Is it morally permissible to Kill to prevent War

Killing one doesn't always prevent a war, (sometimes, that may be the very reason a war happens), so I will say no.

Also, that's a gamble that can easily backfire even if everything goes smoothly.

Only two ways in which war can be truely prevented; one, ALL countries put aside their differences and work together to improve conditions around the globe, or two, ALL humans perish.

All I know is, even if it is okay to kill someone, I still wouldn't do it. Not a matter of can or cannot, but you've really got to think in the longer terms of what killing one could do.

Would you kill Hitler when he was a child if you knew what he would become or just try and change him to a better person. On the other hand if it was down to me I would kill without hesitation, but only if it would bring harm to many people.

Isn't this pretty much asking, "do the ends justify the means"?

I'm obviously tempted to say that the "means should justify themselves" mentality is wrong(given this specific situation), but then again, how do the heck am I supposed to know the complete impact of my actions?

Philosophically speaking the moral ethical principle is applied. No matter what creed, denomination, religion or cult you belong to Murder is a taboo that is against the moral ethical principle.

That is why the law has strict regulations about murder, even the act of killing someone in self defense is frowned upon.

However let's take Wars into account. two opposing forces battling each other for whatever reason, both sides think their right. So what governs their logic of what's wrong? the side who kills off their soldiers. that is why they will continue to kill off each other because neither believes that they are wrong. it's a vicious cycle really. ending in many losses of blood shed.

All i have to say is this;

It that kind of thinking that never gets anywhere, for instance....

There are 10,000

> Kill one bad person, save 9,999 innocents
> Kill ten bad people, save 9,990 innocents
> Kill Ten thousand bad people and there is no-one left.

See where i am going with this, there is no such thing as an innocent person. Everything is a matter of viewpoint and killing does not justify anything. It is better to educate rather than eradicate.

And yet nothing was prevented, because someone will always replace the ones you just killed, well obviously until there are no people left that is~

There is my 2 cents, it's what i think~

Its a trick question. If you can quarantee that it stops the war, then yes. But the fact is that you might unleash even worse war.

By morally, kill one to save thousands is in the acceptable line. But you might set a chain reaction when killing 1 guy, which might bite you in the ass later.

One deaths a tradgey, a millions just a statistic.
- Joseph Stalin

Well, its a matter of numbers.
6.5 billion people.
millions of people die daily.
So if you add 10,000 more people for a grave. Nobody will care as long they are not in a coffin themselves.

The idea of killing that super-evil person to save the whole world when more weeds will pop up is silly.
The powers that be will always say. Its ok that he got his body ripped in half if our babies can sleep at night.

That's a nice example on the thing that would probably happen if everyone went all paranoia and started stabbing and killing and poking and homiciding just to keep the "peace" we all so dearly love.
Instead of cold wars we could feed the freaking hungry since for the cost of a nuke you could probably feed an average African village for a damn long time, but no, since this is the subtler way but pretty much the same "kill to prevent war" only written with different words "I'll have the bigger stick -nuke, tomahawks, etc- so noone will dare mess with me." and when things go out of hand then they use that stick to enforce the prevention of war. Just look at the crap they're doing in Afghanistan,Syria and so on.

I have highlighted the only sentence there you should pay attention to. Watched the news lately? WE ARE ALREADY DOING THIS!

America does it, most of the eastern countries do it, middle east, africa and the list goes on. This is the age of fear mongering and eliminating people under the pretext of "justice"

"Afghanistan,Syria and so on" You say they try to prevent war? Those countries LIVE on war these days. Just nobody cares anymore because it has been going on and off for so long that it would be pointless to consider it anything less than normal.

Seriously,

It depends on how you would kill a person that defines whether it will start a war or not, and who will that person be. If you kill a good man or any faction leader, of course it will still start a war.

War...War never changes.

If the individual in question is a tyrant or otherwise cruel and destructive, especially in cases of Dictators, I wholeheartedly approve of assassination. To cripple an empire built on the backs of the innocent is to serve the greater good of the planet.

I don't approve of group killings, though. Killing an entire group [terrorist, or otherwise 'evil' or not] feels way too political. There should always be opposition in the world, if we go on a crusade to root out every single person who has done even the slightest wrong, or who thinks differently, we become the tyrants ourselves.

Besides, there are usually hierarchies in these sorts of things. Cut off the head and the snake will die, so to speak. Incarceration for the goons, a beheading for their leader.

For instance, I would've slain Hitler. I would not root out the Nazi/Neo-Nazi party, though. Ideas themselves are not harmful, but the acts that such individuals as Hitler have committed, are.

Killing for the sake of politics is also wrong. There are very clearly defined lines between right and wrong. I wouldn't approve of the killing of a politically/financially corrupt person, but I would approve of the killing of someone who has themselves committed atrocities, mass slaughter, child enslavement, etc.

Not all bad people are created equal, and we shouldn't judge them as such.

Killing is wrong any way you look at it, but some instances it is permissible or at least understandable like in self defense or to protect the life of another.

This question is better read as: Murder is okay if it....
prevents war.

But what if we changed it a little? Say instead of preventing war, it ended world hunger forever, cured all cancer, etc. Would killing be okay in those circumstances too?

Even if you're saving lives, murder is still murder. What if the world decided you need to die? How about your mother? Perhaps a fiancee? No matter who it is, or what the reason, they're still a human being.

That said, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just don't delude yourself into thinking it wasn't murder and that it's completely justified.