A Thunk is a beguilingly simple-looking question about everyday things that stops you in your tracks and helps you start to look at the world in a whole new light. © Ian Gilbert.
Thunk 25:
Is saving an evil and tyrannical dictator worse than killing one?
43 comments:
On one hand the questiong seems pretty easy, isn't it always better to save people's lives than take them away. On the other hand, if by taking away a life you are making sure that a monster doesn't have a whole nation trembling in fear and shaking in anger, isn't that a good thing?
I, personally, think that saving the evil dictator is not worse than killing him. A person has to believe in morally gray principles. If a person has to stomp all over his believes and go against everything thats he's been though about respecting human lives, doesn't that make him someone who's weak and can't stand for his principles. It takes more strenght to save someone who you know is evil than killing them.
Plus, dictators are like cockroaches, you kill one and 2 more pop up. If you kill this dictator, who is to say someone even worse won't take his place.
Oh dear, This is a tough one :S
Saving or Killing a tyrannical dictator are both completely contrastive acts that can lead to very dissimilar circumstances.
Life is sacred, a man has no right to take away another mans life only God does.
Nevertheless, when one of the worlds powerful and formidable leaders regularly adopts a policy of assassination and has the potential of sending millions to death, Then killing him will no longer be that much of a cruel act. In fact, for what we know, we could be saving tons of other lives.
Yet, Evil soul or not, it all comes down to murdering someone, taking away their life and as i indicated life is sacred.
But is saving an evil dictators life any worse? Can saving a life ever be barbarous act? After all, we have preserved a human soul and kept them from running into death's arms.
As puzzled as I am, I've come to the conclusion that saving an evil dictators life isn't worse than killing him. Nor do i believe that killing him is worse than saving him.
I simply believe that both deeds could lead to completely divergent circumstances, both of which somehow balance themselves in good and bad.
Like Raya said, this one’s a tough predicament.
Notably I believe that taking something from someone, or in this case taking away a soul is to some extent rather egotistic and callous. We don’t have the rights to take away someone else’s life even if that someone happens to be an evil and tyrannical dictator.
Look at it this way, if one of your relations or friends has accidentally or maybe purposely murdered someone, would you end his/her life? I doubt it. You would either call the authorities, send him/her to a remote facility or you would simply keep the fact that he/she killed someone, a secret. But whatever it is, you wouldn’t end their life, merely because you know the person. Well what if that evil and tyrannical dictator happens to be someone you knew? Would you end their life given the fact that he/she probably assassinated millions?....
But on the contradictory I also personally believe that people don’t/can’t change.A person’s a person no matter what you want them to be or who they say they are.
What if even after years of therapy and a decade in prison he/she starts a killing spree again once they get their freedom back? What if that dictator -the one 'you' decided to save- will still be evil and tyrannical deep down inside?
Then wasn’t it better to end his/her life to save millions of others?
To conclude I would say that saving an evil dictator and killing one is in fact completely distinct yet it has the same purposes. It’s like the saying goes, "you need to give up something to gain something"...right?
Saving one and killing one could be regarded as one and the same, but I believe, if it's been proved that he has taken many lives and tortured an equal many, letting him live would be alot worse.
Now, looking at it from an Islamic point of view, killing him would be much worse because murder is a sin no matter what the persons character was.
In my point of view, NOT taking his life would be a sin because in the long run, you would be saving alot of people.
i personally think killing an evil and tyrannical dictator would be better than saving his life... though killing someone would be called as a sin, but killing someone who has killed many others would not be a sin because it would be more appreciatable killing 1 person & saving many other lives other than saving 1 person & killing many other lives.
killing this 1 person could also make the world a better place to live in. whereas, saving this 1 person would make a worse place to live in... & i guess everyone would want a better place to live...
therfore, i completely agree on killing an evil and tyrannical dictator other than saving 1...
I think that when you kill an 'evil and tyrannical' dictator, its like killing the king on a chess board. There is a great chance that you have already taken a major step towards irradiating the problem. But what about those thousands of followers?
I am pretty sure that there would be many more little minions of the dictator just waiting to pounce once the opportunity presents itself! And it would be most likely to be one of the main generals or 'second in command's just like Squealer from Animal Farm.
Also, unless there were a World War 3 to completely shatter the dictators own personal army, I am quite sure there would be a massive uproar from the supporters! You can't have a man in charge without his supporters!
On the other hand, when the dictator is 'saved', that could also lead to violence from the opposition [every dictator has its enemy and his followers!] leading to a massacre as a side effect.
Therefore, yes I strongly believe that saving an evil and tyrannical dictator is worse than killing one. Who would want to save the devil himself?
Lol! In my opinion it is better to save him! No matter what his personal qualities are he is still a human and deserves protection. However, after he is saved he shall be punished ;)
When faced with such a decision, people would readily be eager to kill the dictator, thinking of the 'greater good'. In this case, that would be the saving of hundreds of lives that would have been killed.
If killing the dictator in turn ends the dictatorship he has created, the murder would not have been in vain, would it?
However, as Kris has stated, it takes a lot more courage to save an evil do-er; since killing him would be the easiest option.
Thinking of it critically, I would imagine that once this dictator has been killed, it could spark up a lot of negative reactions from the dictator's followers, as an aftermath of the murder.
In the end, I would say that it will make more sense to save the dictator, and keep him under custody; one example would be solitary confinement- thus ending the dictatorship without committing a murder.
So yes, in my opinion killing him would be worse than saving him. & anyway, whether he's dead or locked up in a cell won't make much of a difference, would it?
A successful, strong dictator becomes one with the help of followers and people that agree with his means and conditions.
I would never for the love of God SAVE a dictator from tragedy; neither would I kill one.
Murdering someone who has his ideologies spread across the world is no good; as even if he does die, there will be his protagonists to carry on his actions and sinister ways.
Lets take for instance Hitler; what good would it be killing off Hitler, when the Nazis still remained? If he were to die, and even if the Nazi's didn't weren't under that one single ruler, they would still continue on with the habits he embedded in them (habits such as spreading evil :P)
Killing off a dictator, or as Mehvash mentioned, locking him up would make little difference. In fact, killing another human is something that spreads poison through the veins of the killer; in spite the humans level of tyranny.
Besides, because of his innumerous follows, the death of a strong dictator would lead to more rebellion and conflict.
So, why do it, when 'The greater good' doesn't even exist?
Yes, saving him IS worse than killing him. In my fair opinion, the right thing to do would be to kill him. Not just kill him, but strip him bare, publicly stone him, then tie him to a lamp post, pull out his toe-nails, chop off the tips of his fingers, castrate him and then finally beat what remains of his mutilated body with a hot iron rod. I would get into much more graphical details, but I guess you're catching my drift. (:
He should be made to suffer to the very last breathing moment of his life not only to make him pay for every wrong he has done unto others, but to discourage anyone whomsoever from continuing to follow his tyrannical ways.
Just to reply to what some people have stated above, if these so called 'mini dictators' were smart -or in this case evil- enough, they would have overthrown the tyrannical dictator long before him being killed. But the fact is, they weren't because just like the Germans, the people who are willing to follow a psychopathic dictator mindlessly are for the most part, victims of a desperate situation.
Killing a dictator for the greater good would immediately come to mind as the better option.
However, murder isn't the answer, and one must keep in mind that to eradicate the monster, one must not become another monster in the process.
As Tannya said, a dictator ALWAYS has supporters that serve as his backbone, for without an army of minions, he would definitely get nowhere. He would be powerless.
Therefore, who knows, once this dictator dies, another one would quickly take his place, and the cycle would continue. There may be ONE dictator, but it's always a GROUP of people who are in control or are in a position of power.
How many Nazi officials/doctors continued with their extreme antisemitism long after Hitler was gone? Some even fled to South America and continued with the bizarre and inhumane human experimentation they had started in Germany.
Deciding between two of the lesser evils is definitely mind-racking, since this is where boundaries turn murky.
I am usually misanthropic, but who knows, saving the dicator might end up with him changing his ways and make him want to spread rainbows and butterflies over the people he oppressed?
err. No,maybe the extent of his enlightenment won't go THAT far.
But you all pretty much get the picture. :)
Besides, death is swift and easy. Punishment would put him through slow, agonizing pain/humiliation/suffering, which would have more of an impact on the said dictator.
Murder? Nope.
Punishment? Definitely.
Most people's moral beliefs would be to save anyone, no matter what they've done in the past. Maybe saving the person would cause them to turn a new leaf? Start afresh?
I would think its well worth the risk, compared to the guilt of feeling that you could have saved someone's life, no matter who they are.
But that risk, the thought that if this 'monster' is saved hundreds, thousands, millions could die. That guilt would be unbareable. Let the tyrant die I say.
Some people deserve to die.
I might personally save the monster - darn my morals - but generally? Kill him.
Crime CANNOT go unpunished. Karma NEEDS a little push sometimes. Yes, mercy and forgiveness are wonderful traits in a human, but sometimes the horrible deeds of another far outweigh any moral compass.
For me at least.
I know I sound horrible right now but some people really, really do not deserve to live... I have no right to say this, I admit, but the people who have suffered greatly at the hands of such vile beings were not at fault.
Things like this keep me on the fence when it comes to the death penalty as well - I think about all the pedophiles, the rapists, the bigots, the hate-spawning scum on earth and every ounce of sympathy and forgiveness I may have had in my heart simply poof into nonexistence.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to look at pictures of bunnies to get rid of this dark cloud over my head |<
Yes, I say it is worse, because saving this man would lead to him killing thousands. Therefore, it would be better to kill one and save thousands, than save one and kill thousands.
But there could be controversies. If the dictator is killed by an enemy country, the people may rise in rebellion. But if the people hated the dictator it could lead to peace between the two countries.
There are always two sides to each story, but i still feel that killing the dictator is a better option!
In my point of view it is worse than killing him because if this tyrant is saved he will most certainly not realize how atrocious he is towards the people, which means he will carry on terminating people’s lives. So why would people save him when he has proven to them how beastly he is? I think people should save one another but the difference is your killing someone guilty who has taken away thousands of innocent lives. Besides allowing him to live is like your bad as him so that sort of makes you seem like him. Other people may feel that saving him is the righteous thing, but I completely disagree. In my opinion I think he should be killed instantly because it’s the appropriate thing to do. Moreover we rarely get a chance to finish a dictator’s life.
WOAH, this got me puzzled! :S
But i must say that saving an evil and tyrannical dictator and killing him/her are completely contrary conducts which result in dissimilar aftermaths.
As Raya said; Life is sacred. Every living soul has the right to live peacefully. Anyone trying to withdraw that serenity away must be halted.
But don't you think it would make more sense if the person slaughtering millions of innocent lives be terminated? Some, and only some, people deserve not to exist. I guess that means, in the long run, you are saving more people who deserve to live merely for the sake of experiencing their well-chosen fate.
An old arab saying states that the secrecy of rightfulness is dumb diabolism [it was very tough translating an arabic idiom to english! hope it makes sense]
I cant really decide which one is worse than the other because, as i previously mentioned, they both lead to calamitous outcomes both of which somehow balance themselves as positive or negative.
The answer to this question really depends on the moral standpoint of the person who answers.
If you were not predjudiced by relegion or moral, killing him would seem to be the answer here. You'd save thousands of innocent lives.
I personally think that saving him would not be worse than killing him.
Forgetting everything you believe in and killing him off like that just wouldnt be right. It would show, first of all, weakness in character, and secondly, every dictator has his followers- how sure can you be that they wont rise up against you?
Obviously it would be worse to save him because as everyone's said he'd PROBABLY take away other peoples lives, so it seems it would be wrong to keep him alive. But what if he doesn't? What if he changes the way he is and makes the world an even better place, it would be such a loss. Personally I don't know what I would do if it were in my hands. It seems kind of wrong to play god and judge wether he gets to live or not. My instincts would say kill him on the spot but I'd definetely have second thoughts.
To be honest, I think both are wrong.
Only because you want to save as many peoples lives as you can but its also horrible to takes someone's life, even if they are evil. Saying that I think saving them is worse only because you would save more lives in the end.
I personally believe that saving would be alot worse thn killing an evil diactator
because he should pay the price for the things that he has done. There are very little
chances that the dictator will change his ways, and in the end he might, infact, take other peoples lives.
If this was a live debate, I would walk right out of the room, because it WOULD turn ugly! There are no other points to back up an argument like this, apart from, "the moral wrong-ness", and "saving the thousands of helpless, innocent citizens of a nation"!
No matter how eloquently- or technically-worded you make it sound, it will always remain the same argument.
If you truly think about it, how would killing people who kill people to show other people that killing people is wrong be any different from people who, just, kill people? In this case, an opposing government party killing the dictator - who was murdering innocent citizens out of some personal, racial, or any other pathetic reason - just to show his followers and any other contradictory person/group or even the whole nation that killing others is wrong.
Killing is wrong whether the person is guilty, evil, or even you and me!
SAVING the dictator, of course, is another story. if he is heading to certain death then why stop nature carving it's course, i mean, he IS evil after all!:P
I feel that killing would be much worse than saving a dictator. No matter how much chaos or havoc a person has caused it doesn't mean that we have a right over his life, good or bad.
And it isn't like killing one leader is going to change an entire nation of beleivers. Jesus Christ was murdered too, but his followers are one of the largest in the world.
well I dont see why we should preserve his life when his destroyed many more lives.....so why should we enable him to live hes ?! in the long term i think more people lives would be saved !
Not so sure.
I mean by killing him we're stooping down to his level (you know, him being an abrasive leader and all) but at the same time, by sparing him we're putting an entire nation at stake.
I have a very neutral response to this thunk..
I think he should be exiled?
lol
Yes, I do think that saving an evil and tyrannical dictator is worse than killing him. This is because if he is evil, he is obviously causing trouble for many more people and probably even killing them. So rather than letting many innocent people suffer and/or die it's better to get rid of one evil dictator because if he will remain alive, he'll harm these innocent people.
Aisha Bashir
11g2
I think it is unacceptable to take away this man's life. We are all human beings and we do not have the power to decide whose life should be taken away or not. It doesn't matter what he has done or how many people he has killed you would not be a hero in taking his life. Yes, I agree that his death would probably leave many lives at peace but if you were too kill him it is just as if you killed any ordinary man. If this dictator has kiled another then he brings judgement on himself just as if you were to kill this dictator his shed blood would be on your hands.
What you can find we often make the mistake of doing is judging people by what is shown on the outside. Yet what do you actually now about that person do you thing that from birth all his life he wanted to be was an evil dictator. People can be lead down the wrong path and it may seem impossible to get back. So it is our duty to do everything we can to give aid to that individal, in this case the dicator. You should correct the problem not get rid of it. It's like when your computer has a virus, do you just throw away the inffected computer or do you buy the latest antivirus software to help get rid of the problem.
Yes it is true that you can't always get things back to how they should be but does that mean you should give up trying. That would be like if the doctor told you that you have cancer and you only have one month to live unless we see some progress. You spend the nexr three weeks taking the best medication that the doctor has available and you've only got worse. Does that mean you should just loose hope and wait for death to strike you. I would definitely think not and hope you would agree. So maybe we should all try to think twice before we go around passing judgements on others try to think of a solution not to find a way out.
I wouldn't necessarily kill him. Since he's an evil and tyrannical dictator with evil and tyrannical intentions, I would torture him first. What's the 'punishment' in just killing him and getting it over with? Everyone who has committed a crime must get the same treatment no matter what. I firmly believe in karma and yes it's unpleasant, but no one asked him to be an evil and tyrannical monstrosity in the first place! What you give is what you get.
I would say killing an evil dictator would simply make things worse. God knows how many followers he has and they'll probably start an even larger riot than the dictator himself was planning.
Then again, chances are if you kill him, his followers will only become blind without him. then they will need somebody else to follow, somebody with a proper and prefferebly less sadistic,less vile, less dictating view. I've always felt followers follow because without having something to follow they have often end up having nothing.
At the end of the day it is all about YOUR morals and how you would feel as a person. Perosnally I wouldn't because it would make me just as bad as he is.
Kill one man to save another dozen lives? Yes it is fair.
I believe that such a man shouldn't have a right to have a life if he doesn't let others live theirs.
Saving the dictator would mean you’re putting a lot of other people's lives at stake but killing him is also morally incorrect. There would be no difference between yourself and the dictator. I believe killing a person under any circumstances is wrong. No matter what they did, no matter who they are. But if killing this person results in saving a lot of other lives, would it be an exception?
Honestly, in my opinion, you would be at a no win situation. But if I must answer, I wouldn’t kill him. Let him live, let him be punished for all he has done but I personally would not want to be responsible for a murder.
I would say kill the dictator, how can one save a dictator, I think that his mind would be so "damaged" that he couldn't live with the fact that he wasn't the one who was in COMPLETE control. Think of all the people he would have killed to reach that position, whats one death to save many more lives? Besides, if he gained complete control once, whats to stop him from doing it again?
Kill the dictator! Although it make be wrong to take a persons life, it is for the good of thousands more. If you kill him everyone will be at peace and ease knowing he is gone, but where do you draw the line? if you kill one dictator you might kill another and another and so on.
Like marwan said, what if you keep him alive and he changes his ways, he makes it a better place, makes his people happier. This is the risk you must take. Kill him he is gone or keep him alive and hope he changes his ways.
Well it is definitely wrong to kill someone, but maybe killing one, is better then ending up with thousands dead later.
For Example Adolf Hitler.He might have wanted the best for his country, but his ways of doing so were completely Insane.In the Holocaust, he was responsible for between 15 and 17 million deaths, mostly in concentration camps by burning them to death in groups.
If he was murdered at the start of his mission for a better Germany, perhaps all those innocent people could have lived on their lives.
So is saving an evil and tyrannical dictator worse than killing one? I say yes it is. ツ
Hmmmm...is the dictator human? Yes.
What is he dictating? I have no clue.
Let us take Hitler as an example. Everyone who is taught about him, only see the bad or negative side of him. Only people who are really up to date on current affairs know what he was trying to do. Politics can answer this question. I could as well but I wouldn't want to get into the politics of today. It's sad.
However, wouldn't killing him make it worse for the world. The country would be in vhaos after following a strict routine. Unless America gets him killed, then they can cover the whole thing up and say "oops, sorry".
Saving someone is better than killng someone.
In a way, I do feel that saving a tyrannical dictator is worse because he would continue with the atrocities, saving a life in all good karma but what would guarantee that it would change him and not embolden him to do more injustices. But on the otherhand who are we to take a life- life is a girft from God that is sacred to one and all and nothing really justifies killing anyone. I suppose its just the difference between a soldier and a hired killer. The reasoning behind it is the justification. Though I am all for abolishing armies and wars and tools of mass destruction!
Well if it was a democratic country and the people were faced with the decision of deciding his fate, they would quite obviously demand instant death of the man who ruined not only their lives, but also their country as a whole. Since he didn’t do much good and wasn’t of any significant help to the country he should probably be killed.
However, I don't support the act of just killing him because he was evil. Instead he should be tortured to such a great extent that he would regret doing whatever he did. And once he feels sorry he should then be slayed and slaughtered worse than how a butchers chops his meat.
"We don’t have the right to take away someone else’s life”
Neither does he though :s So why let him live on while we stick to the thought that it’s not right to kill people, even in the worst situations, in this case, an evil and tyrannical dictator who most probably kills thousands.
If we save him, we are basically thinking about morals and ethics. We kill him, we do it for the society's relief and respect for thousands of losses in families. So yes it's worse than killing him :)
And I second the comment above.
As he is an evil and tyrannical dictator, killing him would be too easy. What are prisons for?
If saving the dictator means putting him in exile but not killing him then yes, that would be the moral thing to do. But, people deserve and would want justice so killing him won't sound too bad at all.
If we answer this question morally, saving him would be a good answer, everyone deserves a second chance right?
On the other hand, evil dictators never really change. Hitler would be a good example. Millions of innocent and helpless people died because of one man's extreme views and inviolable influence.
If killing one man meant saving millions of innocent lives then it doesn't really sound bad at all.
Killing the "tyrannical dictator" makes you no different than the dictator himself. Although on the other hand, it's not a bad idea! I'm not being cruel or heartless but come to think of it as, saving thousands by the death of one! If you let the "evil dictator" live, he's going to go on killing thousands and thousands of poor, little and innocent souls. I believe that saving a dictator is worse than killing one!
I personally feel it isn't worse than killing one. We as people have to have hope that even an evil dictator would have the will and power to change their habits even if the habit was evil.
Plus who are we to take some ones life? Who are we to say he has no right to live? We aren't GOD. We have no right to judge like that.
Therefore my answer to this thunk would be no. :)
It's good to know that everyone here knows,understands and respects the sanctity of a life. At least, there isn't a dictator among us.
Like everyone said, life is precious, and taking it away? It's one of the many acts,where reasons are never enough for justifying for committing it.
This reminds me of this very thought provoking quote from The KiteRunner,"To take a life, is to steal. When you kill, you steal a man's life, a wife's right to a husband, a child's to a father."
But that only applies to normal people. Not to those barbaric,ruthless dictators.
I see no point in keeping the dictators in jail. Dictators are so darned potent and powerful, they still continue whatever they do from prison. It's as if the prison is some sort of protection for the dictator from the anguished,average people who would want to retaliate.
True, kill one,and another one pops up. But till the other one sprouts, why spare the tyrant?
You can only get rid off cockroaches by killing them all. So saving a dictator is worse than killing him.
In reality, two wrongs never make a right - so using this saying it would be worse to kill him than to save him.
Although on the flipside, if killing one person meant saving the lives of others - wouldn’t that be the better option?
I honestly don't think that you would be able to answer this thunk without being put in this position.
Could you be rational enough not to kill him or strong enough to save him?
Post a Comment