If a person was responsible for the death of someone, but later saves somebody's life, could you say he was even now?

If the first death was deliberate, I would have to say no. There is no cosmic scale whereby you can justify one murder by preventing another. If the death was accidental, or purely unintentional, then there would be no reason to “square accounts.”

It depends on the lives in question, I think. Ultimately, I’d like to say no. But there are so many exceptions to that rule.

The person whose death he was responsible for probably wouldn’t say that, would they? Or their family and friends?

I think the answer is no.

Definately not. Death is taking someones life. In order to be “even”, you have to give the SAME person life again… Which, I think is impossible.

Morally, ethically & logically speaking, of course not. You can’t bring back the dead after all.
In the eyes of “the ferryman” however…..who knows?

No, not really. Like @CaptainHarley said, the cosmic scales don’t work that way, and the legal system would see you incarcerated anyway (if applicable). Saving someone might make you feel better about the death, though.

Are we talking socially, psychologically or legally?

First of, regardless of the sort of redemption we’re talking about, it would depend on if the lives were of equal value. Generally I wouldn’t encourage rating the value of a person’s life to the rest of us….but I think we can all agree that killing Jeffrey Dahmer is a decidedly different thing than killing Thurgood Marshall. At least if I offed Dahmer I wouldn’t feel like I owed the world a life.

In a more likely scenario, say someone being responsible for a death in a hit and run and then, I don’t know, preforming first aid on someone having medical emergency, I can see there being psychological value in the person being able to feel redeemed and being re-accepted by society. I’m all for that. But I think it would have to be a fairly earth-shattering situation for saving one life to nullify the legal consequences of a previous death.

So I guess I am all for social and psychological redemption as I think this is healthiest for the individual and the community, but leery of nullifying legal consequences.

EDIT: I’m not addressing “cosmic redemption” as I doubt there is such a thing and if there was it would beyond any of us to grant it.

You can never make up for intentionally taking someone’s life. It’s not like exchanging socks at a department store – there is no such thing as an even exchange when we’re talking about human life. Think about the mother of a murder victim – do you think it makes a difference to her that the murderer saved someone else’s child?

^^ What sarahtalkpretty said.

I think one thing has nothing to do with the other, in the eyes of the law anyway. But if the 2 dead people happen to be the teens of the same parent, let’s say, and if the first death was partly the irresponsibility of the dead teen, and, as unlikely as the senario is, the second child was saved from drowning, or something then I can see how the parent and the community would feel like the debt is paid.

Hi Rebbel,

Is this a cause?

How do you measure the value of life and the cost of death?
Sometimes we need to forgive and let others know they are forgiven.
Lifes, are ruined when it appears there is fault. I would say that doing the right thing isn’t a merit. Just as doing the wrong thing cannot be made right by doing two rights.

Life, is the most valuable thing we have. I would think someone who could save life would never deliberately take it, in the first place. ( Not referring to war and such.)

I don’t know if the answer is as simple as no. It’s not yes, definitely not yes, but I don’t think always no.

Be “even” as in the two acts cancel each other out—never.

Be “even” as in the person has extricated themself fully from the evil that murder is? Has realized the horridness, and is trying somehow to do some good. Does this without expectation or intention of making their conscience or record clean; acknowedges the life they took, and tries to forever onwards be better than that monster they were… that’s not “no”, I don’t think.

Apples and oranges luv.

The moral and ethical thing is to take positive action. By saving the second person, they did what they are supposed to do, and don’t get special credit for it. By actively participating in the death of the first person, or participating by doing nothing to prevent it, the individual has still wronged. The only way to be absolved from the first is by contriteness and asking for forgiveness.

This is the whole point of the Prodigal Son story in the bible.

Offhand we would all say ‘no’, but, in the infinite mystery, we can never be sure.

A good example of this is found in the movie/ book ” The five people you meet in heaven.”

It chronicles a mans life, his pain at some of his deeds as a Korean war veteran and, ultimately, he is shown how everything, was, infact, ‘perfect’, and his ‘wasted’ life, held great meaning and connection, inspite of some, seemingly wrong, actions that were made right through a walk through of his life after death.

Excellent little movie.

No… the penalty can be considered so it can be lighter but saving a life after taking another does not make it even.

my 2 cents

No.

No for all the reasons others have stated above.

I am still not sure we did anything but give opinions.
What value do you place on life and death?

It would be according to how he was responsible for the death. Murder? He could never save enough lives and “be even” ! Honest accident. he wouldn’t have anything To make “even’. Accident caused by his stupidity or obvious negligence, again he couldn’t save enough lives to “make it even”.