your employers). A similar situation exists with Blackwater/DynCorp/Triple Canopy/etc, and arguably exists with government employed soldiers as well. Of course, it's obvious that certain forms of this behavior are more socially acceptable than others, but I think these distinctions are significantly less important than our society treats them.

As something of separate point (and I know it's pretty irrelevant to this thread, and this is just wanking thread derailment, etc), I really am not sure the majority of people on death row really are guilty. viz Innoncence Project, Amnesty, etc. There are plenty who are guilty, but there's also a tendency for death penalty convictions to be among the sloppiest and most unjust.

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.

You should be a lot less worried about being hated and considerably more worried about being taken seriously. This is fucking nonsense.

[Apathy]

The capacity for such work -- and by this I even mean gunning down an unlucky security guard while in the middle of a b&e style job, not just pure wetwork -- is one of the reasons I've long been of the opinion that your average Shadowrunner is somehow fundamentally flawed.

Like the average Blackwater employee or US special forces soldier is? Honestly, I don't see why. People are always capable of murder, if they need to.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the average human is fundamentally flawed, and that the average shadowrunner is more flawed than most?

[Cthulhudreams]

So you're more talking about Jack Bauer types?

Besides, as I said, staying cool while killing people can be trained, or mass armies wouldn't be possible.

Nah, there is pretty good evidence that the first mass armies - say Napaloen's didn't actually have that sort of capability, nor did they need it for combat because it was point in the direction of the bad guys and fire and there were hundreds of people around you doing the same thing. The 95th rifles and similar units attracted and recruited very different people from line regiments. Modern armies are much more effective at decision making and acting under extremely high individual pressure.

That said I do agree that it is possible to train people to effectively cap people in the head on command, just that it is much easier to do this for people who are going to be doing it with their buddies vs some unquestionably bad guys (soldiers), and much harder to get some guy to do it who will be totally on his own killing someone who is definitely unarmed in completely morally ambiguous situations.