Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice at last

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    k so what about defending someone else then?
    (same scenario only it ain't your life but a friend or relative or something)

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
      complicated isn't it?
      Impossible, even.

      Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
      k so what about defending someone else then?
      (same scenario only it ain't your life but a friend or relative or something)
      I don't know.
      My Stargate fan fiction @ FF.net | NEW: When Cassie Calls Teal'c.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
        complicated isn't it?
        nope
        sigpic
        ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
        A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
        The truth isn't the truth

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Goose View Post
          You're right, I shouldn't have said that in absolutely all cases it's wrong to deprive someone of their life. However, I still think that all life is equal, but if you're in a situation where there really is absolutely no other possibility to save your own life than to take the life of someone determined to take your life, then you are within your moral right to take the life of the aggressor. Because, let's face it, no one would decide that, "oh, it's morally wrong to kill the person who's about to kill me, so why not let him kill me". We're human, and we don't think that way.

          I can guess what you're about to say next, but let me just say this: such an occurrence is extremely rare, and doesn't provide for anything like the death penalty, or for shooting someone breaking into your property. I can be all philosophical about morality and the ethics of killing an attacker or not, but realistically speaking, if your life is about to be taken, then you're going to have an over-encompassing urge to preserve your life. It's basic, animalistic instinct, and one which you cannot philosophy away. Capital punishment, however, isn't a decision you have to make in a split-second.
          then there's wartime....soldiers can ill afford to be like "well it's morally wrong to take a life so we'll just let the enemy soldiers run roughshod over us"

          for self defensive purposes I think the idea is to use only what force is necessary to neutralize the aggressor as a threat.......such force doesn't necessarily have to result in the death of the aggressor though it might be called for if a kill shot/blow is the only thing that will neutralize the aggressor (an example of this would be if the aggressor in question is fraked up on crack.....if that's the case it's very likely the aggressor isn't gonna register any shot/blow other than the one that kills him as crack blocks a lot of pain receptors)
          Last edited by mad_gater; 16 April 2012, 01:17 PM.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Goose View Post
            You're right, I shouldn't have said that in absolutely all cases it's wrong to deprive someone of their life. However, I still think that all life is equal, but if you're in a situation where there really is absolutely no other possibility to save your own life than to take the life of someone determined to take your life, then you are within your moral right to take the life of the aggressor. Because, let's face it, no one would decide that, "oh, it's morally wrong to kill the person who's about to kill me, so why not let him kill me". We're human, and we don't think that way.

            I can guess what you're about to say next, but let me just say this: such an occurrence is extremely rare, and doesn't provide for anything like the death penalty, or for shooting someone breaking into your property. I can be all philosophical about morality and the ethics of killing an attacker or not, but realistically speaking, if your life is about to be taken, then you're going to have an over-encompassing urge to preserve your life. It's basic, animalistic instinct, and one which you cannot philosophy away. Capital punishment, however, isn't a decision you have to make in a split-second.
            I don't think self-defence should be allowed because it is a natural human instinct as there are a lot of things which are natural humans that are bad, so instinct can't be guide of what is moral. I believe that valuing your own life more than others is morally right as if no one valued their own life the world would not be nice place to live in.

            I think that of the people on death row who actually are guilty of the horrific crime their accused of most are extremely damaged individuals and should be treated (in a secure facility) and not punished untill they pose no or very little threat to the public for how ever long it takes. I just think people who commit such horrendous crimes are abnormal and need dealing with and not just put in prison and have the key thrown away.

            Comment

            Working...
            X