There is no pure good or evil. It is naive to think that way.
You can't say that murder would be evil or absolutely wrong.
You can't deny there being any bit of righteousness in a murder of someone who has murdered ten other people.
No? What if someone kills all your family members, friends, relatives, everyone you know (not very likely but imagine) and you still don't have the right to kill this guy with your own hands?
You can send him to prison or get him a death sentence if you're in a country where it's allowed.
What if you can't prove his guilt? He gets away to live in some paradise island.
Is this righteousness?
Would righteousness happen if you sneaked into his house and killed him.
What if you torture him a little before you kill him?
Does he deserve it? Is it more right if you do that?
Or does it lift his heaven-hell -factor up? This way he doesn't go so deep to hell, as you just lifted his factor by torturing him, but he still goes to hell because his factor is low because he has murdered everyone you know.
Or does that affect his factor because you did that and there were nothing he could have done about it?
Does your factor go down if you do this?
What if you hire someone else to do this?
Your factor doesn't go down at all but the one's you hired?
Or do you this way just half your factor decresement by having the killer you hired to get the other half?
What if you forgive this murderer?
Does this make your factor go up alot?
But is it right if your your murdered friends don't get their revenge?
You would just use your friends and loved ones for your own profit by getting your factor going up by forgiving this murderer. Is it right?
Would the best solution be to just send him to prison?
Can we consider lifelong imprisonement a murder as well?
Is it then less serious murder and how much less? How much your factor has to go down in this case?
Does US President murder someone if he's unaware to pardon someone sentenced to death who is actually innocent. He would have the power to save that innocent's life. Does it make him guilty?
Or does he just participate a little so that the executioners take most of the fault. Or the ones who actually got the sentenced into the situation?
Does these guys deserve to die then?
Or just wait until they get old and die and go to hell?
Righteousness happened?
Should they have died earlier so they wouldn't have lived any bit of happy life?
If someone deserves to die can it be done by a human or does God have to do it by making a tree to fall on him so righteousness would happen?
What if God doesn't do that? He usually doesn't, right? Do we, humans, have to take arms then?
But how can we know when someone deserves to die?
Is the condition, when someone is sentenced to death, in US law universally correct?
Or do we act as The Code of Hammurabi tells us? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
What if someone has punctured three other people's eyes but he only has two eyes?
Does he now deserve to die as he has exceeded his eye-limit? Same thing for any other body parts.
Or does he just have to do some society service after his eyes have been taken?
Does he have a right to retain his eyes if he does some more society service?
Or does he have to serve the people whose eyes he punctured as they're the ones who suffered, not the society itself.
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Nothing is that simple. It is naive to think it would be. I will never know the answers with my limited human mind.
So I don't even bother...
[This message has been edited by Powery (edited 09-16-2008 @ 01:36 PM).]