RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So, you wouldn't kill someone who was trying to kill you and your family? Are all soldiers murderers, then?Why not read my recent posts on the subject, where I've already answered those questions in some detail? The short answer, if you can't be bothered with moral reasoning, is that (1) Yes I'd kill to protect myself/family, and (2) yes, they are, in the same degree that I am -- which doesn't make them villains.
Easy, Kirth, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it. Moral reasoning is what I am getting at here, not a consideration that I "can't be bothered with."
To you and TOZ: What is the basis for your belief that killing is always wrong?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So, you wouldn't kill someone who was trying to kill you and your family? Are all soldiers murderers, then?Why not read my recent posts on the subject, where I've already answered those questions in some detail? The short answer, if you can't be bothered with moral reasoning, is that (1) Yes I'd kill to protect myself/family, and (2) yes, they are, in the same degree that I am -- which doesn't make them villains:
Killing in defense of another has two parts: one moral (defense), and one immoral (killing). In most cases, the former outweighs the latter, and you have a net good. Claiming inability to distinguish the two parts leads to all kinds of "useful" rationalizations for immoral or even downright evil acts: "Well, it's okay to commit murder, because they were bad people!" We discussed a Biblical example about 100 pages ago, and the bombing of abortion clinics is too obvious to dwell on (and will have me accused of Christian-bashing), so how about this one: "It's good to fly planes into the WTC because they are full of evil Muslim-oppressing Americans." That's a logic fail -- protecting against oppression is arguably moral, yes, but killing civilians is immoral, no matter what the cause. You can't just blur the two together and call it good. Anyone who does so has a log in their eye.If you want to have a discussion, you can't just conveniently ignore all the posts you don't agree with.
Easy, Kirth, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it. Moral reasoning is what I am getting at here, not a consideration that I "can't be bothered with." I did read your post above.
To you and TOZ: What is the basis for your belief that killing is always wrong?
To you and TOZ: What is the basis for your belief that killing is always wrong?
I can't speak for TOZ. For my view, killing inflicts harm on the victim, on those who know/love/depend on the victim, and on the person doing the killing. These elements are always present, regardless of who is being killed. Animals are killed to feed me (by me personally or by others by proxy; it makes no difference except in terms of the number of people sharing the onus); that makes me a murderer as well. I'm not a vegetarian because even then plants would be killed to feed me. Maybe my work as a consultant saves more life than I extinguish; I have no way of knowing. Even if so, the killing is there. One has to look at the net effect at the end (which you obviously do), but that does not in any way remove the moral onus of the means used to reach that end. That's what moral absolutism is all about -- there are no "free rides," for anyone. Almost every action carries moral weight. Moral absolutes mean there's no dodging responsibility on the basis of justifications. You do what you have to do in order to try for the most positive possible outcome, but you never avoid responsibility for what you did to get there.
|
To you and TOZ: What is the basis for your belief that killing is always wrong?
"First, do no harm."
Preventing harm does not excuse causing harm.
Yes, I am aware that all animals cause harm to survive. See my statement about reality preventing us from being moral, as it is the best answer I have at the moment, and I know how poor it is.
I find it interesting how similar Kirth and I view the subject.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So--merely to clarify my own understanding of your positions--what's your take on physician-assisted suicide? I'm asking not because I'm too lazy to apply your moral principles to the issue but because I don't want to make assumptions about what you think about it.
|
|
Man, I'm glad I have no morals. Ethics, sure. But, you know, I won't think twice about putting a bullet or a five iron in someone's head if they try to hurt me. Won't even think about it much after. Unless they ruin my carpet, then I'll be even more pissed.
Here's my rule: don't want to die, don't try to kill me or mine (or even step a foot into my home without permission). Don't want the State of Texas to give you a hot shot, don't kill convenience store clerks while robbing them or old ladies for their welfare checks. And don't admit in open court you had an orgasm while ax murdering your ex husband's new girlfriend while robbing them.
Seriously, I don't care. Some people refuse to play nice and want to kill and rape? Screw them. I don't feel sorry for myself because of my bad decisions in life, so I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.
|
|
So--merely to clarify my own understanding of your positions--what's your take on physician-assisted suicide? I'm asking not because I'm too lazy to apply your moral principles to the issue but because I don't want to make assumptions about what you think about it.
A excellent question. For me, I say immoral. He is bringing harm to people. However, the ultimate responsibility does fall on the one choosing suicide. I don't think it warrants jail time.
So--merely to clarify my own understanding of your positions--what's your take on physician-assisted suicide? I'm asking not because I'm too lazy to apply your moral principles to the issue but because I don't want to make assumptions about what you think about it.
Understood. Again, I hesitate to speak for anyone else. From my own standpoint, we're trying to minimize the net harm in the outcome, knowing that we'll likely cause some no matter what we do. If I were to linger in agony, my wife and family would be subjected to the suffering of not knowing whether I would recover; the harm of ever-mounting bills they might not be able to pay; the harm of not having me available to spend time with them, to offer them etc. For me to be allowed to die peacefully, eliminating the lingering uncertainty and mounting costs and hardships, I'd happily accept the onus of murder (of myself in that case). Being unable to do so, I'd wish for someone who was of like mind to be allowed to help, if he or she were qualified and willing. Remember, I'm personally working off of a meta-ethic of pragmatism, so that statements like "all life is sacred" are meaningless unless there's some means of demonstrating "sacred-ness." Harm can be demonstrated, so that's what I use as a measuring stick.
I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.
I don't think anyone is saying you should feel sorry for them -- certainly I'm not. I am saying that killing someone else harms you in terms of your functioning in a communal society, no matter how much they deserve it, and no matter how much you pretend it doesn't.
|
|
I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.Nobody is saying you should feel sorry for them. I am saying that killing someone else harms you in terms of your functioning in a communal society, no matter how much they deserve it, and no matter how much you pretend it doesn't.
Letting some douche kill me tends to harm me in terms of functioning in a communal society.
Man, I'm glad I have no morals. Ethics, sure. But, you know, I won't think twice about putting a bullet or a five iron in someone's head if they try to hurt me. Won't even think about it much after. Unless they ruin my carpet, then I'll be even more pissed.
Here's my rule: don't want to die, don't try to kill me or mine (or even step a foot into my home without permission). Don't want the State of Texas to give you a hot shot, don't kill convenience store clerks while robbing them or old ladies for their welfare checks. And don't admit in open court you had an orgasm while ax murdering your ex husband's new girlfriend while robbing them.
Seriously, I don't care. Some people refuse to play nice and want to kill and rape? Screw them. I don't feel sorry for myself because of my bad decisions in life, so I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.
Anyone who shoots a tresspasser in the head, at least without having a reasonble fear for their own safety, is probably going to jail for a good long time -- and rightfully so.
Letting some douche kill me tends to harm me in terms of functioning in a communal society.
Yep. That's been the point I've been repeating ad nauseum for 2 pages. There's harm either way. You knowlingly commit some in order to prevent more, and hope for a net-positive outcome.
Letting some douche kill me tends to harm me in terms of functioning in a communal society.
As far as I can tell, no one is arguing against the use of lethal force in self-defense. But killing someone for, say, stealing your stereo? Not only is that excessive, but it undermines the the functioning of society.
Anyone who shoots a tresspasser in the head, at least without having a reasonble fear for their own safety, is probably going to jail for a good long time -- and rightfully so.
Maybe in Sweden they would, but not in Texas. Here, you have the legal right to defend the "sanctity of your home" with lethal force. Not all laws aere based on utile morals; some are based on ideosyncratic local ones. The Texas belief that one's property is more valuable than anyone else's life is one of those.
|
|
Anyone who shoots a tresspasser in the head, at least without having a reasonble fear for their own safety, is probably going to jail for a good long time -- and rightfully so.Man, I'm glad I have no morals. Ethics, sure. But, you know, I won't think twice about putting a bullet or a five iron in someone's head if they try to hurt me. Won't even think about it much after. Unless they ruin my carpet, then I'll be even more pissed.
Here's my rule: don't want to die, don't try to kill me or mine (or even step a foot into my home without permission). Don't want the State of Texas to give you a hot shot, don't kill convenience store clerks while robbing them or old ladies for their welfare checks. And don't admit in open court you had an orgasm while ax murdering your ex husband's new girlfriend while robbing them.
Seriously, I don't care. Some people refuse to play nice and want to kill and rape? Screw them. I don't feel sorry for myself because of my bad decisions in life, so I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.
If you're inside of my home, you're not a "tresspasser". I'm well within legal bounds in Texas to take you out. They're serious about the sanctity of the home here, they even allow non-violent convicted felons to own shotguns specifically for home defense under the Texas "Castle Law". Basically, the law says "you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house". Hell, in Texas, you're within the law to defend your neighbor's property.
Anyone who shoots a tresspasser in the head, at least without having a reasonble fear for their own safety, is probably going to jail for a good long time -- and rightfully so.Maybe in Sweden they would, but not in Texas.
Wait -- I can shoot someone in texas just for tresspassing? Even if they're obviously no threat to me, or to anyone else?
Yet *another* reason I don't live in Texas, I suppose.
If you're inside of my home, you're not a "tresspasser". I'm well within legal bounds in Texas to take you out. They're serious about the sanctity of the home here, they even allow non-violent convicted felons to own shotguns specifically for home defense under the Texas "Castle Law". Basically, the law says "you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house". Hell, in Texas, you're within the law to defend your neighbor's property.
Interesting. Is that only inside the house? What if I were in your back yard?
Remind me never to come looking for lost baseballs in Texas... :P
|
|
Letting some douche kill me tends to harm me in terms of functioning in a communal society.Yep. That's been the point I've been repeating ad nauseum for 2 pages. There's harm either way. You knowlingly commit some in order to prevent more, and hope for a net-positive outcome.
I guess I see things a bit differently. I see removing someone who doesn't respect others lives or property as a good thing.
Wait -- I can shoot someone in texas just for tresspassing? Even if they're obviously no threat to me, or to anyone else?
Yep. And, as Derek points out, you can kill them for trespassing in your neighbor's house -- it doesn't have to even be your house.
|
|
If you're inside of my home, you're not a "tresspasser". I'm well within legal bounds in Texas to take you out. They're serious about the sanctity of the home here, they even allow non-violent convicted felons to own shotguns specifically for home defense under the Texas "Castle Law". Basically, the law says "you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house". Hell, in Texas, you're within the law to defend your neighbor's property.Interesting. Is that only inside the house? What if I were in your back yard?
If you were in my back yard I'd probably still get no billed ninety nine times out of one hundred.
I guess I see things a bit differently. I see removing someone who doesn't respect others lives or property as a good thing.
But "Removing them" is a failure to respect their lives, is it not?
If you were in my back yard I'd probably still get no billed ninety nine times out of one hundred.
What does "no-billed" mean? Is it like not being cited?
I guess I see things a bit differently. I see removing someone who doesn't respect others lives or property as a good thing.
Preventing them from doing harm IS a good thing. The simple act of killing them is not. You commit a lesser harm to prevent greater harm, and are glad to do it. A doctor makes an incision in order to remove a tumor, too -- that doesn't mean that cutting someone suddenly doesn't cut them.
|
|
If you're inside of my home, you're not a "tresspasser". I'm well within legal bounds in Texas to take you out. They're serious about the sanctity of the home here, they even allow non-violent convicted felons to own shotguns specifically for home defense under the Texas "Castle Law". Basically, the law says "you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house". Hell, in Texas, you're within the law to defend your neighbor's property.Interesting. Is that only inside the house? What if I were in your back yard?
Remind me never to come looking for lost baseballs in Texas... :P
We have this funny invention in Texas. It's called a "doorbell". Kids here know how to use them and ask to go get their ball. And I wouldn't jump in a random Texas back yard anyway. The dog will tear you up before the owner shoots you.
|
Wait -- I can shoot someone in texas just for tresspassing? Even if they're obviously no threat to me, or to anyone else?Yep. And, as Derek points out, you can kill them for trespassing in your neighbor's house -- it doesn't have to even be your house.
Remind me not to house-sit for anybody in Texas. Seriously, one time I went to a friend's house to feed her cat while she was on vacation and a neighbor called 911. I realize now how much worse that could have gone down, had I lived elsewhere...
|
|
Remind me not to house-sit for anybody in Texas. Seriously, one time I went to a friend's house to feed her cat while she was on vacation and a neighbor called 911. I realize now how much worse that could have gone down, had I lived elsewhere...Wait -- I can shoot someone in texas just for tresspassing? Even if they're obviously no threat to me, or to anyone else?Yep. And, as Derek points out, you can kill them for trespassing in your neighbor's house -- it doesn't have to even be your house.
We tend to tell our neighbors someone will be watching the house for us. Or we just ask the neighbors to do it for us. People in (or, I should say, from) Texas still talk to and know their neighbors, for the most part.
|
|
I guess I see things a bit differently. I see removing someone who doesn't respect others lives or property as a good thing.But "Removing them" is a failure to respect their lives, is it not?
They have no respect for themselves if robbing houses is what they consider an acceptable way to make a living. Why should I have more respect than they do for themselves?
"Let me make sure I understand this, Doctor. You made an incision and removed the tumor."
"No; I just removed the tumor."
"But you had to get to it to remove it, right? And everyone is very glad you did. It's understood that in order to get to the tumor, you made a small, life-saving incision."
"Nope. Removing the tumor made the incision not happen. All that blood was illusory."
"Ummm..."
Remind me not to house-sit for anybody in Texas. Seriously, one time I went to a friend's house to feed her cat while she was on vacation and a neighbor called 911. I realize now how much worse that could have gone down, had I lived elsewhere...
Yeah, the whole thing strikes me as all kinds of crazy, but you learn something new every day.
Besides, even as a white guy, it's not like I needed *another* reason not to live in Texas...
|
|
Letting some douche kill me tends to harm me in terms of functioning in a communal society.As far as I can tell, no one is arguing against the use of lethal force in self-defense. But killing someone for, say, stealing your stereo? Not only is that excessive, but it undermines the the functioning of society.
How does allowing someone to commit a crime with a less than 10% capture rate help the functioning of society? Do we really care that much about the livelihoods of fences and crack dealers?
I guess me not being outside when someone broke into my car to steal stuff hidden in the console and stuff in the trunk was somehow a boon for society.
They have no respect for themselves if robbing houses is what they consider an acceptable way to make a living. Why should I have more respect than they do for themselves?
You're hypothetically sentencing people to death because they don't respect you or yours -- yet all the while, you're proclaiming they are unworthy of your respect. How, exactly, are you not doing the very thing you're condemning? Or is it as simple as "whomever did it first catches the bullet?"
I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone had that attitude. Thankfully, I don't. :)
How does allowing someone to commit a crime with a less than 10% capture rate help the functioning of society? Do we really care that much about the livelihoods of fences and crack dealers?
I guess me not being outside when someone broke into my car to steal stuff hidden in the console and stuff in the trunk was somehow a boon for society.
As opposed to arbitrary execution for petty theft? It certainly was a boon to society.
Thieves, fences and crack-dealers are people, man. They deserve to pay for their crimes, but not with their lives.
|
|
How does allowing someone to commit a crime with a less than 10% capture rate help the functioning of society? Do we really care that much about the livelihoods of fences and crack dealers?
I guess me not being outside when someone broke into my car to steal stuff hidden in the console and stuff in the trunk was somehow a boon for society.
As opposed to arbitrary execution for petty theft? It certainly was a boon to society.
Thieves, fences and crack-dealers are people, man. They deserve to pay for their crimes, but not with their lives.
I was discussing their livelihoods, not killing them. The dude that broke into my car would have just gotten a beatdown. And a jail term. If he had broken into my home to steal something, I wouldn't hesitate to take him out.
|
|
They have no respect for themselves if robbing houses is what they consider an acceptable way to make a living. Why should I have more respect than they do for themselves?You're hypothetically sentencing people to death because they don't respect you or yours -- yet all the while, you're proclaiming they are unworthy of your respect. How, exactly, are you not doing the very thing you're condemning? Or is it as simple as "whomever did it first catches the bullet?"
I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone had that attitude. Thankfully, I don't. :)
The average police response time in Houston is 40 minutes. I don't have the time to let "society" protect me.
If you are seriously telling me you'd just sit by and let someone break into your home, take what they want and leave, give me your address, I'll send all the people from here to you so they'll feel safer when they decide to rob a house.
We have this funny invention in Texas. It's called a "doorbell". Kids here know how to use them and ask to go get their ball. And I wouldn't jump in a random Texas back yard anyway. The dog will tear you up before the owner shoots you.
I hope the button is safely off the property!
|
|
They have no respect for themselves if robbing houses is what they consider an acceptable way to make a living. Why should I have more respect than they do for themselves?You're hypothetically sentencing people to death because they don't respect you or yours -- yet all the while, you're proclaiming they are unworthy of your respect. How, exactly, are you not doing the very thing you're condemning? Or is it as simple as "whomever did it first catches the bullet?"
I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone had that attitude. Thankfully, I don't. :)
I would prefer to live in a world where people care more about innocent people's lives than some douche who thinks it's ok to destroy the sanctity of someone's home.
|
|
We have this funny invention in Texas. It's called a "doorbell". Kids here know how to use them and ask to go get their ball. And I wouldn't jump in a random Texas back yard anyway. The dog will tear you up before the owner shoots you.I hope the button is safely off the property!
Um, people don't shoot people for knocking on the door here, this isn't Baton Rouge.
The average police response time in Houston is 40 minutes. I don't have the time to let "society" protect me.
If you are seriously telling me you'd just sit by and let someone break into your home, take what they want and leave, give me your address, I'll send all the people from here to you so they'll feel safer when they decide to rob a house.
Of course I'm not. The only two options aren't "nothing" or "deadly force."
And with that, I'm off. I don't enjoy it when conversations turn to aggressive hyperbole.
15 years ago, I caught someone trying to steal my car from in front of my parents house. He shot at me, my dogs, and my father. To this day I regret not having a gun with me to return fire.
As would I. Of course, if you simplify your statement to read: "15 years ago, someone shot at me," I'd feel the same way.
I wonder, if the would-be theif had simply run away, would you still regret not having shot him?
Yeah, I guess I am....
*Sigh* Nevermind. I'll leave you to assaulting your straw men. I suggest you bring a gun -- they could be armed.
|
I wonder, if he'd simply run away when you caught him, would you still regret not having shot him?
Of course not! The only reason I regret it is because the man tried to kill me, my father, and my dogs. Who knows how many people he's gone on to hurt. I regret that I may have been able to prevent harm to others, but didn't.
Of course not! The only reason I regret it is because the man tried to kill me, my father, and my dogs. Who knows how many people he's gone on to hurt. I regret that I may have been able to prevent harm to others, but didn't.
And that's reasonable -- it's a clear case of self defense. I don't believe anyone here is arguing against that. I'm not.
But it *does* mean that the theft part is incidental.