Is it morally permissible to Kill to prevent War

I thought about this since I was in the tenth grade. Do we as individuals have the right to kill another to prevent war? In our society killing is immoral, why would we kill, wouldn't it be immoral to kill even the most sinister person since all life is precious.

Please stay away from religion. I mean all life is precious by the nature of being alive.

Similar to the kill one to save a dozen, kill a dozen to save hundreds, kill millions to save billions.

If I can save the world from a horrendous war and I can kill all the people being able to cause it or cause great destruction, I think it is fair. While it can be bad, it is similar to self-defense, we are stopping a catastrophe, it's not like this situation is one of joy to everyone.

I know everyone takes this to a personal Level...If I kill someone just a single person it would be immoral. According to Greatest Happiness (Utilitarianism) Principle it would be better to see one person dead rather than many.

I can kill someone and I wouldn't consider it immoral. The situation you asked for leaves hardly any other options besides "the good one", killing isn't immoral, it's why you killed.

Well killing should be everyone's last resolve!

Well, killing someone to prevent war might sound indeed like a thing everyone would agree too, but one must ask, is that really the solution?

I mean the nature of war is very much similar to the nature of animals:
Territory
Resources
Control

Animals kill each other off if they prove to be a threat among themselves and finish them off before any damage is done that will prevent them from surviving a few winters longer.

So by asking me is it morally permissible to kill to prevent war, in a sense yes, but only on a certain point in this matter, like if a soldier of peace had no choice but to kill the goddamn bastard who wish to spread violence, and that is a threat to the system of survival and maintaining a normal living standard.

If I had to kill someone in a special operation, I would try other solutions, but if I am dealing with someone who understands no reason then I must do what I have to do in order to maintain that peaceful life some are living now.

if you are forced to kill someone to prevent war it would be already too late. Killing one person to prevent a war would seem immoral but wouldn't the end justify the means. In my personal opinion I would prefer not killing anyone to prevent a war because killing that person would just cause another to seek revenge and the cycle of war would not stop.

It's rather a delicate problem. If you are killing to prevent war, then it means war hasn't started yet. Therefore, if you kill him, and the war is prevented, was it because you killed, or did it just not happen. On the other side, if you kill and the war begins anyway, did your act have any meaning?

The problem is that things like war are seldom traceable to one specific person or event, and only through hindsight can we see the people who are truly important in the series of events that went into causing the war.

Now if you refer to using a time machine to go back and kill Hitler (for instance), then I think it would cause a paradox. Because if you go back in time to prevent a war, and succeed, then you are removing the reason for your future self to go back in time. Meaning you wouldn't go back in time, and Hitler would still commit his atrocities.

Killing is considered immoral, precisely because we don't know the future, or the impact an individual will have on the world. Yes, a person could cause a war, but will that war have a positive outcome? (end slavery? oust a terrible dictator?) Without positive knowledge of the future repercussions, it must be considered wrong to kill anyone before they commit the crime you believe they are going to do.

For me it depends on the circumstances. Like i approved of killing Osama, but that doesn't mean i think murder should be prime way to resolve conflict. I feel the world is too complicated to give a definite answer that applies to all situations here

I would very much doubt that killing one person or even a massacre could stop a war. A war is a very complex and a very organised event that musters the entire population. Lopping off the heads of one or two persons could result in others replacing them and a continuation of preparations for the war.

But knowing the world, morality is hardly a consideration in carrying out decisions. Utility on the other hand is. Take nuclear deterrence for example. Holding guns to the heads of each other in order to agree to peace is hardly ethical, but very effective nonetheless.

A short answer to your question:
1. It is not moral, but they will do it anyway.
2. Such a situation where killing one or two persons would end a potential war is unlikely to manifest.

Depends on which moral theory one would prefer: Absolutism, Relativism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Christian Ethics etc.

I'm preferably a relativist as I reckon it's the best way to solve most issues. I also like Kantian Ethics with it's use of the categorical imperative. I think both concepts would say yes, it is acceptable to kill a person to prevent a war as it would saves many more. It's concepts like absolutism which would say no to killing a person in order to prevent a war as that concept doesn't care for consequences or circumstances, rather the action in itself. Since killing is intrinsically wrong, then it would consider it unacceptable to kill someone to prevent war.

To put it one sentence, I think it is acceptable to kill someone in order to prevent war. However, I would still rather to look at the situation in greater detail.

It is just a hypothetical scenario...Would you do it in order to prevent war? That's the issue.

I would kill someone to stop a war but if it's moral ? I don't believe in the concept of morality so i don't give a shit if it's moral or not .

I live by a principle of freedom , absolute happiness can only be obtained if a man is free and everyone respect the freedom of others . If someone breaks the freedom of others , he has to be punished . If he breaks the freedom to live of someone, then the punishement should also be death .

I wouldn't kill a soldier fighting in a war though , the only one who should be punished is the one resposible for the war .

The reason for killing is more immoral than the act.

In this case it is a good reason and therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

It depends on the context of the situation, as in many occasions.

If said person or persons you need to kill to stop a war from happenning have already started said process to start the war, feel free to hit them down.

BUT, if they don't start it, then you can't shoot until they do. Which is why being in the good guy's seat is always so difficult: all you can do is watch until they smack it into your face, then you have to get back up and pummel the culprits for their crimes.

So to answer your question, I would say take WW2: the European powers, mainly England and France, knew what was going on with Hitler. Did they kill him? No. Because that is not civilized. As always, it comes back to the simple fact that the human being must mature intelectually so that such conflicts can be evaded without bloodshed.

So the real question is: should we ditch our civilized ways behind the backs of the public to spare wars, famines, genocides?

I don't have the answer for that. I don't have the right one. Personnally I would kill the son of a bitch that wants to start a war if I got the occasion.
But is it the right path to take?

Violence is a spiral, a spiral we must escape, one against which we have been fighting since the beginning of human kind.

But we aren't out yet. The question is, how do we get out?

By stopping violence? Hippies tried that once, look at what the world is today. We aren't out of this yet, nor will we be in a hundred, or even a thousand years.
It still is the same rule: strong pick the weak, get the better bits of life.

So to (finally) answer your question, I'd say shoot that motherf'in' son of b'ch to hell, we still have to rid the planet of this kind of people. And make sure they don't reappear. Slowly, carefully, with great care and great words, to unite, to strenghten, to calm and to sooth, to make ourselves understand that we can move forward, further than where we are now on the spiritual ladder.

In the mean time, fire at will.

Well I do feel that killing one person to save many others would be a necessary evil, but what if that person was innocent at the time. It'd be kinda screwed up, not to mention if you're that one person you're not too happy.

Everyone has different thoughts on this....Since this is hypothetical, it doesn't matter in the person is innocent or not, the question is will you do it.

Absolutely in my opinion. Use a gun, you could be called a hero. Use a explosive and you'll be labeled a terrorist.

It always matters on the reason. I personally would have very minor to no qualms about ending a persons life, not because I'm a sadistic psychopath killer, but because if you allow yourself to feel that, you'll mess up, most likely die, and make a huge scandal over the attempted murder that would most likely lead to the war you were trying to avoid. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't think twice about leaving a nice gash on them with the knife that's stashed in my bed (I keep it for emergencies in case I need to cut something after an earthquake or intruder etc.) or breaking their arms.

Many countries already have a system for that now. It's called the Special Forces. We didn't have that before or during World War 2.They are the guys who prevent the wars. BUT, if they left a trace, one was captured or killed, they would cause the war that their job was to make sure that didn't happened.

World War 2 happened because the European Leaders wanted revenge. It's a spiral of revenge. Hitler was an injured German soldier. He wanted revenge for the injury. He wanted revenge because his country was humiliated. He wanted revenge because Germany was forced to pay an impossible amount in War Damages. He wanted revenge because they were forced to take all the blame (I'm not including the fact that Hitler was insane). Luckily, at the end of WW2, we learned our lesson.

Now to get back on topic, yes it is. In war, you can't really win if you try to cling to morality. Humanity and Morality are different. Like others said above me, which ever end of the scale results in a bigger loss in life becomes the most important. And yes, I am going to include Halo Spartan III's in here. They were used in suicide missions, were never rewarded. Children were sacrificed to save TRILLIONS.

If I found out a world leader was going to start a nuclear war, you bet I'd put a couple of rounds in him. War is human nature. The very best thing we can do, is to get into each others face and spit in it.

Yeah, sorry but the deaths of 10,000 people is still better than 10 for example.

Some just dont want their hands bloodied, but if their families are being threatened, i really think these people would fold be the first ones to beg to kill people just to prevent it. hypocricy.

If it is morally permissible to kill in order to prevent war, then I think Obama would have no problem taking a bullet to the head.

Not saying I am condoning violence, involved, anything, blah blah blah blah... Stuff that protects me from being a suspect of violence... etc...

But what I am saying is that Obama is a hypocrite if he thinks it is ok to assassinate another leader just to prevent a war. The best way to prevent war is to pull out of our hundreds of abroad military bases and to stop bullying those damned Afghistan people!