Other responses and stuffishness, pardon if I missed a name-label or two:
It is by the code which I live by - attack when attacked, and protect those who are oppressed by evil.
The problem with that, Kafei, is what happens after it, and what happens when there are mistaken perceptions of attack? What happens when some on the "side" that "attacked" perceive your attack as the first one? Innocent can be hurt that way too.
Of course, in a sense, this IS what the Toa do. They battle evil.
But when you take that to the extreme of attacking literally in the same way the enemy does (to kill), sometimes that CAN be just as harmful.
Lets say that some huge terrorist/killer person was arrested by the United States. Now you see, that guy probably has a lot of friends. So, if he was to escape some how, and then kill more people, wouldn't it have been better to just use the death penalty?
Yes -- does anyone think Takanuva didn't intend to kill Makuta in MOL? How about the Toa in MNOG? Both times, the Toa believed they were killing him. And in fact, had he not gotten the Piraka involved, he WOULD have died after Takanuva's battle -- his antidermis would have dissipated eventually.
And in 2001, the Turaga made it clear that the Toa would "destroy" Makuta.
The key is knowing for sure that it's your only option. Makuta had been trapped before (Toa Metru) to no avail, so the best approach the Toa knew of was to kill him. It was only due to their not understanding the nature of a Makuta that he survived.
If you destroy a murderer, what does that make you? A murderer. Not a "good murderer". Just a murderer. You're no better.
This is not quite true, because you forget that a murderer does
forfeit his own life when he takes that of another. But it depends on the situation. Would keeping that murderer alive possibly save more innocent lives if they had vital info, or build more trust among the Matoran, etc.? Generally, yes.
But there is such a thing as an execution, that is not necessarily murder, if it is justified because the person being executed forfeited his/her life by murdering an innocent.
Also, let's not forget that the whole Hakann analogy has a huge flaw -- the Inika and Piraka were evenly matched. I know I'm the first to remind everybody that battle isn't merely a matter of power level, but it IS a huge factor. I'm not sure Jaller could
kill Hakann without risking his own death in the process.
If Jaller died, as one of the six Toa destined to save Mata Nui's life, that destiny could never come true. The whole universe would fall. So in a way, Jaller couldn't risk it.
Compare it to swordfighting. (Real, not fencing.) Many times both opponents spend most of their time blocking each others' attacks until one makes a stupid mistake -- you don't foolishly just stab away at your opponent, because that opens you up to his blade. Unless you're suicidal...
Look, despite how much the Bionicle Universe may imply otherwise, the problem with this is there can be no real definition of "evil".
Hate to bloglink ya, man, but, see here: Good and Evil: Points of View?
That's not the problem with it. Frankly, you don't even need to define evil to make the call that sometimes to protect many, you might need to kill one. That's just logistics and strategy. The problem with it is if you jump to killing before considering alternatives, you might indeed be causing harm to innocents that you haven't thought of.
A being is just what it is, and while say a Skakdi may be violent, to go from there and imply it deserves death is just a moral step too far.
Again, that depends -- if you know that the Skakdi is going to kill innocents if you let him live, and you have no other approaches available, you do have to make that call, for the sake of the innocent.
This is rare, but it happens. Cops deal with situations like this all the time. Toa fictionally have more ways to deal with it, but it's comparable to a tazer. Sometime, the tazer is no longer an option (like if one cop faces two attackers, etc.). In those cases, Toa DO kill, or try to. See Makuta 2001/2003, and Morbuzahk.
Those clarifications aside, your Tuyet example is right on the money.
I feel like putting my two cents here. Do you know how hard it is to kill someone and the emptiness you feel afterwards?
Again, your point is important, but don't forget that when you know doing so will save more innocent lives, it is something to be proud of. Soldiers on the ground face these decisions everyday, you know. Soldiers (at least, the good guys) don't want to kill. But if by doing so they prevent innocent deaths, there is nothing to feel guilty about.
So it all comes down to whether killing the bad guys will in that situation
bring about more bad than good. And many times in the heat of battle, you simply cannot make that decision, so it's better to stun or imprison, just in case.
There is one more point I'd like to add to my previously unread comment.
Defense, and offense. There are plenty of examples of this, even the one you gave.
Offense - Hakann kills Matoran because they are not working hard or fast enough to get the Mask of Life.
Defense - Jaller kills Hakann because he sees Hakann killing the Matoran, therefore Jaller must protect the Matoran from any further harm by killing Hakann. Locking him up is an option, and so is negotiating with him. But, he took another Matoran's life. Jaller would hold that as a valid reason for avengement. And so would I, if I am to be completely honest here.
Defense and offense are two necessary values that you must understand before judging anything that anyone does. It is the basis of good and evil
I hate to nitpick, but technically "defense" would be only if Jaller tried to block Hakann's attack on the Matoran, without killing him. Jaller killing Hakann would fall more under the category of the old saying, "The best defense is a good offense." Thus it would
But nitpicking aside, I agree that in that situation, killing Hakann would be necessary IF Jaller had no alternatives. Negotiating is totally out the window -- that was never an option with the Piraka. Locking him up would be difficult and more Matoran would probably die in the process. So in that sort of situation, yes, killing him might be the best response.
If so, a Toa would kill.
OT: Why did you say "unread"?
You mean not responded to, right? Anyways, I've both read and responded to both posts, so hopefully that helps...
What if the murdurer didn't mean it? What if someone else used a Komau, and controlled his mind to kill someone? Not everyone is guilty.
This is a vital point. In real life, for example, someone might be blackmailed to murder someone. This is a gray area. Possibly, if you dealt with the blackmail, they would no longer want to murder. Other examples could abound.
In Bionicle, there are things like infected masks, antidermis, krana, etc. etc. that can force a being to do something against his will. Imagine if Onua had killed Infected Lewa in 2001! Mata Nui could never be awakened.
He's not saying the Toa should become murderers, but to use deadly force if necessary.
And Bionicle has always allowed that -- thus the topic starter is attacking a Straw Man (as the saying goes). The Toa DO kill if literally necessary.
But usually, killing isn't
But I think you misunderstood the topic starter -- he's not just saying if necessary -- he's saying kill even when NOT necessary. See topic starter quote two down from here.
There's a difference between killing and murdering. Murder is motivated, killing is accidental. The topic is referring to intentional robbing of life.
Killing a murderer in capital punishment or warfare also does not count as murder. Murder is unjust
killing. Intentional killing of innocents.
Again, nitpicking perhaps, but I just wanna make sure it's clear.
There's a point in BL03 where Avak has Kongu imprisoned in a vacuum zamor sphere. Kongu sucks the air around Avak's head out, and he falls unconscious from lack of air. If Kongu had kept the vacuum on just a bit longer, Avak would be dead, and many Voyatoran lives, pain, and suffering would be averted.
Kongu could not know that ahead of time, nor know whether they might need Avak alive later. This is the whole slippery-slope bloodthirsty approach that's already been brought up in this topic. You're saying Kongu shouldn't just kill as a last resort, but he should skip a fully effective stun option and go right to killing.
Where does it stop? It doesn't -- heroes turn into Tuyet if you go down that road. Baaaaad idea, man.
But instead Kongu cuts it off and lets Avak live, not even trying to contain him anywhere.
I don't recall this scene specifically, but frankly I don't believe you. Are you telling me nothing
interfered with his ability to trap Avak? Absolutely nothing? If something else required his attention, he wouldn't be able to try.
It would help if you would point to chapter/page number.
Picture this scenario: you find a murderer backing someone up into a corner. The police are to far away to come quickly. You have something that can stop him, however you don't use it. An innocent life lost,while the murderer gets away, and you could be considered an accomplice to the him, since you did nothing to try to stop him, but if you were to kill him, you'd be protecting an innocent life.
Yes, but since Bfahome pointed out a weakness in your example, lemme modify it. The murderer is pulling out a gun on the innocent person, you know for a fact that the murderer is a murderer, and you have a gun trained on him.
In that case, your only
choice is to kill. Otherwise, you knowingly allow the murderer to kill, thus, as you say, Bored, become almost as guilty as the murderer.
Greg has himself pointed this out. So let's all stop pretending Greg has said Toa never
I remember when he pointed this out in one topic, he was debating someone who literally thought the Toa should NEVER kill, yet Greg had to go into another topic and argue against someone like this topic's starter who said they should almost always kill, lol.
In reality, both
are extremes, and Greg has been crystal clear about this.