Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

by **L Ron Cupboard** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:35 am

I am not convinced it would be effective let alone moral, there is a high chance of making things worse.

by **Nidaria** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:42 am

Only if the politician was extremely guilty (of genocide or another crime) and all other means (such as coup) have been exhausted.

by **Toronina** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:56 am

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Moving Forward Inc wrote:Austrians and the French never supported Hitler, they opposed his takeover.
What makes you think the majority has more rights than the minority?
The minority was never given the option of refusing taxes, refusing to join the military, so why does democracy trump individual rights?

The Austrians were cheering in the streets waving Swastika's.
...Mob rule?
A leader can trump rights whether he is elected or not.

But the French never supported him, till they were forced, Hitler people thought he was good while w=he was reuniteing the Geramnic people, but Poland was not Germanic, so people tried to stop Hitler, but they failed, Austria supported Adolf Hitler because he was Austrian, To you Commend his actions TUSSR? As soon as Hitler invaded Poland, people knew he was bad, as Poland was never part of Germany

by **Toronina** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:00 am

Kinda, if they're a dictator like Gadaffi or Assad then yes, it's okay to kill them, it's extremmley okay to kill someone like Hitler or Stalin, who ruined the name of communism, who would have made his mentor and predecor Vladimer Lenin roll in his grave, killing someone like Colonel Gadaffi or Something Someting Assad or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin is okay in my book

by **Ifreann** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:08 am

Killing people is bad, and should be avoided wherever possible.

by **CTALNH** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:24 am

Ifreann wrote:Killing people is bad, and should be avoided wherever possible.

Lol....

by **Ifreann** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:25 am

CTALNH wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Killing people is bad, and should be avoided wherever possible.

Lol....

I don't see what's funny about that.

by **EnragedMaldivians** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:45 am

Ifreann wrote:
CTALNH wrote:Lol....

I don't see what's funny about that.

He's a Stalinist.

by **CTALNH** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:47 am

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Ifreann wrote:I don't see what's funny about that.

He's a Stalinist.

What does that got to do with this?

People have been killing since the beginning of time for whatever reason you can think of!

I don't believe in morality anyway...

by **The United Soviet Socialist Republic** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:13 am

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:It is his/her nation to rule so yes.

So therefore a leader has a right to repress the rights of other leaders?

No.

by **Conserative Morality** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:15 am

Assassination of a leader is not morally correct unless you're dedicated to bringing down the state apparatus that enforces his will as well.

I'm not demanding that you take down the state single-handedly, I'm just saying that "Oh, I like Fascist Italy, just not Mussolini" is not a legitimate reason to assassinate the leader.

by **CTALNH** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:15 am

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Moving Forward Inc wrote:So therefore a leader has a right to repress the rights of other leaders?

Yes.

What?

by **Virana** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:17 am

Conserative Morality wrote:Assassination of a leader is not morally correct unless you're dedicated to bringing down the state apparatus that enforces his will as well.

I'm not demanding that you take down the state single-handedly, I'm just saying that "Oh, I like Fascist Italy, just not Mussolini" is not a legitimate reason to assassinate the leader.

Agreed. And assassinating someone like that is never necessarily morally right, but neither is the government they represent in many cases. In those cases it's a necessary evil, and a situation where two wrongs can make a right. That's why the survey above is flawed; no option for "morally incorrect but often necessary".

by **Ifreann** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:18 am

CTALNH wrote:
EnragedMaldivians wrote:
He's a Stalinist.

What does that got to do with this?

People have been killing since the beginning of time for whatever reason you can think of!

And that's bad.

I don't believe in morality anyway...

Killing people is still bad.

by **The United Soviet Socialist Republic** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:19 am

CTALNH wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:Yes.

What?

Oh sorry no. I thought he said people. That part is a no.

by **CTALNH** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:19 am

Morality doesn't exist!

by **Virana** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:19 am

Ifreann wrote:
CTALNH wrote:I don't believe in morality anyway...

Killing people is still bad.

Virana wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:Assassination of a leader is not morally correct unless you're dedicated to bringing down the state apparatus that enforces his will as well.

I'm not demanding that you take down the state single-handedly, I'm just saying that "Oh, I like Fascist Italy, just not Mussolini" is not a legitimate reason to assassinate the leader.

Agreed. And assassinating someone like that is never necessarily morally right, but neither is the government they represent in many cases. In those cases it's a necessary evil, and a situation where two wrongs can make a right. That's why the survey above is flawed; no option for "morally incorrect but often necessary".

by **CTALNH** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:20 am

Ifreann wrote:
CTALNH wrote:What does that got to do with this?

People have been killing since the beginning of time for whatever reason you can think of!

And that's bad.

I don't believe in morality anyway...

Killing people is still bad.

I never said its good but sometimes its necessary!

by **Ceannairceach** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:20 am

Only if attempts to remove the politician peacefully or through legal channels proved vain and he or she acted aggressively towards the attempts.

by **Abatael** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:21 am

I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

by **Ifreann** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:21 am

CTALNH wrote:
Morality doesn't exist!

Yes it does. It's just not objective.

by **Ceannairceach** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:22 am

Abatael wrote:I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

Even when that sovereign is no longer serving the best interest of the entity, to the point of outright harming it and/or its subjects?

by **The United Soviet Socialist Republic** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:23 am

22 People think its ok to kill a dictator. WTF? Just because he wasnt elected he can be killed morally for no reason?

by **Virana** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:24 am

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:22 People think its ok to kill a dictator. WTF? Just because he wasnt elected he can be killed morally for no reason?

If that dictator's oppressing 22 million people, and the 22 that think it's okay are supported by that 22 million, then by all means, yes.

by **Abatael** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:25 am

Ceannairceach wrote:
Abatael wrote:I do not have a problem with the assassination itself, and I don't really care about that, but I believe, if a subject turns against his sovereign, it is the worst form of betrayal, and the subjects that planned, and executed the assassination must be put to death. Now, if a foreign nation planned, and executed the assassination, then it is morally acceptable.

If I were the general of Nation A, and Nation A was at war with Nation B, and the subjects of the sovereign of Nation B betrayed him, and assassinated him, I would have the subjects that did that -- the ones that, in a way, assisted my campaign -- executed, because I do not believe any subject, no matter what, should betray their sovereign.

Even when that sovereign is no longer serving the best interest of the entity, to the point of outright harming it and/or its subjects?

I find their betrayal of the sovereign disgusting. It is traitorous, treachery, and it need to be punished by death. It's treason, so yes.

Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

To what point is it morally right?

I could be the only one believing this but

Who is online