Killing in the name of...

Self-defence, national security, protect against significant threats to public safety/public order/large scale economic warfare from a hostile entity or group that could ruin the national economy, prevent criminal trespassers from forcing their presence/agents/equipment onto private residential & commercial property and to protect valuable items of property/classified info.

Self-defence and capital punishment. See post #4 for a more comprehensive list - though I am still including capital punishment in mine.

In my opinion: self-defence, euthanasia and capital punishment.

You say hostile entity. So could this be something other than a human?

To protecr valuable items of property. You are includinG property damage to reason to kill another?

(When) is it (morally) permisable to kill another human and why?

If you think it is never permisable, please share your thoughts.

In my opinion: self-defence, euthanasia and capital punishment.

Self-defence is the most obvious in my view.
I am not in support of capital punishment for many reasons.
Euthanasia in some cases. You probably remember that in another thread euthanasia was proposed for infants who are otherwise healthy but unwanted and undesirable. I am obviously against such ethics.
Going to war and have no alternative but kill or be killed.

I am not in support of capital punishment for many reasons.
Euthanasia in some cases. You probably remember that in another thread euthanasia was proposed for infants who are otherwise healthy but unwanted and undesirable. I am obviously against such ethics.

What are your reasons for not being in support of capital punishment?
I think war would fall under self-defence.

In general I'm not in favour of either capital punishment or euthanasia, although I wouldn't rule them out entirely. I think a lot of usually-immoral things can be justified in extreme circumstances and dire situations.

With that said I'll add one more item to the list of when I think it is acceptable to kill another human: for the purposes of cannibalism if stranded in an environment with no food, and it's the only way to survive.

Self-defence or defence of others - if someone it attempting to do me, my family or my friends harm then i dont have any qualms about killing them if im able to.

Protection of my stuff - similar to self defence except replace "me", "my family" and "my friends" with "my stuff", "my families stuff" and "my friends stuff". I personally would use sensible limits on this, for example if someone was making off with my garden gnome i wouldnt start blasting but at the same time i wouldnt think less of a person who did.

Euthanasia - if someone wants to die they should be allowed to, and if they need help someone should be allowed to. If they cant make that call its just a time to apply to some common sense.

Capital punishment - If for example you murder someone you shouldn’t be getting some weak sentence like 25 years in prison, because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, there is a finality to murder that isn’t present is something like 25 years jail time, so imo, it should be death. Preferably with some considerable torture beforehand.

Euthenasia in conversation usually applies to those who are ill, unable to recover, and will die within a given time period. Do you apply euthenasia to other circumstances or just to the usual condition?

There are reports in china and maybe other countries that citizens were quarantined in buildings and neighborhoods for weeks. Residences reported running out of food but threatened by govt./police if they leave for a store. Would cannabalism be justified in this instance?

To others as well. Not technically euthanasia in the strictest sense but if someone wants to end their life they should be allowed to and be fully supported in doing so. A person’s life is theirs and theirs alone, its why I’m against ideas like conscription because it takes that away from the individual. If someone wants to die, give them the support they need to make sure it’s really what they want and if they can’t be swayed then just make sure they have a more dignified end than being found after 2 weeks in an apartment block.

No I don't think so. I only think it would be justified if starvation to death was literally the only alternative. People can go hungry for a few weeks without dying. And a better option than killing other people and eating them would be to simply disobey the police, get some food, and pay the price later.

So how do we know who is on the chopping block (to be eaten)