Mwahaha! Been too long since I've started one of these.

So. What is ya'll moral take on assassination? Now, I'm not talking about trained murderers. What I'm curious about is if the target is guilty, or if the killing of one person could end the slaughter of thousands. You know, what if you had the chance to kill Hitler?

I'm making it easy for you. This isn't the "Kill one to save a dozen" dilemma I brought up in one of my other threads. The one you need to kill isn't innocent. He may even be the one responsible. But you won't be killing him in fair combat. You don't have time, or maybe you don't have the skills. Is assassination an option?

Here's your thread to discuss the moral implications of various assassination scenarios. Please remember to keep this as a discussion of writing. I did mention Hitler, but only to clarify the type of person in my description, and I'd rather not see an argument about Hitler assassination attempts break out.

But other than that, have fun.
*watches intently*

If they're guilty of massacre, genocide, and other crimes along that way, go for it. They deserve it and it will save lives, it may feel wrong, but it's necessary.

I'm not exactly a pacifist so I would say assassination could be right in given scenarios. Sometimes assassinating the antagonist is the only way to set things right and, honestly, if this person has caused deaths of others himself. It's a simple form of justice and is way more merciful than any other form (I.E. torture and captivity).

Anyways, I think assassination is fine...with the correct motives.

Bethany Faith

One of my favorite MC's is an assassin as a side-hobby. In fact, in my main book, that is the main mission for all four MC's: kill the evil overlord and his commanders. They get side-tracked, but that is the original goal.

Really I don't see any difference between killing the enemy in an official duel, with an arrow in battle, one-on-one, or by assassin blade. The only difference is in the level of effectiveness. Think of Ehud the left-handed, who assassinated the king of Moab in the book of Judges. That was how God wanted the oppressor overthrown.

Ah! I love these kinds of posts, Katie!

I believe assasination, in certain circumstances, is completely appropriate. However, I don't have the time to devote to the topic at hand at the moment. I just wanted to say that I think assasination can/is sometimes the best thing to do.

I think in the right circumstances it's fine. It's just a different method of war. However it can be misused so it's about portraying it right I guess. Or if you're having someone misuse it making it seem bad not right. I'm so tired I can't seem to focus on what I'm trying to say so hope this makes sense.

I think assassinations can be perfectly acceptable. There are several stories in the Old Testament of God's people employing assassination. I think it's just another type of warfare. If war can be just, than assassination can be just as well.

(Moved to Village Lore)

eruheran

Why in village lore?

Haha, Eru and I corresponded about that. Sure, move it back, Lady E. There's been some confusion over what goes in theology and there's an upcoming announcement I guess so... anyway.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say I believe assassination under any circumstances is wrong. Remember that in reality, the Old Testament values and New Testament values are vastly different. No NT Christian defended themselves when under persecution. The rules changed. They didn't need to defend themselves anymore because Jesus came; they were already saved. With no mediator in the OT, it was kill if you have a good reason. In the NT, it was love your enemies.



You say they deserve it; but who is to say that they do? No one on the planet is perfect, so technically all of us deserve the death penalty, but Jesus paid the price. To say someone deserves something is to speak with a "holier then thou" mindset.

Now I'm not saying that it should be excluded from fiction. I do believe assassination could be used effectively in writing. However I would not portray it as the ultimate right. I would not promote assassination as "the only way". I would portray it as the protagonist took matters into their own hands, doing the deed, and would eventually need to find forgiveness for that wrong or the antagonist did the deed. Since I always write with God in my fictional world, I believe Him to be bigger than any situation that my MC's find themselves in.

Not sure if anyone agrees with that kind of view, but those are my thoughts on the matter!

*forgot she never came back to this topic *

Proverbs 25:26
"A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well."



I guess I want to ask a question, rather than answer this one. Were we wrong to try and assassinate Hitler? This man wanted the death of every Jew. He wanted to invade America, Brittan, and every other nation he could. He wanted to oppress and kill. He was threatening OUR loved ones, and the innocent lives of so many other people.


Sergeant York, an amazing military man, and a Christian, wrestled with similar issues as the one we now discuss. In fact, he pleaded a conscientious objector after he was drafted. Until he learned a very important truth. But I’m not going to go into all of that. His journey was about deciding whether it was right to kill another human being during war times. What I want to point to is what he said when asked why he no longer felt it was wrong for him to kill the enemy. He was asked this question after single handedly taking out an entire “nest” of enemy soldiers and saving the lives of the men fighting with him that day. York replied “Because I saw those men, and I knew the only way to stop them from killing and taking more lives was to shoot them. I knew that they would go on killing. I had to stop them.” York knew he was saving lives, by taking theirs.

Faith, freedom, and individual liberties are often things we take for granted. Until they are taken from us. Will evil ultimately triumph, if good men do nothing? Obviously this question does not take into account God’s grace, but that does not change the fact that we have a duty to stand against injustice. To protect our loved ones.

I ask, was it wrong to attempt to take Hitler’s life?

My answer? I would have killed him without a moment’s hesitation, if given the chance.

*is not fully happy with her post *

I want to clarify something here. Something that has been bothering since I posted.

While I did say I would have killed Hitler without a moment’s hesitation, I want to make very clear that I do not think it is the duty of an individual to go out and assassinate someone. Often that kind of “assassination” is done in a vengeful type manner.

However, I do think the government has an obligation to protect their people. If you notice, most of the assassination attempts on Hitler’s life were backed by a government. Hitler’s own military counter intelligence tried to assassinate him. So did the Brits and the Americans. These governments knew they needed to take him out. It was a decision made by many men, not one.

Also, I think the type of assassination, and the circumstances surrounding it, affect whether the assassination is right or wrong. After all, if a building is bombed with Hitler and all of his goons, I don’t have a problem. They all stand for the same thing. However, if Hitler is in a building full of innocent lives, I have a problem.

*reads post and decides she is satisfied now *

*likes and agrees with Airi's post*

I knew what you meant, Airianna.

I think those two posts combined count as a monster post, and those are always welcome to HW discussions.

Gross. God will conquer evil in the end.

Carliss

What was gross?

Hmm do you mean assassination is gross?

I loved your post, Airi. Thank you!

Thanks, guys. I like it better now that I clarified some things.

So, how do you tie this into the Execution thread? Assassination is a form of personal execution according to this scenario. One person takes it upon themselves, or is instructed to take upon themselves, to deal out justice to a guilty party. The only difference is that the assassination is not "officially" legal, and there is no trial, no appeal, and no defense from the target.

How do you compare the two? Do you see Assassination as the same as execution or not the same? We've determined that if executions are sanctified by the government then they are legally and morally acceptable, are those not the conditions of death as ordered by a government as well? (To an extent, don't take my words to extremes please. I haven't heard an opposing view, so I'm simply representing the side expressed by most commentators in this thread.)

Right, I see what you are saying, and I agree. I see them as both being closely related. There are a few different nuances, but I think that assassination and execution are very similar in essence, though perhaps not in principle.

The difference is that executions are, in the usual sense of the term, preceded by court-hearings, last rights, years of legal work and justice, and on the list goes. Assassinations are "Hey, that guy's a threat. Knock him off." and the business is done. No guarantees that what's happening is justice.

Note that all the examples in favor of assassination assumed the guilt of the victim. We use people like Hitler as our example, people who were obvious threats. What about assassinating without that perfect assurance of guilt? That's where the difference between execution and assassination, both forms of hastened, ordered, death, comes in.

Agreed. You shouldn't assassinate an innocent party.

So without a hearing or trial how can you know that you're assassinating a guilty party or not? All you know is he's a threat, and you have to rely on your own judgement or the judgement of whoever gave you the assignment.

In my view, the key (and all-important) distinction between assassinations, killing in self-defense, executions, and war, is the issue of fair play.

Assume the target has been convicted already: he is justly set down as someone who needs to be killed. Now assume you are a person who is deputized by the government to do so (to remove the whole 'is it my place' question from the equation).

Is it more moral for you to give the other person a fighting chance, or to stab him in the back? Should you alert him of your presence, even the playing field, and then have an even draw? Or should you set up camp in a building across the way and snipe a biological bomb into his bedroom?

Most objections I have heard to assassination itself were due to its being 'unfair' somehow. But I have never heard anyone explain why one should try to be fair in war. It isn't a game...

If he is guilty, you have no arguments here. He's already condemed himself.

*nods* I agree with Airianna on that point.

eru

I agree on that point as well.

Fiends in human form are easy to kill, like orcs and ringwraiths. 'Nice' guys who need to die are harder to kill (like the Haradrim). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

One quick diagnosis in the war-time situation of a nice guy is whether he would kill you given the chance. You don't need to assassinate every miner in their country who brings out a few pounds of lead for the bullets, because they aren't necessarily interested in killing you, just getting bread. The Haradrim were out to kill everybody, so they got killed to prevent that. Dundlendings surrendered, they weren't out to kill anybody after that, and so they didn't get killed.

My inclination is to say yes, but it's debatable. It could be argued that they are aiding your enemies (for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that we can reasonably perceive the enemy as actually evil and not merely opposed to our particular interests), and as such are guilty. However, if we once grant that they are not guilty of any crime meriting death, I don't think you can intentionally kill them no matter how many lives it would save (indiscriminate weapons like bombs are a thornier issue). IOWs, I don't think the number of lives to be saved should enter into the moral calculus of killing at all if you have the option to kill no one, though of course if it were once granted that it were licit to kill them, there would then be a tactical calculus of whether it was worthwhile, into which the number of lives to be saved would probably enter.