I most emphatically disagree. I think you are both guilty of murder. I do however think they are mitigating circumstances in your case (depending on the specifics of the case). How much punishment, if any at all, depends on exactly the circumstances of the case. For example if there was an immediate threat to the lives of a bunch of people and you were acting to stop them, that’s one thing. if the guy was simply a murderer and you were acting to exact justice (as anyone is justified in murdering a murderer) then you would be just as guilty of murder as the murderer himself.
it would have to be an extreme case indeed where the murder of an innocent was justified (your hypothetical seems to qualify).
Of course. You cannot burn your way through a whole neighborhood to kill one guy in retribution,as you’d be far worse than him.
But I was referring to a very specific scenario: you either shoot through the hostage and save the building form collapsing, or you let the bomb go off. It is a very specific scenario but I feel it is a proper analogy to what was going on with Luke and the DS.
“Btw, Timothy McVeigh used this reasoning as justification for the children he killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.”
My guess is government was involved with OK bombing. This is why FBI refuses to release video of the truck moments before bomb goes off, even after a Judge Ordered them to release it.
Randal Graves: [talking about the second Death Star] A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I’ll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers. Dante Hicks: Not just Imperials, is what you’re getting at… Randal Graves: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they’d hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms. Dante Hicks: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction? Randal Graves: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed - casualties of a war they had nothing to do with.
[notices Dante’s confusion] Randal Graves: All right, look-you’re a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia - this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn’t ask for that. You have no personal politics. You’re just trying to scrape out a living.
We’re all going to die some day, JJ. Your answer implies that objectively, death is bad. It simply exists, and any value judgments are inherently subjective.
Yes. The Death Star infringed people’s natural rights of life. They have a negative right in that they should not have their life ended at the hands of an aggressor. In that case, it is ethical to do anything within their means to prevent it from happening; all collateral damage falls on the consciences of the Death Star’s operators for involving the other people’s innocence whilst proceeding with their agenda to kill innocent people. It’s like a evil driver of a big rig that holds a whole slew of innocent families and children. If the evil driver is aiming to ram your home and kill your family, it’s not anathema to do anything you can to stop him, including anything from shooting the tires to blowing it up with a bazooka if that’s your only resort.
What a stupid thing to build strategically. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket and destroying your mobility and presence.
Here I have an excellent idea chaps, let us build a ship that will ensure half of our strength can only ever be in one place at the time! Henceforth we shall be the terror of the universe!
I agree with Bert, the rebels should not have destroyed it. They should have disarmed it and turned it into a tourist attraction for all to see the monument to stupidity of power. In the eternal words of Mel Brooks, “in a battle between the good and evil, the good will always win out, for the evil is dumb”.
A) It was in reference to the murder that was committed by the use of the Death Star, which was presumably it’s main purpose for existence. I feel that murder is bad. If you wish to argue this point, and defend the case that murder is good, or at least not bad, go right ahead.
Yes, but they obviously didn’t just utilize all their resources to make death rays or whatever the hell for no purpose at all, they must have had some objective. Furthermore, who were they killing?
Yes, but they obviously didn’t just utilize all their resources to make death rays or whatever the hell for no purpose at all, they must have had some objective. Furthermore, who were they killing?
Well, internet speculation has it that Darth Sidious was aware of the Yuuzhan Vong threat and had the death star constructed in order to deal with that threat.
lol, yeah: you’re better off just trying to reeducate people to new progressive paradigms.
They probably had the Dark Helmet philosophy of “Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb”. Even if that’s true the Empire probably took it one step too far.
I think it could also mean we are just 8 yr old boys who are hopped up on smarties and gogurt.
If that’s the case we should start a super ninja group, and I want my name to be Blood Knight Death Blade and I ride a motorcycle lined with dragon leather
its supposed to made from actual poison so the next skywalker doesnt have to worry about blowing up the daycare, everyone who works there is already doomed.
