If you kill a mass murderer to stop him from committing more crimes you're just as bad of a person

Killing him isn't the only option though. You can stop him otherwise. You're presenting the very epitome of a false dilemma, and you think you're pretty smart about it

>if you kill your enemies, they win

You're implying that any other option will end up with the same or a better result, he was not presenting a false dilemma, he was criticizing Daru's reasoning, and you think you're pretty smart for calling him out on it.

>if you win you lose

Attached: retsu-baki-7.25.jpg (210x240, 17K)

That scene pissed me off so much since it wasn't in the VN, white fox went out of their way to add something retarded into the script.

If you're going to do something like that at least have Daru say he doesn't want to see his daughter kill a man.

man slaughter

Yes, I am implying that. There's no evidence that it's a necessarily worse outcome either. You're implying killing is necessarily the best solution, which you've based on nothing so far. And he's not criticizing reasoning, he's presenting a false dilemma based on one line of subtitles, and using that as a smart comment on an entire debate about whether killing is ever justified, which neither he nor Daru can adequately summarize in either one sentence or yet another pseudo-intellectual shitpost.

Yes, he's trying to be smart, and it comes off as childish harping about a newly learned ethical dilemma. Most of us grow up eventually, though

Candy?

Some people view the morality of taking life stupidly simplistically.

Of course, on the other hand, you have people trying to justifying killing others by using moralistic platforms, which also creates a lot of problems.

>Yes, I am implying that.
That would mean that you're also implying that it absolutely will not result in a worse outcome; given the lack of information about the situation, this is a situation where inductive reasoning is applied, not deductive reasoning, you don't deal in absolutes here.

>You're implying killing is necessarily the best solution
nope, I'm implying that killing is not necessarily the worst solution which you are implying

>And he's not criticizing reasoning, he's presenting a false dilemma based on one line of subtitles, and using that as a smart comm
All he was doing was disagreeing with the statement. Also, i don't know what you're on about about a false dilemma.

Should've said that they need him as a hostage to get out of there.

And why would they want them?

Just ignore this retarded mess, OP. It was a character assassination on pretty much everyone.

>If you kill a murderer in self-defense, you, too, will become a murderer

Attached: 1310944285595.gif (640x480, 405K)

are you talking about the episode or the series?

If you kill your rapist to stop him from raping, you're worst than him

A victim, because he didn't really kill her, world convergence forced him to, and even though it wasn't his fault, he still had to deal with the aftermath and mental issues because of it anyway.

What if you rape the rapist?

>you don't deal in absolutes here.

Are you really this stupid? All your arguing up to that point was dealing in absolutes and implied absolutes. You also write like a kid that never learned proper sentence structure but still wants to argue logic.

He's right. The entire post is just trying to be smart while coming off as cringe, childish, and new to ethical concepts, and you're actually trying to defend it with muh implications and your brilliantly worked ideas of "killing isn't necessarily a bad thing lmao." Literally grow up

The jap morallity system is so weird sometimes.
Based on P5 alone I’ve learbed that apparebtly someone can be a mass murderer and you can forgive them and mourn them after they die despite one of the people they killed being the father of a close friend.

I don’t get it. I don’t fucking get it.

No, I was attacking the guy that was attacking him, who ironically seems more like a pseud than OP. The shit you're saying about me is exactly how I feel about the guy

if i kill 100 killers, there are now 100 less killers in the world and 1 new one. it's a good trade that keeps getting better really.

I think you're confused.

In P5, yes, said Mass Murderer is given what is typically a redemptive death, and the characters admit to feeling a bit bad about it, but he's still irredeemable shit, which was kind of the point. Then again, I'm pretty sure it's only one or two of your party members who are 100% "no, fuck that guy, I don't care"

Didn't read the thread lol, killing others is ok some of the time. I don't get why normalfags have such a hatred of revenge stories (dude revenge is bad lmao), one would have to be a kekhold of the highest magnitude not to want to punish a guy who does you wrong. Forgive and forget is the philosophy of onion boys

How the hell is 0 even canon, Mayuri and Suzuha would be dead after travelling in the broken time machine because 1 hour=10 years it's like everyone forgot this plot point and they went to like fucking 16000 BC, there's no way they survived inside the machine for so long and then Okabe goes there too so he would have to travel for YEARS in the time machine just to get to where the girls are, there's no way this is possible. Assuming they somehow survived 100 years inside the time machine they would then also need to travel the same time-distance to get back to 2025.

I might be. I remember the boat scene happening fairly quickly.
I remember liking what happens with Adachi being more interesting given everyone had a bit of stake in it and he was resposible for a lot less than P5 bad guy but it was more personal.
Also them saying “no fuck you you’re going to jail” and him saying “yeah alright” was great. He actually gave up.

I don't think you know what murder means, user. I understand a stance against death penalty or something like that, but you can't possibly stand for an absolutist position when it comes to killing. One way or the other, death is regulated by society, and it judges on what is considered lawful killing and unlawful killing ("murder"). Does a cop commit murder when he shoots a man pointing a gun at an innocent person? Does a doctor commit murder when euthanizing a patient who has no more chance of willing and has approved of it? It's a killing, yes, but nearly no society will judge it as a murder.

>What's nuance

1 hour to travel ten years, travelling 18000 years is only 75 days
whether or not they had the water or food for that journey isn't something we know

Yes? The defintion of murderer doesnt change just because it was self defense.

What's the difference between killing and murdering?

Well, I've never heard anyone say they murdered an animal.

Why do people act like the golden rule, i.e., do unto others.. makes sense?

Attached: 1550187347226.png (1767x2500, 3.77M)

you really think food for 75 days fits in those things, not only that but there's no toilet. The anime made the time machine look gigantic on the inside but really it's supposed to be cramped as hell

So, does murder mean "killing with [malicious] intent" or something?

the main issue would be water, you can survive on little food as long as you have water
if they had 30x 24hr rations thats would be plenty of food for two girls to live on for two months

Maybe they ate their poo and drank their pee
Infinite energy

Evil is a spook.

Welcome to Japan, where the only thing worse than murder is doing drugs.

Attached: charlotte.jpg (1280x720, 80K)

Anyone who would try to actually apply this logic to real-world situations needs mental help.

the golden rule pretty much only applies with the assumption that other people are following it as well, which is completely infeasible considering that niggers exist

fuck batman

okay /pol/

What if the person is a masochist?

This is an extreme position to take. You're also a killer but that's different from 1 to randomly killing 1000 people. Not to say this sometimes isn't an exaggerated fictional situation or there may or may not be another option.

You're following their wishes and making them happy
As you would want done unto you

You could say that about anyone, convergence exists outside of what we see.

>You could say that about anyone
But I'm not talking about anyone, I'm talking about Rintaro Okabe. The man that did not kill her waifu, but was forced to do it in the exact same way Mayuri was forced to die back in the Alpha Worldline.

The question was very specific, and so was my answer.

If you kill your enemy, they win.

Thanks Trudeau.

If you're going to apply it to Okabe then I assume you'd apply it to Moeka and the rounders? Along with any other murderer who was "forced" to kill due to convergence?

>I assume you'd apply it to Moeka and the rounders?
Moeka literally has mental issues. However, it was Juugo who took advantage of her and used her as a puppet. What's more, he chose his lifestyle as a Rounder. He committed sins and he is to blame for his own actions.
The Rounders as a whole are not to blame, but I have no doubt there are evil people in that organization, among others who were brainwashed or manipulated into it.

>Along with any other murderer who was "forced" to kill due to convergence?
As I showed you just now, no, I wouldn't have applied any sort of preset logic to all the same events. What I do is analyze each case separately and reach a conclusion taking into account the context and the actions of the involved character prior to the event in question.

Moeka wasn't really forced to kill Mayuri because of convergence btw, she clearly HAD the resolve to pull the trigger as long as it was for the sake of F.B.
Then again, as I mentioned earlier, that is the issue. She is not inherently evil, she's someone's plaything.
It's not really comparable to Okabe in Radi-Kan who actually wanted to save Kurisu, but couldn't because convergence would not allow it.
I could take this a step farther and say that even if he killed her on his own accord (and we both know that's not true.), that only happened because it was necessary to save her, which he ended up doing.

Most stupid thing is, Suzuha already was a killer in her 2036 year.
Also, being pacifist is right, but sometimes you forced to genocide route

Based vnonly.
steins-gate.fandom.com/wiki/Arc_Light_of_the_Point_at_Infinity
You really need to read all existing mangas/dramacd to understand how good S;G0(VN) is. Knowing these dramacd makes your brain explode when you connect all dots, making full masterpiece when you 100% S;G0.
Anime is shit tho.

It really depends on the way of seeing it. In the big schemes of things a little evil to avoid a big evil is, well, still evil. It's not the "perfect" solution so to speak.
It's mostly to avoid into the false notion that a murder can be justified when it should be treated as a horrible act avoidable at any cost.

It's borderline pathologic to believe killing someone is the right thing to do.

All things considered I understand sometimes there's just no other way, but even so it should be seen as a terrible last resort that will most likely leave you scarred for life.

There are no "good" murderers.

Is killing animals evil? Not pets, but animals.
>There are no "good" murderers.
1 murder of actually evil guy(who want to murder anyone else) can prevent 500 murders. Is doing this actually bad? You can't capture him alive.

Daru and Maho wasn't even supposed to be on the rooftop in the VN

It is. Philosophically speaking no evil can be good, even if it takes us to good results. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it if that would be the case, I'm just saying it wouldn't be something to be proud of.
The key here is not falling into the trap of believing killing some people can be right under certain circumstances.

I guess the only killing acceptable for this moral standard would be a self defense one (assuming there is no other way to defend your life or integrity).

Life can't be measured and compared.

You can look for the trolley problem (the one about killing the fat man) for further information since it is all about what we are discussing now.

In philosophy there are not right answers though, it all depends on what train of thought you want to follow. I doubt Nietzsche would worry about killing someone to get a practical benefit, for example.

If you're a utilitarian, you're fine with killing a murderer because you believe that the utility of his life is less than the utility lost from the people he torments. After all, you're fine with killing any person for any reason if it should benefit your preferred interests and allies.

If you're a deontologist (that is, an intelligent and reasonable individual) you understand that killing another person is always unethical as it violates universal maxims. It is hypocritical to commit murder because you do not want to be murdered yourself (all motivations or reasons to kill a person are arbitrary and up to egoism, thus they all weigh equally--whether you intend to do it "righteously" or "selfishly"), and that as anyone can understand some states of being are objectively better than others, that a better state of being is a world without murder and thus should be pursued.

Since Daru is a supa hax0r, it's no wonder he's a deontologist.

>tfw rule utilitarian

Attached: 1493348530095.png (424x412, 276K)

>reddit spacing
>le killing is bad

Did the fatty die at least?

Does that mean that in the end, morality is all about pride?

I don't use reddit and namecalling doesn't count as a valid argument, sorry.

0 was shit, Chaos;Child was much better but it got a shitty anime adaption.

I agree with the main point that killing in itself was a bad act to be avoided. But at this point where it somehow was done for a good result as a necessity, saying it was not "right" or "good"
is a flimsy matter. Essentially it's a matter of semantics to still say it's philosophically evil or good.

Attached: 1529886793062.jpg (1280x720, 136K)

Then you're a better rapist

Reminder that Leskinen did nothing wrong.

Attached: Save them Lintahlo.png (800x450, 531K)

>Killing isn't bad
Then how come you dislike killing? As I said, you don't want to be killed. If it's not good for someone else, how can it possibly be good for you? After all, their opposition to your act is no different from your own opposition. If you are willing to ignore their protests, then you must also ignore your own; but you cannot do that. It is impossible to accept suffering, and all people suffer in some circumstances. Thus, the only logically consistent position is to follow the silver rule: do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself.

>Self defense is bad!!!11
>All crimes are equal
Ok hippie

My nibba.

Socrates said that it's better to suffer an injustice than commit one, mostly because he was all about virtue and, to his eyes, committing an injustice was too defiling for the self to consider it, even if your life depended on it.

I'm still not completely sure about the self-defense part, at least in an extreme situation where you have a killer on you trying to stab you. You are rarely actually making a choice if you kill someone while defending yourself in such a violent situation.
It would be different if, for example, you killed someone just because you knew that person wanted to kill you and you didn't want to give him a chance.

It would be vaild if all people was good beings and never did crimes ever.
Sorry, but most people are shit, and sometimes you need to clear shit to prevent more shit.
You might to not like clear shit(like i don't even want to fight if possible), but it just something you(or someone else) had to do.

>Reddit spacing
>Replying to yourself
The absolute state of pseudo-intellectuals

there was only ever one Shaman girl, and that Shaman girl is a dude

Attached: 1546676853873.png (1204x946, 2.01M)

he's not saying that (killing is ¬(bad)) he is saying that ¬(killing is bad)

deontologists are fucking self-righteous narcicists

That's a pretty big topic and a lot of different authors have their own opinions on the matter. For some morality is a part of the virtue and the true virtue will lead you not only to be a better person but to make a better society, while for others morality is nothing but an excuse that is holding you back to reach your true greatness.

Morality can be a pretty complex and even personal thing, but try to not be fooled by others. There are a lot of people out there who pretend to have morals but deep inside they have other motives to act like they do and the morality is merely a good facade or justification for them.

Sometimes becoming a murder is necessary to prevent more murders

No, Daru has it completely wrong.
Killing someone as revenge and killing someone to prevent an ill-future are completely different reasons.

If you do the former then you're not any better than the villain.

>I have to murder someone to defend myself from them.
Not only is this situation incredibly rare, but that doesn't make killing them a right thing to do. The best argument is that a person who pursues the objective of murdering an innocent person is forfeiting his negative rights. After all, if he thinks it's fine to kill you, then he must also be fine with you killing him. You have his consent.

Clearing shit is fine, just as God would smite an evil-doer, I have no problem with subjecting an evil person to agony. But if they die, what's the point? They must first suffer and ADMIT they were wrong, then grovel at my feet begging forgiveness, before they receive any sort of mercy. The purpose of law is to enlighten evil people to their wrong-doing.

It's a philosophical stand. You don't have more right to kill anyone than anyone has to kill you.

Besides shooting someone who is into your home is not self-defense. Self defense pretty much counts when your life is in imminent and unavoidable danger, self defense is only acceptable when a guy is lunging at you with a knife, for example.
It might sound extreme but that is the one and only self defense, when you are actually committing a crime to avoid dying in the most literal way, not just doing it to avoid the chance of someone taking actions against you.

And?

Attached: image_1.jpg (523x452, 45K)

>You have his consent.
Ah, so i'm talking to a complete and utter retard, got it

>You don't have more right to kill anyone than anyone has to kill you.
What a nice pre-death words.

I guess it's about what the best course of action is for a given situation and it depends on whose welfare the "morality" prioritizes. For example, people who refuse to kill for the sake of other people may be prioritizing their own "moral image" over the benefit of those people

>shooting someone who is into your home is not self-defense
>Defending yourself is not self defense

based and egopilled

Except none of us is God and divine judgment is only reserved to some kind of all-powerful, all-knowing deity (that might or might not exist).

Who said your way of thinking is above others? who said you or anyone, all being humans, have the right to impart judgment and suffering upon others?
Having a ton of people backing your way of thinking, as it happens in a society, doesn't make your way of thinking right.

Sure we need some kind of law and law enforcers and administrators to try to live as best as possible in a society, but that's the limit. Avoiding crime or searching a more peaceful society are the objectives because justice is a perfect idea, something we can barely aim to. With that in mind the lesser the punishments the better, otherwise we would be playing God, for example with death penalty.

Shooting someone who broke into your house is not defending yourself. Shooting someone who is actually trying to kill you is defending yourself.

Did they kill off the fatfuck to save the show?

You wouldn't be sentenced for shooting at someone who broke into your house

What's wrong with "playing God"?

Wrong.

Attached: I've found what I was looking for.png (2244x720, 2.18M)

youtube.com/watch?v=nCN-JE80f5Q

>Daru and Maho wasn't even supposed to be on the rooftop in the VN
The VN fills in the void between Vega & Altair and Milky-Way Crossing, so you can't really compare the events of the VN with those of the anime. One complements the other.

Based and Dagothpilled
youtube.com/watch?v=iR-K2rUP86M

Now, that's an interesting point. Where does your responsibility ends?
Let's say someone with high moral standards has the chance to kill someone who is about to kill more people. Killing the murderer would be a vile act for his standards, of course, but isn't not doing anything to save those victims an evil act as well? some would said the lack of action is the worst action, even the most evil one sometimes.

That you invest yourself with an authority and a power you don't have the wisdom to handle, mostly.
Power over life and death is such a big responsibility than nobody bellow a deity should have such power.

Just a reminder he did nothing wrong and was actually a hero that humanity don't deserve.

Attached: Emiya-san Chi no Kyou no Gohan - 06 - Large 10.jpg (1280x720, 130K)

>but isn't not doing anything to save those victims an evil act as well? s
It is, but in a sense, you're sacrificing your own "moral image" for the sake of other people, otherwise, you're trading the lives of those people just so you can feel better about yourself that you haven't committed murder.

>That you invest yourself with an authority and a power you don't have the wisdom to handle, mostly.
You mean risk management?

Yeah I do not live in USA, but that's a pretty bad use of the law IMO.
But, hey, we all know USA loves its guns.

In any case it is not a strictly defensive action to do so, the idea that the only true defense is the action applied to avoid a clear and imminent danger stands.

>but that's a pretty bad use of the law
If you don't want to be shot at for breaking into someone's house, don't break into someone's house you fucking mouth-breather

This is as retarded as
>if you kill your enemies you lose
or whatever the fuck Trudeau said.

Risk managing is fine, deciding who can live and who can't is not. You are nobody to decide over the life of any other human being, either you, a judge, a president of the king of the whole world.

Why can no one decide who can live or not?

Attached: pepe trolley.jpg (1000x754, 196K)

Human life isn't and never has been precious. Empathy was a mistake

if you kill one yes, but if you kill two of them no

Again, it all depends.

But those scenarios rarely appear irl. Most of the times "bad" people get killed just in case. If it's not death sentence then it's the notion the criminal might be dangerous and he may hurt someone else. Now those acts might look logical and practical but, from an strictly moral view, they are still evil or, at least, not-virtuous.

So what you are saying is, everyone has to kill two murderers to get a murder-mitigation.

>morals are objective and are the same for everyone
Brainlet

Because we are only humans. None of us have the level of wisdom or knowledge to manage something as precious as human life.
The short answer would be that nobody can, that some decisions are simply too grand to leave it in the hands of just anyone. The deity figure is only used as an example to show that only a perfect being would be up to the task.

There is only one true solution to the trolley problem:
You realize that you don't have the choice of killing one person to save multiple or not doing anything.
You have the choice of killing one person or killing multiple people.
There is no "not doing anything" position.
No action is an action.
And claiming that it makes any difference at all, is being a coward.

That being said(), human life isn't and never has been precious, yet empathy is the only thing we have.
Therefore you look at the people who you have the choice of killing, you look them dead in the eye.
And then you take responsibility for killing one or the other.
The choice you make is up to you, one person can be worth infinitely more than a million.

I don't know, user. Your post number is giving me a bad vibe about your opinion...

That's where the terms "good", "evil", "virtue" kinda lose their meaning or [purpose]. Why does it matter if your actions are evil or not? I think the only thing that matters here is if your decision is optimal or not for whoever you are doing it for

>Because we are only humans. None of us have the level of wisdom or knowledge to manage something as precious as human life.
Why is that? What if we create technology to manage something as precious as life?

I literally opened the post saying "it all depends".

Besides I talked about virtue. You can try to pull out the "IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE" argument out from your ass but killing others is not virtuous. Even if you do it in the most dire situation and killing a person results in massive benefits for everyone, even so, killing is not and it will never be a virtuous act.

based and dubbed

You're a hopeless retard if you really believe that.

>he must also be fine with you killing him
No one is the history of human civilisation has ever thought that, you are a unique type of stupid. That being said I do agree with the idea behind one implicitly forfeiting their right to life, I think that if one does certain actions they don't have grounds to complain about the consequences. Which is obviously not the same as having to like those consequences, no one likes being killed of course

Why?

There is no such thing as morality. People act towards their perceived self interest.

>what is a suicidal person
>what is a person with extreme remorse and acceptance of death after doing something they regret
>what is a person that doesn't care for living

I know it's usually a shitty comment... but you really need to read more.
And let's hope your problem is only ignorance, cause considering someone a retard for valuing life is worthy of a psychopath.

The VN is better, got stuck in the Suzuha ending and that was tons better than anything in the anime

Uptooted.

Because it doesn't uphold to high moral standards, therefore is not a virtuous act.

>outlier
>outlier
>outlier
If you're not going to argue in good faith you can fuck off

>killing someone is never okay and if you don't agree with my brainlet opinion you need to read more and you're also a psychopath
So you are a retard then, thanks for the advice you internet psychologist.

Your moral standards aren't the law for all of humanity you arrogant faggot
I'm not even the same person, don't get upset because you were wrong

Fine, Billy, I'm not wasting more of my time discussing with another angry kid trying to piss others with their rude comments over internet.
You are not worth the time. You are just another ignorant american trying to bully your way up to thinking that horrible acts are fine.

Of course not, but virtue means what I said.

vir·tu·ous
Dictionary result for virtuous
/ˈvərCHo͞oəs/
adjective
adjective: virtuous

having or showing high moral standards.
"she considered herself very virtuous because she neither drank nor smoked"
synonyms: righteous, good, moral, morally correct, ethical, upright, upstanding, high-minded, right-minded, right-thinking, principled, exemplary, clean, law-abiding, lawful, irreproachable, blameless, guiltless, unimpeachable, just, honest, honorable, unbribable, incorruptible, anticorruption.

Please, spare me the "what if we lived in a tribal society where killing others is cool?" example.

>all these assumptions
>trying this hard to fill your ego and virtue signal on an anonymous imageboard
Get off that high horse and fuck off back to r*ddit

No it doesn't. There are plenty of situations where killing someone is perfectly acceptable and righteous.

and you keep recurring to namecalling.. jeez you are so basic.

Please, give me a good argument, otherwise go and eat a banana or whatever you monkeys do.

You haven't proven shit because you are using outliers to support a dumb argument. Yeah everyone and their dog knows suicidal criminals exist, but they're such a negligible quantity that using them to support an argument has about the same effect as using a straw man. The other user's point was that killing is wrong, and at no point has he or you given enough reason for me to subscribe to that worldview

I'm sorry I'm better than you. Study hard and you might be someone, someday, pal.

>You might be someone
>Like me, the person arguing morality on an Indian tap dancing forum

What a pathetic moron you are

>Moral of the show is that time travel is dangerous so you should do some cool shit then chuck the machine in the bin
okay

>recurring
lmao. go back

I like you.
This is a good post.

According to who? you?? and who are you to say killing someone under those circumstances is acceptable and righteous? who is whoever wrote a law about it?
Stop thinking like if this was math, humans are not lifeless numbers. It's not as simple as thinking "hm if I kill this one, I save these two". You just can't measure human life.

I have free time, like everyone else.

That went right over your head huh champ

Interesting opinion, too bad you are nobody and it is worthless. But thanks anyway.

>person commits countless moral outrages
>shoot him
>he's dead

>person commits countless moral outrages
>apprehend him
>hand him over to the authorities
>go through the justice system
>they hand down a death sentence
>they shoot him
>he's dead

No real difference. It's perfectly fine to swing the proverbial sword of justice yourself if you're certain about the individual's guilt.

>humans are not lifeless numbers
They are, most humans are like animals, so just NPCs. You are just a resource for your country.

This is your answer, obviously.
That's it, you are too dumb. Let's just stop talking to each other, it's a waste of time for both of us.

Yes you can, if I decided to kill you for being a dumb faggot who are you to tell me I can't? What makes your life so special and precious? What difference would it make if you continue living or not?

Mate you have to be really thick in the head to earnestly believe killing is unacceptable under any circumstances. Let me make a quick telephone call to every person who has ever killed in self-defence and let them know that they are heinous murderers

And now you go through the entire process instead.

>virtue signals like a preaching faggot telling others what is right and wrong and then says this
kek you really aren't too bright are you?

Yes of course there's practical concerns, but that's it, it's not a moral question.

We are talking about morals and virtue here. You are arguing with me using those arguments but I highly doubt you live like that. Thinking that everyone around you are pieces of meat would be simply pathological.

There is no such thing as morality, only practicality.

Did I say you shouldn't do it?
I just said it is not right morally-speaking. I'm not saying you shouldn't defend your life.

Sorry oh knowledgeable one. We should continue letting child molesters live so when they get out of jail they can just continue fucking kids

It's meant to be about moral and ethics, not justice.

*tip*

How should I reply to insults? Besides I never said I am that virtuous, it was just a fun conversation.

And I'm brighter than you, that's for sure. I don't even need to know you to be sure about it.

Go back.

Also, the process of apprehending him might take more resources which includes time, with the amount of time that it would take to apprehend him as opposed to killing him, he may be able to commit more moral outrages and that could outweigh the "benefit" of keeping him alive.

Only a sith deals in absolutes

There are other ways to control dangerous people. Systematically killing them like animals is just barbaric.

No it isn't.

Well, kids, it's been fun but I gotta attend other things.
If you wish to continue bathing in my endless knowledge feel free to drop me an email to this temp account I'll be using for a while, I'll be sure to reply to you asap.

[email protected]

Even child molesters can have skills that could benefit the nation, perhaps using them as discount laborers might be more feasible than killing them

But you just disproved your own argument just now. If it is ok for me to defend my own life, then it is morally righteous to do so and therefore killing someone to defend my life is righteous. That's not to say taking another life is easy, I've never done it but I can only imagine it's not pleasant. If I were forced into that situation I pray I wouldn't pussy out and kill the attacker but I'm quite certain I would be a bit fucked up later on. But at the end of the day I value my own life over that of a scumbag criminal.
Since everyone is using hypotheticals let me give you one: say you witness a criminal about to take an innocent's life. In that scenario the vast vast vast majority of people would likely kill the criminal to save the innocent. Unless you're Batman or Doctor Tenma in which case you're part of the problem and no amount of philosophical self-fellatio can stop innocents being murdered.

liked, commented, subscribed

Nah, I'm all in favour of going all vigilante on these evil fucks but I'm not keen on state-sanctioned homicide. It sets a bad precedent to let the state decide who lives and dies, I'd prefer child molesters stay in jail or upon release get ankle monitors and not allowed to live near school zones and a registry and all that jazz. If a molester gets shanked by Tyrone in the showers then that's ok in my book

Yeah I'm sure the people they completely fuck up mentally, which creates more problems for society, would agree.

Ah yes, the trudeau philosophy.

I see this as a work of convergence. Suzuha *can't* kill Leskinen, because he needs to be present in 2036. Daru holding her back was just one way this was presented. Ìf you think this is unrealistic and unprecedented within canon, read The Distant Valhalla.

You're right about the state deciding who dies being a shit system, but if you ask me the family of the victim should be allowed to do whatever they want

They probably would, I didn't say to let them go

No. Instead he basically got his own game in the form of Robotics;Notes DaSH.

And the game was shit

But even in The Distant Valhalla the way "work of convergence" was displayed was equally dumb too

Regardless, it's consistent at least. Same with reaching the Steins Gate, really. Okabe has to kill Kurisu once, to be able to get the motivation to save her, but she doesn't actually die in the end. She just has to appear dead to the first Okabe.

I dunno, I've heard good stuff about it.

False.
Turns out if you kill a deontologist, it doesn't count as murder.

No, but self defense isn't in the definition of murder.

>If you kill your enemies, they win

A true intellectual.

Attached: 1531509471986.png (557x605, 1.29M)

The only thing you prove by not killing a mass murderer is that you’re an extremely prideful person who would rather maintain their own dignity than perform a service towards society.

Killing a mass murder knowing that it would mean putting blood on your hands is literally just taking one for the team. No one wants to be labeled a murderer but you had the balls to take up the mantel and take that kind of responsibility

So it's a double win?

Ironic.

>the robot Daru spinoff flopped in japan
wwwwwwwwwxd

I didn't even realize it was out. Is it shit?

Hmmmm it absolutely does I'm afraid that's why manslaughter is distinct from murder

wew l, one person intellectually points out his case and the others get mad when it flies over their heads. the IQ of Yea Forums everybody. using ad homenins when you have no counter argument is just pathetic.

>kill plants
>kill trees
>kill animals
>kill subhumans
it's all murder, subjectively

That's just what those who like when the monsters win say to help them. "Don't kill that horrible entity, then you'd be no better!" is exactly the same as when one of those things goes "I don't want anybody to get in the way of what I love"
>Turns out the worst humans love what they do and don't want to stop as long as they're alive... so they'd rather not be stopped

Maybe you can permanently debilitate and neutralize the mass-murderer before he kills again without killing him. Maybe you're THAT good like some alien superhero. But if you're not THAT capable, or even if you are, removing him from existence is the good and proper thing to do.

It is. Only the true end was good (or passable), the rest was some fandisc shit

they literally killed dozens of people immediately prior to him saying that

Attached: 1471357957799.png (400x770, 88K)

Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.
Killing is rarely the best or first option one should look at, but sometimes it's the *only* option left.

I mean what are you gonna do, ASK Kim Jong Un to stop treating his peasants like disposable rations?

Even as a proud moralfag, that's bullshit.
The categorical imperative does allow killing someone who is about to or currently in the process of killing someone else. Self-defence and defending someone else are in no way morally wrong.

You know who thinks they ARE wrong though?
The murderer. The murderer would really prefer you not defend yourself or a loved one.

The act of murder infers intent beyond utilitarian or survival purposes.

Just make the murderer murder himself.

Attached: 1397617110235.jpg (800x600, 136K)

I like how they never use this one to justify not killing pedophiles or slavers in the most subtle way: Avoiding creating that kind of character so the pathetic no-kill braindead don't have any moral dilemma.

Literally flawless logic.

>a group of 99 people is about to murder 100 people
>to save 100 people, you kill 99
>of the 100 people, 49 plot to kill the remaining 51
>to save 51 people, you kill 49
>of the 51 remaining people, 25 plot to kill 26
>to save 26 people, you immediately kill 25
>of the 26 remaining people 12 plot to kill 14...

Are you a saint or a villain?

You are Kiritsugu, and your Holly grail explodes into a sea of flames

Saint.