just because you believe that murder is actually a good thing, doesn't mean people are being stupid
Ok, you are stupid.
Murder? They killed Mark, indirectly killed Larry and would have killed you, Clem, Kenny and everyone else. And then they would have had you for lunch.
NOT killing them when you get the chanse is stupid, there is no way around it. It's STUPID.
And dont give me that "walkers would have gotten them" bullshit.
The walkers was not even there when you had to choose between killing Danny or not. Or Andy. The walkers came afterwards.
Killed Danny, left Andy. Earlier I sided with Lilly against Kenny about killing Larry so I wanted to show I had what it took to do 'what was necessary', didn't realise Clem was right behind me however. When I had the option of shooting Andy I didn't think he deserved to be put out of his misery. Plus it would have been the most cold blooded 'action' to do, maybe looked bad to Clem and the rest of the group. Personally I find it more cold blooded to leave him after everything that had happened but I definitely didn't want to commit murder. If the zombies got to him then so be it.
Ok, you are stupid.
Murder? They killed Mark, indirectly killed Larry and would have killed you, Clem, Kenny and everyone else. And then they would have had you for lunch.
NOT killing them when you get the chanse is stupid, there is no way around it. It's STUPID.
And dont give me that "walkers would have gotten them" bullshit.
The walkers was not even there when you had to choose between killing Danny or not. Or Andy. The walkers came afterwards.
killing somebody because you think they might kill you some time in the future is murder
Ok, you are stupid.
Murder? They killed Mark, indirectly killed Larry and would have killed you, Clem, Kenny and everyone else. And then they would have had you for lunch.
NOT killing them when you get the chanse is stupid, there is no way around it. It's STUPID.
And dont give me that "walkers would have gotten them" bullshit.
The walkers was not even there when you had to choose between killing Danny or not. Or Andy. The walkers came afterwards.
I killed them both.. Murder or not.. They hacked off the legs of a member of our group and were eating people. I got the chance to kill the bastards and that's what I did.
Not because they tried to kill me and mark and serve us him up for dinner.
Lee can forgive that
Not because they locked us in a meat locker
Lee can forgive that
No My Lee killed them because he hadn't gotten any of the rations, none of the biscuits, and none of the appetizers at dinner. He was hungry which made him cranky.
Not because they tried to kill me and mark and serve us him up for dinner.
Lee can forgive that
Not because they locked us in a meat locker
Lee can forgive that
No My Lee killed them because he hadn't gotten any of the rations, none of the biscuits, and none of the appetizers at dinner. He was hungry which made him cranky.
At least your Lee didn't eat roasted Andy after he fell from the fence...... or did he?
killing somebody because you think they might kill you some time in the future is murder
Getting rid of the cannibals is Justice. Not murder. There are times when justice must be carried out by individuals. There is no legal system, there are no police, no town council, and no jail. If you choose to leave them alive then you are in essence condoning their actions and probably condemning other innocent survivors to be captured, slaughtered, and eaten.
Anyone who leaves them alive is siding with evil and is just as guilty of any murders the cannibals commit in the future as the cannibals themselves. So by leaving them alive, you are guilty of murder. By Killing them, you are enforcing peace and justice.
Getting rid of the cannibals is Justice. Not murder. There are times when justice must be carried out by individuals. There is no legal system, there are no police, no town council, and no jail. If you choose to leave them alive then you are in essence condoning their actions and probably condemning other innocent survivors to be captured, slaughtered, and eaten.
Anyone who leaves them alive is siding with evil and is just as guilty of any murders the cannibals commit in the future as the cannibals themselves. So by leaving them alive, you are guilty of murder. By Killing them, you are enforcing peace and justice.
Did you also shoot Jolene? She straight up tells you that she killed people. That's worthy of a bullet to the brain.
Guess we should have also killed that Bandit in the woods. We watched him murder some guy with a shot gun right in front of us. We are now responsible for every person that particular bandit comes back to kill.
Did you try to save Larry? Then Kenny should have gotten a sickle to the back of the head. He KILLED Larry (if you believe that he could have been saved).
Heck, for that matter, Lee should go. No room for murderers in this new society.
Revenge is not justice, and you can decide that they are no longer a threat. Danny is bleeding out in the barn, Brenda is now a walker, and Andy is so disgusted by what he has become that he is BEGGING Lee to come back -and kill him. I'm pretty sure the St. John's are no longer going to be in the business of eating people.
Did you also shoot Jolene? She straight up tells you that she killed people. That's worthy of a bullet to the brain.
Guess we should have also killed that Bandit in the woods. We watched him murder some guy with a shot gun right in front of us. We are now responsible for every person that particular bandit comes back to kill.
Did you try to save Larry? Then Kenny should have gotten a sickle to the back of the head. He KILLED Larry (if you believe that he could have been saved).
Heck, for that matter, Lee should go. No room for murderers in this new society.
Revenge is not justice, and you can decide that they are no longer a threat. Danny is bleeding out in the barn, Brenda is now a walker, and Andy is so disgusted by what he has become that he is BEGGING Lee to come back -and kill him. I'm pretty sure the St. John's are no longer going to be in the business of eating people.
Jolene was a different story. I actually took the time to listen to her story until the st johns brother killed her. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they prove they should not have it. In Jolene's case I suspected that she had good reasons for being paranoid and angry, so I was willing to hear her out before making a decision.
In the case of the cannibals, they had already committed acts which were obviously evil toward innocent travelers/survivors. The group witnessed them take a perfectly healthy person and chop off his legs and serve them up for dinner. Then the same cannibal family proceeded to imprison and plot to kill off the remaining members of the group. This is clearly different than either Jolene or Larry's situations.
As for Kenny killing Larry, we are not given a choice in that situation. If the game allows I will choose to let Kenny take his family in the RV and leave. And I would stay with Lily and Carley/Doug. Kenny is a loose cannon who does not think things through, and reacts based on his emotions instead of using logic or reason.
However there is a difference between a murder committed in the heat of the moment, and one done with malice of forethought. This is why we have manslaughter vs premeditated murder charges in courts of law.
However I also believe that there are some things that people can do which place them beyond any possible forgiveness or redemption. I would say the acts of the cannibal family puts them firmly in the 'Menace to society' camp. They will probably never change, the only way to stop them from being a menace is to remove them from society. If there were any other solution than taking their lives, I would say that we should try them first. However in this situation there are no other choices. Leaving them alive is clearly the wrong choice.
Also I said nothing about revenge. And you are correct that Revenge is never a good reason to take someones life. Please do not try to attach something like revenge into what I said when it was obviously never part of my motivation.
Jolene was a different story. I actually took the time to listen to her story until the st johns brother killed her. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they prove they should not have it. In Jolene's case I suspected that she had good reasons for being paranoid and angry, so I was willing to hear her out before making a decision..
Only reason I didn't kill Jolene was because I was waiting to turn the gun on the St. John, who I trusted far less than a cabin fevered, PTSD'd twitchy girl with a bow.
The St. Johns were scary until they were begging at my feet. I doubt we'll get that from the bandits.
@zenstrata, My personal point of view is not to kill anyone who is not directly threatening my group or me. The St. John's fit that bill (in my point of view, I don't see them as dangerous by the time we leave).
Killing people for justice, in my point of view, tends to be a "slippery slope" type situation. Once you start, it's easy to keep redefining what a "threat" happens to be. Today you kill people who kill - tomorrow would you kill someone who steals? What about killing someone who makes noise when you are trying to hide from a group of walkers? Given the proper circumstances, anything or anyone could be justified as "threatening" to your/someone else's life. That's why I brought up those earlier examples.
@zenstrata, My personal point of view is not to kill anyone who is not directly threatening my group or me. The St. John's fit that bill (in my point of view, I don't see them as dangerous by the time we leave).
Killing people for justice, in my point of view, tends to be a "slippery slope" type situation. Once you start, it's easy to keep redefining what a "threat" happens to be. Today you kill people who kill - tomorrow would you kill someone who steals? What about killing someone who makes noise when you are trying to hide from a group of walkers? Given the proper circumstances, anything or anyone could be justified as "threatening" to your/someone else's life. That's why I brought up those earlier examples.
Have you read the comics? Rick deals with this problem less than gracefully pretty often. He's pretty much a living slippery slope.
Circumstances matter. But we also have codes of conduct which help guide us. These codes are usually based on group survival.
But some crimes are obviously worse than others and demand different responses. For example, in the country in which I live, if I witness a crime and see a criminal brandish a weapon and threaten someone, I am completely within my rights to dispatch the criminal to defend my life and the lives of the good people around me.
The St. Johns not only brandished but committed acts of torture and murder which the main character and the rest of the group witnessed. They also plotted and prepared to do them again. This puts anyone well within their rights as good citizens to take decisive action. In fact, I would say that anyone who does not take that decisive action is failing in their responsibility to society.
Citizens should protect one another. Protection and application of law/justice originates in the general citizenry of societies. It is not solely in the purview of the police or armed services. Those organizations exist to aid society in the application of law and justice. But they are not the only ones who should be capable or expected to enforce it. Power and its application stems from the people - not from the governments they form.
Circumstances matter. But we also have codes of conduct which help guide us. These codes are usually based on group survival.
But some crimes are obviously worse than others and demand different responses. For example, in the country in which I live, if I witness a crime and see a criminal brandish a weapon and threaten someone, I am completely within my rights to dispatch the criminal to defend my life and the lives of the good people around me.
The St. Johns not only brandished but committed acts of torture and murder which the main character and the rest of the group witnessed. They also plotted and prepared to do them again. This puts anyone well within their rights as good citizens to take decisive action. In fact, I would say that anyone who does not take that decisive action is failing in their responsibility to society.
Citizens should protect one another. Protection and application of law/justice originates in the general citizenry of societies. It is not solely in the purview of the police or armed services. Those organizations exist to aid society in the application of law and justice. But they are not the only ones who should be capable or expected to enforce it. Power and its application stems from the people - not from the governments they form.
But if you witness a murder, and the murderer immediately ceases everything to wait for the police, do you feel equally justified taking action yourself?
If the murderer disarms him/herself and takes up a non-threatening posture then it would be up to the citizens to wait and ensure the person was not going to endanger others until they were taken into custody.
However if the murderer attempts to run away or does not immediately disarm themselves, then they have proven that they are a danger to society through their actions and I would be required to act. The person in question has obviously shown that they are willing and able to take others lives. If I did not do everything in my power to stop that person, then I am guilty of letting them go to murder again.
Basically these are the things that society expects from police forces. But as I said, the power police forces have originates in the people which form the general population. It is up to the general population to protect itself when those police forces are not available.
I have already pointed out which circumstances matter to me - my direct safety, or the direct safety of someone else, is what determines the actions I take. Once that safety is relatively established, there is really no need to kill. I do not believe that St. John's will be capable of committing the atrocities which have already occurred. Their farm is over run with Walkers - one of them is dead, and another is likely going to die. Andy now has to survive on his own, hiding from the Bandits and the walkers, and from us, because if he comes after my group, then I WILL kill him. Killing them in that moment, would then be out of vengeance.
So, thank you for the lesson in social contract theory, but I prefer NOT to find myself solely responsible for deciding who gets to live and die. I will take care of myself and my own, as well as anybody who decides to seek shelter with us. Societal morals are only useful as long as they can be fairly applied, and I think in the apocalypse, it's pretty much impossible that one man can guarantee that he can apply justice uniformly.
At first, he's a likeable everyman. After a while, he strangles a pretty decent fellow to death because he knows where Rick's group lives.
Exactly what I am talking about. Eventually so much bad stuff will happen to you and yours that keeping morality straight is going to be hard for anyone but the most disciplined out of all of us.
If the murderer disarms him/herself and takes up a non-threatening posture then it would be up to the citizens to wait and ensure the person was not going to endanger others until they were taken into custody.
That's the way I saw the situation. After giving up the fight, he wanted to goad Lee into killing him. He could be dangerous again whenever he chose, but I knew his tricks. I chose not to kill him because it was the most cruel option I had, not because it was a mercy. I already killed his brother, the one I took as the real threat, because he was stupider and less predictable.
You said it was up to the citizens to monitor him. Surprisingly, in this the citizens were zombies and they dealt with him quickly.
I do not believe that St. John's will be capable of committing the atrocities which have already occurred.
A slight disagreement with your thoughts on this: the St. Johns were rather intelligent and preyed on the stupid, weak and injured. They're not predators; they're scavengers. So long as Lee doesn't shoot himself in the leg and walk into their sandwich, I think he'll be safe from anything they try.
I don't know if the Zombies could properly classify as the general citizens in society.. Zombies in the walking dead are more like a force of nature at this point. They lack the cognitive processes required for rational decision making.
There is something called the Death Penalty in our current system of law. It exists for those which we have deemed as likely to be impossible to reform from their lawbreaking ways. It has also been established in extreme circumstances that people can be justified in exacting this penalty at a moments notice. Such as in combat situations with the military, The aforementioned murderer example, Or perhaps even during a zombie apocalypse. (not that I believe there will ever be a zombie apocalypse but in this particular fantasy example, it fits).
I would say that in this particular situation, the application of the death penalty is the only tenable solution.
A slight disagreement with your thoughts on this: the St. Johns were rather intelligent and preyed on the stupid, weak and injured. They're not predators; they're scavengers. So long as Lee doesn't shoot himself in the leg and walk into their sandwich, I think he'll be safe from anything they try.
I would say that they preyed more on the desperate and the unsuspecting. As time goes on, it is going to be like you say - there will be less and less people for them to target. I still don't think they will be capable of it any longer - especially since most of their scheming was done while they were safe on their farm. They don't have that safety anymore.
There is also the little matter of the fence turning itself on. I noticed that when questioned about why the power suddenly came on, the brother said he had heard us shout and thought it was to turn the power on. But the shouting did not start until After the power was on. At that point I became justifiably suspicious of the situation.
I was happy to help you with societal contract theory! However, in the walking dead you would quickly find yourself having to deal with application of some sort of justice code pretty quickly because there is no one else to do it. Application of a justice code is something I have to deal with every day, so perhaps I am just more comfortable with having to sort out varying situations on-the-fly.
A slight disagreement with your thoughts on this: the St. Johns were rather intelligent and preyed on the stupid, weak and injured. They're not predators; they're scavengers. So long as Lee doesn't shoot himself in the leg and walk into their sandwich, I think he'll be safe from anything they try.
They were not scavengers. Scavengers don't use traps, they were extremely intelligent hunters. I guess you missed the part where they tried to kill off your entire group after feeding you Mark.
I have already pointed out which circumstances matter to me - my direct safety, or the direct safety of someone else, is what determines the actions I take. Once that safety is relatively established, there is really no need to kill. I do not believe that St. John's will be capable of committing the atrocities which have already occurred. Their farm is over run with Walkers - one of them is dead, and another is likely going to die. Andy now has to survive on his own, hiding from the Bandits and the walkers, and from us, because if he comes after my group, then I WILL kill him. Killing them in that moment, would then be out of vengeance.
Why even take that chance, you're literally putting your group in unneeded danger by doing that. We know that they have the medical knowledge to keep a double amputee alive as well as the supplies. We already know they have intimate knowledge about the traps that one of the brothers is stuck in. They aren't completely surrounded by walkers, considering our group slowly walks away. Not to mention the walkers were in a small group, not like a herd. Walkers are a manageable threat in small numbers.
If they didn't know where your group was camped at, it might be a different story. It's completely irresponsible to leave two murderers alive when they still pose a clear danger.
"Why should it matter if it's a criminal or someone innocent? Last time I checked, murder is still murder!"- Detective from Death Note, episode 2.
Idealistic nonsense in this scenario. It's survival, you no longer have an authority to back you up. You're on your own.
They were not scavengers. Scavengers don't use traps, they were extremely intelligent hunters. I guess you missed the part where they tried to kill off your entire group after feeding you Mark.
Why even take that chance, you're literally putting your group in unneeded danger by doing that. We know that they have the medical knowledge to keep a double amputee alive as well as the supplies. We already know they have intimate knowledge about the traps that one of the brothers is stuck in. They aren't completely surrounded by walkers, considering our group slowly walks away. Not to mention the walkers were in a small group, not like a herd. Walkers are a manageable threat in small numbers.
If they didn't know where your group was camped at, it might be a different story. It's completely irresponsible to leave two murderers alive when they still pose a clear danger.
Idealistic nonsense in this scenario. It's survival, you no longer have an authority to back you up. You're on your own.
I was just inferring a simple quote for the thread.:rolleyes: Anyways, have you watched the tv show? One of the main themes in The Walking Dead is about retaining people's humanity. Even if people try to senselessly kill you, you should try to resolve the problem without going to the side of murder. That's my two cents.
How much of our humanity is acceptable to let go, exactly?
For death penalties, there are many who believe such punishment to be unjust. As it is, there is an automatic, lengthy appeal process before someone is placed on death row - failing that a criminal can receive pardon from higher power (governor/president). Also, the death penalty cannot just be applied - it has to be agreed upon by a jury of peers. All of this is set into place to prevent exactly what I was talking about - it is to prevent the penalty of death from being applied unfairly and without just cause.
So we are in extreme circumstances you say, without any sort of judicial/criminal detainment systems to handle criminals. Does anybody here think of Judge Dredd? It is ridiculous to assume that you have all of the necessary qualifications to be singularly responsible to apply "law" and "justice". It's one thing to be like Marlerysativa, and deem them to be to dangerous for your immediate survival. I tend to disagree with that assessment, but again risk assessment is always going to be different for different people. Don't pretend though that you need to do for the betterment of society.
@ sisterofshane (and anyone else who may be interested)
If you are really curious about how to deal with these sorts of problems, here is a philosophy video which deals in depth with the application of deadly force and how to properly apply it when there is no established law or justice system to fall back on.
There are several other good ones as well which that particular user has put up. These are serious topics which need to be considered responsibly and carefully. So expect it to be lengthy and comprehensive.
I would also like to make the assertion that you do not have to let any of your 'humanity' go when it comes time to make difficult decisions. You can do what needs to be done and still be exactly the same person afterward because your decisions are based on a pre-established life value system.
The problems people run into in this game, the questions they can't seem to resolve, usually stem from not having their value system properly sorted out already.
Everyone is gonna die.
Someone who rape and murder a 4 year old child has no place in society. So might as well get rid of them. Save tax payers money and climate as that person will no longer produce CO2.
And dont give me that "Oh then you are no better than he was". Because if i was to be as bad as he was, i would have to rape and murder a 4 year old child as well.
There's too much here to respond to point by point, so I'll summarize:
I killed the first St. John because he's a threat. I'm rationally and willingly giving up my humanity to protect others and myself. I know killing can be a slippery slope and I'm going to try not to kill everyone because it's easy. I didn't kill the second because he was so pitiful it was better to leave him to hang himself.
As far as them being hunters (not scavengers), you're totally wrong. They make it a point to mention that they only target weak ones and people who are going to die. They don't go in with guns to bring down something - they set traps and bring people in with the promise of food. They're opportunists. If Lee's group hadn't flagged itself as being weak, desperate and easy to capture, the St. Johns wouldn't have messed with them.
Another point on that is that they could only deal with one. Hunters wouldn't have worried about that. If you want to see hunters, read the Fear The Hunters arc of the comic. These are just stupid, intelligent people with a plan to eat the weak.
Comments
Not sure if being sarcastic, or just stupid.
You are being stupid.
just because you believe that murder is actually a good thing, doesn't mean people are being stupid
it is murder if they stopped trying to kill you or it was impossible for them to kill you before you kill them
Ok, you are stupid.
Murder? They killed Mark, indirectly killed Larry and would have killed you, Clem, Kenny and everyone else. And then they would have had you for lunch.
NOT killing them when you get the chanse is stupid, there is no way around it. It's STUPID.
And dont give me that "walkers would have gotten them" bullshit.
The walkers was not even there when you had to choose between killing Danny or not. Or Andy. The walkers came afterwards.
killing somebody because you think they might kill you some time in the future is murder
Kenny would have killed Larry eventually anyway
and paranoia to boot
Plus if you read the stats thing it doesn't say Justice, or Protection, or something it says Revenge.
Not because they tried to kill me and mark and serve us him up for dinner.
Lee can forgive that
Not because they locked us in a meat locker
Lee can forgive that
No My Lee killed them because he hadn't gotten any of the rations, none of the biscuits, and none of the appetizers at dinner. He was hungry which made him cranky.
At least your Lee didn't eat roasted Andy after he fell from the fence...... or did he?
Think they might?
Again, they KILLED Andy. What part of that is it your brain isnt getting?
Getting rid of the cannibals is Justice. Not murder. There are times when justice must be carried out by individuals. There is no legal system, there are no police, no town council, and no jail. If you choose to leave them alive then you are in essence condoning their actions and probably condemning other innocent survivors to be captured, slaughtered, and eaten.
Anyone who leaves them alive is siding with evil and is just as guilty of any murders the cannibals commit in the future as the cannibals themselves. So by leaving them alive, you are guilty of murder. By Killing them, you are enforcing peace and justice.
Did you also shoot Jolene? She straight up tells you that she killed people. That's worthy of a bullet to the brain.
Guess we should have also killed that Bandit in the woods. We watched him murder some guy with a shot gun right in front of us. We are now responsible for every person that particular bandit comes back to kill.
Did you try to save Larry? Then Kenny should have gotten a sickle to the back of the head. He KILLED Larry (if you believe that he could have been saved).
Heck, for that matter, Lee should go. No room for murderers in this new society.
Revenge is not justice, and you can decide that they are no longer a threat. Danny is bleeding out in the barn, Brenda is now a walker, and Andy is so disgusted by what he has become that he is BEGGING Lee to come back -and kill him. I'm pretty sure the St. John's are no longer going to be in the business of eating people.
if you spare him Andy opens a Vegan Coffee Shop
LOL, all of these people hoping that he comes back to haunt Lee...
I hope he comes back and saves your (or even Clem's) life! He sacrifices himself for redemption!:D
Jolene was a different story. I actually took the time to listen to her story until the st johns brother killed her. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they prove they should not have it. In Jolene's case I suspected that she had good reasons for being paranoid and angry, so I was willing to hear her out before making a decision.
In the case of the cannibals, they had already committed acts which were obviously evil toward innocent travelers/survivors. The group witnessed them take a perfectly healthy person and chop off his legs and serve them up for dinner. Then the same cannibal family proceeded to imprison and plot to kill off the remaining members of the group. This is clearly different than either Jolene or Larry's situations.
As for Kenny killing Larry, we are not given a choice in that situation. If the game allows I will choose to let Kenny take his family in the RV and leave. And I would stay with Lily and Carley/Doug. Kenny is a loose cannon who does not think things through, and reacts based on his emotions instead of using logic or reason.
However there is a difference between a murder committed in the heat of the moment, and one done with malice of forethought. This is why we have manslaughter vs premeditated murder charges in courts of law.
However I also believe that there are some things that people can do which place them beyond any possible forgiveness or redemption. I would say the acts of the cannibal family puts them firmly in the 'Menace to society' camp. They will probably never change, the only way to stop them from being a menace is to remove them from society. If there were any other solution than taking their lives, I would say that we should try them first. However in this situation there are no other choices. Leaving them alive is clearly the wrong choice.
Also I said nothing about revenge. And you are correct that Revenge is never a good reason to take someones life. Please do not try to attach something like revenge into what I said when it was obviously never part of my motivation.
Only reason I didn't kill Jolene was because I was waiting to turn the gun on the St. John, who I trusted far less than a cabin fevered, PTSD'd twitchy girl with a bow.
The St. Johns were scary until they were begging at my feet. I doubt we'll get that from the bandits.
Killing people for justice, in my point of view, tends to be a "slippery slope" type situation. Once you start, it's easy to keep redefining what a "threat" happens to be. Today you kill people who kill - tomorrow would you kill someone who steals? What about killing someone who makes noise when you are trying to hide from a group of walkers? Given the proper circumstances, anything or anyone could be justified as "threatening" to your/someone else's life. That's why I brought up those earlier examples.
Have you read the comics? Rick deals with this problem less than gracefully pretty often. He's pretty much a living slippery slope.
Haven't read the comics - from what I've heard I don't know how much I would relate with a character like Rick.
At first, he's a likeable everyman. After a while, he strangles a pretty decent fellow to death because he knows where Rick's group lives.
Circumstances matter. But we also have codes of conduct which help guide us. These codes are usually based on group survival.
But some crimes are obviously worse than others and demand different responses. For example, in the country in which I live, if I witness a crime and see a criminal brandish a weapon and threaten someone, I am completely within my rights to dispatch the criminal to defend my life and the lives of the good people around me.
The St. Johns not only brandished but committed acts of torture and murder which the main character and the rest of the group witnessed. They also plotted and prepared to do them again. This puts anyone well within their rights as good citizens to take decisive action. In fact, I would say that anyone who does not take that decisive action is failing in their responsibility to society.
Citizens should protect one another. Protection and application of law/justice originates in the general citizenry of societies. It is not solely in the purview of the police or armed services. Those organizations exist to aid society in the application of law and justice. But they are not the only ones who should be capable or expected to enforce it. Power and its application stems from the people - not from the governments they form.
But if you witness a murder, and the murderer immediately ceases everything to wait for the police, do you feel equally justified taking action yourself?
However if the murderer attempts to run away or does not immediately disarm themselves, then they have proven that they are a danger to society through their actions and I would be required to act. The person in question has obviously shown that they are willing and able to take others lives. If I did not do everything in my power to stop that person, then I am guilty of letting them go to murder again.
Basically these are the things that society expects from police forces. But as I said, the power police forces have originates in the people which form the general population. It is up to the general population to protect itself when those police forces are not available.
So, thank you for the lesson in social contract theory, but I prefer NOT to find myself solely responsible for deciding who gets to live and die. I will take care of myself and my own, as well as anybody who decides to seek shelter with us. Societal morals are only useful as long as they can be fairly applied, and I think in the apocalypse, it's pretty much impossible that one man can guarantee that he can apply justice uniformly.
Exactly what I am talking about. Eventually so much bad stuff will happen to you and yours that keeping morality straight is going to be hard for anyone but the most disciplined out of all of us.
That's the way I saw the situation. After giving up the fight, he wanted to goad Lee into killing him. He could be dangerous again whenever he chose, but I knew his tricks. I chose not to kill him because it was the most cruel option I had, not because it was a mercy. I already killed his brother, the one I took as the real threat, because he was stupider and less predictable.
You said it was up to the citizens to monitor him. Surprisingly, in this the citizens were zombies and they dealt with him quickly.
A slight disagreement with your thoughts on this: the St. Johns were rather intelligent and preyed on the stupid, weak and injured. They're not predators; they're scavengers. So long as Lee doesn't shoot himself in the leg and walk into their sandwich, I think he'll be safe from anything they try.
There is something called the Death Penalty in our current system of law. It exists for those which we have deemed as likely to be impossible to reform from their lawbreaking ways. It has also been established in extreme circumstances that people can be justified in exacting this penalty at a moments notice. Such as in combat situations with the military, The aforementioned murderer example, Or perhaps even during a zombie apocalypse. (not that I believe there will ever be a zombie apocalypse but in this particular fantasy example, it fits).
I would say that in this particular situation, the application of the death penalty is the only tenable solution.
I would say that they preyed more on the desperate and the unsuspecting. As time goes on, it is going to be like you say - there will be less and less people for them to target. I still don't think they will be capable of it any longer - especially since most of their scheming was done while they were safe on their farm. They don't have that safety anymore.
I was happy to help you with societal contract theory!
They were not scavengers. Scavengers don't use traps, they were extremely intelligent hunters. I guess you missed the part where they tried to kill off your entire group after feeding you Mark.
Why even take that chance, you're literally putting your group in unneeded danger by doing that. We know that they have the medical knowledge to keep a double amputee alive as well as the supplies. We already know they have intimate knowledge about the traps that one of the brothers is stuck in. They aren't completely surrounded by walkers, considering our group slowly walks away. Not to mention the walkers were in a small group, not like a herd. Walkers are a manageable threat in small numbers.
If they didn't know where your group was camped at, it might be a different story. It's completely irresponsible to leave two murderers alive when they still pose a clear danger.
Idealistic nonsense in this scenario. It's survival, you no longer have an authority to back you up. You're on your own.
I was just inferring a simple quote for the thread.:rolleyes: Anyways, have you watched the tv show? One of the main themes in The Walking Dead is about retaining people's humanity. Even if people try to senselessly kill you, you should try to resolve the problem without going to the side of murder. That's my two cents.
For death penalties, there are many who believe such punishment to be unjust. As it is, there is an automatic, lengthy appeal process before someone is placed on death row - failing that a criminal can receive pardon from higher power (governor/president). Also, the death penalty cannot just be applied - it has to be agreed upon by a jury of peers. All of this is set into place to prevent exactly what I was talking about - it is to prevent the penalty of death from being applied unfairly and without just cause.
So we are in extreme circumstances you say, without any sort of judicial/criminal detainment systems to handle criminals. Does anybody here think of Judge Dredd? It is ridiculous to assume that you have all of the necessary qualifications to be singularly responsible to apply "law" and "justice". It's one thing to be like Marlerysativa, and deem them to be to dangerous for your immediate survival. I tend to disagree with that assessment, but again risk assessment is always going to be different for different people. Don't pretend though that you need to do for the betterment of society.
If you are really curious about how to deal with these sorts of problems, here is a philosophy video which deals in depth with the application of deadly force and how to properly apply it when there is no established law or justice system to fall back on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPwQMp5kjRw
There are several other good ones as well which that particular user has put up. These are serious topics which need to be considered responsibly and carefully. So expect it to be lengthy and comprehensive.
I would also like to make the assertion that you do not have to let any of your 'humanity' go when it comes time to make difficult decisions. You can do what needs to be done and still be exactly the same person afterward because your decisions are based on a pre-established life value system.
The problems people run into in this game, the questions they can't seem to resolve, usually stem from not having their value system properly sorted out already.
Someone who rape and murder a 4 year old child has no place in society. So might as well get rid of them. Save tax payers money and climate as that person will no longer produce CO2.
And dont give me that "Oh then you are no better than he was". Because if i was to be as bad as he was, i would have to rape and murder a 4 year old child as well.
So how much humanity can i let go?
I killed the first St. John because he's a threat. I'm rationally and willingly giving up my humanity to protect others and myself. I know killing can be a slippery slope and I'm going to try not to kill everyone because it's easy. I didn't kill the second because he was so pitiful it was better to leave him to hang himself.
As far as them being hunters (not scavengers), you're totally wrong. They make it a point to mention that they only target weak ones and people who are going to die. They don't go in with guns to bring down something - they set traps and bring people in with the promise of food. They're opportunists. If Lee's group hadn't flagged itself as being weak, desperate and easy to capture, the St. Johns wouldn't have messed with them.
Another point on that is that they could only deal with one. Hunters wouldn't have worried about that. If you want to see hunters, read the Fear The Hunters arc of the comic. These are just stupid, intelligent people with a plan to eat the weak.