The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 60024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

linate

Pro

'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorities he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him?

remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'.
here we are talking just about morality.

all i'm trying to show is that it is *not inherently* immoral to kill him.
-I realize usually, there would usually be a lot of uncertainties that need established, the for sure ID of bob, that he was a serial killer, that he intends to kill again. but, it is possible that most of this can be known with a high degree of certitude, even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. for example, if the man who sees bob saw him kill his brother, and neighbor, on separate occasions, and has other info on his killings, and his manifesto on future killings.
-sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done.

I realize that bob is not a jury when finding info even above and beyond 'a reasonable doubt'. but, he shouldn't need to be. the right to a jury first of all is to protect against the government, not a vigilante. and, if we rely on justice through the government to take its course, according to the hypo, there is a high probable chance bob won't get caught, and will kill again. so we see this as the necessary conclusion to someone who insists on "doing it the proper way".
is this acceptable as a necessary conclusion? no, no it's not.
blackkid

Con

Defense of Others is not limited in practice and vigilantism is not something to be encouraged.

Within the context of Bob the Serial Killer if a person has all of this evidence and proof of an intention to slay ( which are death threats ) along with that manifesto containing the victims he has previously taken there is no reason to believe that not attempting to go through the legal chain of command would be suitable as a means to halt his slayings. There are three reasons:

1. Risk to Self: If Bob the Serial Killer slays the vigilante before the information is shared Bob is free to continue killing. Sitting on the information and not sharing it immediately only poses a risk to the vigilante who, if found out before he can act himself, risks the esoteric knowledge he holds on Bob's intentions.

2. Risk to Community: If Bob the Serial Killer is slayed without proof that he actually performed the murders he who should be vilified may end up being mourned with the vigilante facing criminal justice anyway. Alternatively Bob may simply flee if the vigilante fails to kill him letting him loose upon the world; if for some reason he escapes the esoteric knowledge is useless as there is no means to track Bob therefore the community is in even graver danger than before as Bob will be far more cautious about his behaviors.

3. Loss of Opportunity: If Bob is dead Bob cannot be questioned so all information regarding cases that may have gone cold from his previous slayings are forever left unsolved as well as any other valuable information. Bob also cannot be studied to further criminology and while his death may have prevented further slayings it served no purpose in further combating and preventing and rehabilitating if possible serial killers in the future.
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

'loss of opportunity'. if there is a way to capture bob that seems reasonable, then that is highest priority. if it is such that kiling bob is the only way to stop him, then the loss of information is just the price we pay.

community risk. if you can't catch bob, tell the authorities. he's going to get away one way or the othe, and the fact you tried killing him or stopping him doesn't change that, doesn't change the risk to the community.

the vigilantee does have a degee of risk. he doesn't have to be a hero. but if he does, it would not necesssarily be immoral. the vigilantee in this scenario has a high degree of certittude for everything needed to stop bob up tio killing him if necesssarh
blackkid

Con

In relation to "Loss of Opportunity" the odds of capturing Bob go up if there is a large force able to subdue him versus a vigilante effort of a single person or a small group of persons who may be hindered in their efforts by the citizens they are trying to protect. Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable however vigilante justice rarely uses all available resources since it doesn't rely on the public system at all.

In relation to Community Risk if you cannot catch Bob and you tell the authorities now you have a failed attempt at vigilantism and the action you should have done in the first place being held against you by the community at large. His "getting away" as an eventuality is also questionable; if Bob had been caught unaware of your knowledge and a plan had been coordinated the odds of his escape would likely drastically drop presuming that the knowledge you hold or held is valuable anymore. Bob, if he does flee, will not stay within the vicinity of your reach therefore he only poses a new threat to another community. He'll move pretty far and lay low for a while as seen in real serial killers.

Vigilantism has a high degree of risk, it is not safe, it is not suggested, and if he isn't being a hero then he isn't being a vigilante. As for the immoral stance it is unethical to kill Bob without taking every precaution in order to uphold the law and increasing the danger to himself and possible to other communities is also not a necessary risk so it's not for the greater good to do so puts the morality of the situation on shaky ground and his vigilantism does constitute premeditated murder which is definitely immoral if not amoral. It is unforeseeable that the vigilante, even using esoteric knowledge of what to do and how to do it up to killing Bob, has the moral high ground.

The key problem is that there is nothing that makes it moral. Even under Utilitarian thought I cannot configure how it's ethical or moral for Bob to die by the hands of our vigilante.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

"Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable"

con concedes the point. i said it would be a last resort in killing bob.

in terms of community risk, not engaging in vigialaeeism means bob will get away and kill someone else. trying to get authortities will give him chance to get away. our best bet is to kill bob as a vigilantee.

con also acts of if it would be the moal thing to do to get authortiiew involved. but that would be the immoral thing to do. if we try to get autortiesi, bob will get away and kill again. the only moralt hing as a last resort in stopping him, is to kill him
blackkid

Con

"Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable...", this however does not make it moral nor fulfill the criteria I set forth in my argument. The moral implications of slaying Bob as a vigilante are non-existent as you present the partial quotation as per, "Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable [ however vigilante justice rarely uses all available resources since it doesn't rely on the public system at all. ]", within context which means that the death of Bob would involve, in relation to resources, contacting the authorities and acquiring help and using public services in an attempt to cease this behavior.

There is no concession in half a statement.

You have to provide reasoning to believe that not invoking the authorities will allow Bob to slay another person as you have evidence again Bob as well as his manifesto expressing his plans which would allow for greater protection of the person. If the vigilante is overcome then no one is protected and everyone is returned to a state of terror however if help were sought to say the least protection could be offered and greater community awareness could prevent losses. You are proposing that Bob will strike before any form of report to the authorities made in an emergency fashion would take hold? Is that reasonable though?

There is no reason to believe that Bob will escape if the authorities are told. In your scenario Bob is not posing an imminent threat thus why you argue that Defense of Others is not expansive enough therefore it is unlikely that Bob will be acting with any form of immediacy and thus the notion that Bob will slay again before anyone can do anything has no grounds. Historically real serial killers do not kill in rapid succession and do so over years so it is unrealistic to believe that invoking the authorities will take longer than Bob to strike and if Bob was due to strike against a person within a time period where it was imperative to move quickly, say within a week, using the emergency system (911) is appropriate as it is an active death threat with proof of malicious intent and thus Defense of Others is overridden again by the system already in place.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
linateblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: countering unwarranted conduct point for linate--the possible situations helped con construct his case, and pro had terrible spelling.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
linateblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro fulfilled bop, don't feel the 911 argument made sence since the orrigional example only viewed a person who you saw at a park and knew couldn't get arrested by the cops there. neg trailed off since the debate was about morality and not possible actions. thus conduct goes pro too
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
linateblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed 911 effective given a long time until next possible kill and DOO effective if you know someone will kill.