What is the stance on killing?

Life is death, that's as simple as it really is. Kill to live, or live to kill.

The only thing in the Temple doctrine that covers this is the following: " Jedi believe In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty." and not even all Jedi agree with this concept.
So largely as you can tell from this thread Jedi will have their own views on the matter based on how they view the Code and other Jedi literature. So what are my own views on the matter?
Well in the case of defense of others or self I think that you can do whatever you must reasonably do to ensure that yourself and those around you make it home in one piece. Now you should obviously try to use the least amount of force you can to stop a threat but if it comes to it and lethal force is needed then you do what you have to.
As far as the state ending someone's life via the death penalty I think that while some crimes are worthy of this ultimate price it's too risky to give the state that power. Outside of the threat of it being abused, it's just too likely that someone could wrongly be killed only to be found innocent later. Since I am of the thought it's better to risk a guilty man going free than an innocent one going to jail obviously I am not in favor of the state doing something that cannot be changed.

These sorts of questions always seem to pop up from time to time. What is the stance on this? What is the stance on that? Everything from LGBT+ to abortion to marijuana to wars to being in the military.... The list could go on and on. And the answer is always the same:

TOTJO has no official stance.

We have members who are a part of the military. Their job literally entails the possibility of killing someone.

We have members who are the epitome of pacifists and would never pick up a weapon.

There are those who would never dream of supporting abortion; there are those who feel it is strictly a woman's decision and that no one else has the right to tell her what to do with her body.

In short there are extremes on both ends, but my personal experience is that most people stand somewhere in the middle to varying degrees. But there is no "official stance"....


Edit (afterthought): Triss, maybe you could add this one to your commonly asked questions document thing...

Avalonslight wrote: Edit (afterthought): Triss, maybe you could add this one to your commonly asked questions document thing...

I was about to say....if I can get some volunteers to help me gathering up all the links i can format them into the thread/document

My Jedi ism values life . All life . My attempt to rid my life of "labels" makes it easy when I take the Side all human life is valid. Even further is te idea all life is sacred and valid. Those are my chooses. They help me to give a neutral natural look at things rather than some automatic response set up by not me. My Jedi ism can not change the past. None can. My Jedi ism allows me to controls the things I can and change the things I choose to. Have I taken life, in war and in peace. Legally and Illegally. Have I paid for my actions , 100 times over. The value we can place now can very much over power any past exp. actions now can not erase the past but it can e ease the one who was there. Today before you is not the same person that was once was. Our official stance is we support you . Your stance is our stance. We believe in life and value and seeking things out. This puts a new spin on ... Jedi and their stand on killing ... I'm a lier thief killer and.... A lover and a husband and a father and a friend and a mentor . The ability to be anything still exist, today , regardless of what our "condition" tell us! Welcome to the Temple!

As an ex soldier I swore that I would kill for my country if the time came and if needed. But, as I believe in free will, and that a well placed word can change the course of human events, inflicting the ultimate judgement upon someone else, to take everything they are and everything they would ever be from them in a instant is to be the very last course of action.

But this is my own opinion. In the end, I think there is always another way, but if I have exhausted all other options and to kill is the only option left to me, I would do my duty and pray that my decision was the right one. If my government, whom I beleive is divinely appointed, ordered me to kill someone, I would do so, as the blame would be on the government and not upon myself. (within reason. I would never kill a minor, no matter how dangerous they are.)

Arisaig wrote: As an ex soldier I swore that I would kill for my country if the time came and if needed. But, as I believe in free will, and that a well placed word can change the course of human events, inflicting the ultimate judgement upon someone else, to take everything they are and everything they would ever be from them in a instant is to be the very last course of action.

But this is my own opinion. In the end, I think there is always another way, but if I have exhausted all other options and to kill is the only option left to me, I would do my duty and pray that my decision was the right one. If my government, whom I beleive is divinely appointed, ordered me to kill someone, I would do so, as the blame would be on the government and not upon myself. (within reason. I would never kill a minor, no matter how dangerous they are.)

I am going to have to disagree here with your statement on a legal, moral, and ethical standpoint. To say that your government bears the blame not you takes free will out of the equation. This is ethically and morally wrong and after the Nuremberg trials legally wrong as well. To kill innocent people at the orders of a government or to break the rules of war is not excused by simply following orders. You are always the one responsible for your acts. You have the ability to refuse to kill and no one can pull the trigger or swing the blade for you. To try and take the responsibility off of yourself for your own action is a very dangerous and disingenuous thing and one that has been used to justify horrors committed throughout time.

I am going to have to disagree here with your statement on a legal, moral, and ethical standpoint. To say that your government bears the blame not you takes free will out of the equation. This is ethically and morally wrong and after the Nuremberg trials legally wrong as well. To kill innocent people at the orders of a government or to break the rules of war is not excused by simply following orders. You are always the one responsible for your acts. You have the ability to refuse to kill and no one can pull the trigger or swing the blade for you. To try and take the responsibility off of yourself for your own action is a very dangerous and disingenuous thing and one that has been used to justify horrors committed throughout time.

I should have built upon that statement. As a solider, I would have had to take out anyone they ordered me to, but within legality. We were even told if we questioned the legality, even if we weren't knowledgeable of the law, we could refuse the order. Life is sacred, so to find no illegality in their order is to follow it. One may have a moral objection to the order, but it must be done if there is no illegality in their order. Ethically, I could only be able to state I don't believe in murder en mass... ever, no matter the circumstance. Each person must stand trial, or give one a direct reason to follow through with the action of murder (direct and immediate threat to life and/or liberty, direct and immediate threat to country and/or countrymen, or upon the completion of a just and fair trial). Without these reasons, I do understand your statement that you would have an moral and or ethical objection to my viewpoint.

Arisaig wrote:

I am going to have to disagree here with your statement on a legal, moral, and ethical standpoint. To say that your government bears the blame not you takes free will out of the equation. This is ethically and morally wrong and after the Nuremberg trials legally wrong as well. To kill innocent people at the orders of a government or to break the rules of war is not excused by simply following orders. You are always the one responsible for your acts. You have the ability to refuse to kill and no one can pull the trigger or swing the blade for you. To try and take the responsibility off of yourself for your own action is a very dangerous and disingenuous thing and one that has been used to justify horrors committed throughout time.

I should have built upon that statement. As a solider, I would have had to take out anyone they ordered me to, but within legality. We were even told if we questioned the legality, even if we weren't knowledgeable of the law, we could refuse the order. Life is sacred, so to find no illegality in their order is to follow it. One may have a moral objection to the order, but it must be done if there is no illegality in their order. Ethically, I could only be able to state I don't believe in murder en mass... ever, no matter the circumstance. Each person must stand trial, or give one a direct reason to follow through with the action of murder (direct and immediate threat to life and/or liberty, direct and immediate threat to country and/or countrymen, or upon the completion of a just and fair trial). Without these reasons, I do understand your statement that you would have an moral and or ethical objection to my viewpoint.

I hold no ethical objection to war as a rule, though often our governments fail us ethically when entering wars. I also as a former member of the US Navy understand the importance of following all legal orders. However, that does nor change our responsibility for the action taken. I could be ordered fire on an enemy sub as a Sonar Tech. They could be trying to pass a blockade and it could unintentional but the order is still valid. So while regrettable and possibly even a less than ethical it would be a legal action. But morally and ethically I am responsible for the action. Not my Captian, not my Chief, Me. I press the button, I know full well I might be ending over a hundred lives with this act. So that burden is on my and to foist it off on anyone else is not only false but a risky mindset to enter. That was the real point of my response.

I think it's been answered: There's no particularly strong official stance, although mention is made of the death penalty.

I "support" killing, for reasons more or less explained previously - if a peaceable agreement can't be reached (say "Your dog killed my chickens") then...well someone gotta go.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I fully believe that if someone wrongs you, you are within your rights to punch them in the face (or anywhere else, really)

How or if it escalates from there is up to the ineffable.

Violence and use of force is a part of life.

Murder-by-committee (sorry, "the death penalty") is absolutely insane.