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

[knasser]

Sorry, I thought your request for examples was directed more toward 'intelligence agencies do this all the time' line.

No, but you have addressed my query over intelligence agencies carrying out assassinations. I didn't quite get where you were going with the list. I'd be strongly inclined to add Dr. David Kelly to your list, though unsurprisingly I have no solid proof.

Hmm, straight forward assassination for the greater good? How about the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto? Or the various Nazi war criminals whose killings the Mossad got their taste for assassination from?

I would definitely dispute your example of Admiral Yamamoto as it's very definitely not the greater good but the good of one faction in a war. I know a number of people in this thread are arguing that there is no such thing as a greater good, only subjective morality, but I'm offering up my own sort-of definition and holding to that. The debate as to whether there can be anything other than a subjective take on greater good is a separate one. The execution of various Nazi leaders... well they were captured. If they were a rallying point for a Nazi resistance you could make an argument for their execution being an attempt to prevent further harm / end the fighting. I don't think that was the case then, though. You could make an argument that their execution served a purpose of discouraging others from following in their footsteps. I don't think it would be realistic in my experience of human nature, but it would be an interesting and valid argument.

As to the general point several are making about "the greater good" only existing in people's minds and that murderers can believe they are killing someone for this reason and so it's equally valid... that does not prevent me from having an opinion on what the greater good is and judging their actions by my criteria. And I would hope that most of us here have similar high criteria for what would count as killing for the greater good. It is not necessary to establish whether a murderer thought their actions were justified - I am interested if we as a group consider any murders to be for the greater good.

It is also incorrect to say that everything is subjective and that it is impossible to dispute someone else's values. If it can be shown that someone's values are inconsistent with themselves, that their value system contains contradictions, then it is valid to say they are incorrect. In these case, we merely point out that the person is effectively critiquing themselves and sidestep the issue of subjectivity. In specific cases of murder for the greater good, it may well be possible to do this.

A high up in the corp has committed some horrible crime. Due to the corps extra-national status he will not be brought to any kind of justice. THe victims/family/interested citizens pay some runners to read him a list of his crime and shoot him in the head (or maybe just shoot him in the head, straight up).

My opinion of this... Firstly it is definitely still "murder." If the benefit is pure revenge and it is derived by the victims / families, then it is hard to justify this as something done for good. You could make a case of it being necessary for the victims to be able to live normal lives, etc, but I don't think it's supportable. If it were the case that the killing was done to prevent further such crimes, then you have a much stronger case for justifying it. If it's setting an example to discourage others... more dubious but a possible argument.

Whether the PC's can claim the same moral escape clauses as the families that hire them is doubtful, however. They've presumably taken the job for reasons of money.

EDIT: b1ffov3rfl0w beat me to it on some of the justifications for the murder. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)