Your moral ranking. Discussion Thread

[ThinkAnarchy]

In Colorado we have the "Make My Day Law" which basically says that if someone threatens you on your property, you are within your rights to shoot them.  Welcome to the Wild West, y'all. 

We have something similar but if someone breaks in and they happen to not be armed, it's best to have an unregistered pistol to place by the corpse prior to the police showing up.

[Whitney]

In Colorado we have the "Make My Day Law" which basically says that if someone threatens you on your property, you are within your rights to shoot them.  Welcome to the Wild West, y'all. 

Texas, not surprisingly, has similar laws.  I think it might even be legal to shoot trespasser on sight without threat...i think that's overboard.

I think it only makes sense to be allowed to use lethal force to protect yourself on your own property; it's just not fair to punish someone for just doing what they thought was best to protect their family.  

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

[Amicale]

In Colorado we have the "Make My Day Law" which basically says that if someone threatens you on your property, you are within your rights to shoot them.  Welcome to the Wild West, y'all. 

Texas, not surprisingly, has similar laws.  I think it might even be legal to shoot trespasser on sight without threat...i think that's overboard.

I think it only makes sense to be allowed to use lethal force to protect yourself on your own property; it's just not fair to punish someone for just doing what they thought was best to protect their family.  

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

You put that better than I did, but one of the reasons I'm here is to find better ways of refining my own logic and thought process.  Yes, if escape was at all possible, I'd want to opt for that over killing or harming anyone. I'm just afraid that if I was terrified in the middle of the night by someone breaking into my home and threatening my family, my logic might go out the window before I'd think to...

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

I personally wouldn't. On my property, the only thing that would prevent me from shooting as soon as I assessed the situation and realized my fiancee and I were in danger, would be the thought of cleaning up the intruders blood and debris.

[Whitney]

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

I personally wouldn't. On my property, the only thing that would prevent me from shooting as soon as I assessed the situation and realized my fiancee and I were in danger, would be the thought of cleaning up the intruders blood and debris.

That actually is one reason why I would prefer escape.  The next reason is because, in my case, escape would mean a higher chance of survival as I'm not trained in self defense nor do I own a gun.  Then the other reason is because while I wouldn't be concerned for the bad guy's death I think the mental images of having to kill someone could be psychologically damaging; though I'm pretty sure I'd recover fairly quickly from the shock.

If a situation actually occurred where an intruder were in our house every room has a window that can be opened for escape (as is the case with most homes)....I like the odds of that better over my husband and I trying to overpower someone who may or may not be armed.  We'd have enough warning to get out because I'd hear the person break in...I wake up to just the cats messing around.  Hubby might not make it though because he's a heavy sleeper...but he said he'd trip me if zombies attacked so.... 

[xSilverPhinx]

That actually is one reason why I would prefer escape.  The next reason is because, in my case, escape would mean a higher chance of survival as I'm not trained in self defense nor do I own a gun.  Then the other reason is because while I wouldn't be concerned for the bad guy's death I think the mental images of having to kill someone could be psychologically damaging; though I'm pretty sure I'd recover fairly quickly from the shock.

I actually prefer the lockdown scenarios, where the trespasser gets in, but they don't get out. Though obviously in a real situation, in a house where my loved ones are, it isn't ideal to lock criminals inside with them. Pity.

I wouldn't go so far as to kill anyone though, which I think is very drastic, unless they were a very real and direct threat to my or the safety of my family, and not in consideration of the criminal. 

Melmoth - in response to your

Though for me that includes ranking them by how much they encourage "safe, stable society" - that too is a moral directive as far as I can see.

For me this isn't morally related. A safe and stable society means that myself and my loved ones are safe. An unstable society puts me and my loved ones in danger.

In a hypothetical (ahem) Big Brother-ish scenario where governmental surveillance into everybody's private homes, including yours, did help keep society safer and more stable, would you accept that invasion? Or no?

[Asmodean]

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

I personally wouldn't. On my property, the only thing that would prevent me from shooting as soon as I assessed the situation and realized my fiancee and I were in danger, would be the thought of cleaning up the intruders blood and debris.

Interesting...

It appears this 'killing a harmful individual' issue is a general split point and not just a 'me-thing'

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'd personally opt for finding a means of escape over harming someone but I don't think I'd feel bad about harming or even killing someone if they had acted to force me into having to do so.  Though while not feeling "bad" I'd probably be traumatized from the whole event.

I personally wouldn't. On my property, the only thing that would prevent me from shooting as soon as I assessed the situation and realized my fiancee and I were in danger, would be the thought of cleaning up the intruders blood and debris.

Interesting...

It appears this 'killing a harmful individual' issue is a general split point and not just a 'me-thing'

I wonder if it has something to do with the areas we currently live in or have previously lived in. I'm in a crime ridden city full of corruption, I believe Detroit just beat us in murder per capita, but the thugs in my area are trying their hardest to reclaim the top position. It actually makes me happy when I hear of an armed criminal being shot by a property owner or bystander in the local news. The way I see it, there's now one less violent individual in my area.

I have also been burglarized three time, though I was not home at the time and two were car burglaries when I my car was parked without me in it. I hate having things stolen from me, and will do anything in my power to try and prevent it from happening again.

[The Magic Pudding]

I wonder if it has something to do with the areas we currently live in or have previously lived in.

Probably, only one house in my street has been burgled in the last twenty years.

[Asmodean]

I wonder if it has something to do with the areas we currently live in or have previously lived in. I'm in a crime ridden city full of corruption, I believe Detroit just beat us in murder per capita, but the thugs in my area are trying their hardest to reclaim the top position. It actually makes me happy when I hear of an armed criminal being shot by a property owner or bystander in the local news. The way I see it, there's now one less violent individual in my area.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. I have a different view (Which is, perhaps, anchored in the same mud) that a random criminal's life is worth far less than my own that of someone I care about.

I have also been burglarized three time, though I was not home at the time and two were car burglaries when I my car was parked without me in it. I hate having things stolen from me, and will do anything in my power to try and prevent it from happening again.

Even though my car is ten thousand years old, I still value it with more than the life of some asshole trying to steal the stereo from it. It is unlikely that I would kill over a car stereo, but if that's what the pips showed once the dice stopped tumbling, I'd not be overly upset about it nor lose any sleep over it.

[NatsuTerran]

I personally find it pretty messed up to think any act of self defense is a righteous one. It gives the message that killing in and of itself isn't undesirable, it just matters who you do it to, in the case with the burglar.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but I think de-escalation is almost always possible, and if not, defense should be a necessary last resort, not something to be glorified. I liken it to spanking. I firmly believe that spanking is completely unnecessary for raising children, and it should only be used as a last resort. But when you need to use spanking excessively, it is more revealing about the style of parenting rather than the child acting up. I was never spanked in my life and am a perfect, goody two-shoes. Not saying I never acted up before, but I was always reasoned with. When I went to school, we were taught to never fight back if someone attacked us, fleeing was the only option. While we were just children, I feel like this is a necessary and universal law. The moral relativism that comes from allowing individuals to pick their targets for "self-defense" as being righteous to kill just sickens me. I've trained martial arts but I've never had to use them in self-defense. I've never been in a single fight in my life outside the ring.

If you just had to kill or beat someone up in self-defense, I highly doubt the first things out of everyone else's mouths is going to be "way to go! High five! You sure showed him!" And if so, I don't want to live on the same planet as you. It's of my beliefs that there are two sides to every story, and by killing the other person, you have the complete power of writing your own history, so to speak. It has always bothered me when people only view individual people in the contexts of their actions, and not as individuals just like themselves who happen to have been misguided. I would think everyone has committed a crime or misdemeanor at some point in their lives; do you really wish there was someone with a gun standing by to shoot you when you did so? I just think it's morally irresponsible to glorify the act of killing when it should be seen as a necessary evil. I am firmly pro-choice for example, but I don't see it as a morally good thing in all cases. If it would undoubtedly lead to mass suffering if the child was born, then I would consider it moral. But how much do you know about the context of the burglar situation? There are two sides to be weighed here. It sickens me when people can just write off another person's life as if they are sub-human just over the context of the situation.

I hope I'm making sense here. I don't condone criminals or anything, and I'm one of the most harmless guys ever. But I just can't stand the attitude of waiting for people to mess up and then glorifying it when they do. The point of punishment is not moral revenge, but rather to correct problems or to prevent problems from happening in the first place. If the person is beyond redemption, that is when defense/killing is a necessity, but still not moral.

[Anne D.]

I personally find it pretty messed up to think any act of self defense is a righteous one. It gives the message that killing in and of itself isn't undesirable, it just matters who you do it to, in the case with the burglar.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but I think de-escalation is almost always possible, and if not, defense should be a necessary last resort, not something to be glorified. I liken it to spanking. I firmly believe that spanking is completely unnecessary for raising children, and it should only be used as a last resort. But when you need to use spanking excessively, it is more revealing about the style of parenting rather than the child acting up. I was never spanked in my life and am a perfect, goody two-shoes. Not saying I never acted up before, but I was always reasoned with. When I went to school, we were taught to never fight back if someone attacked us, fleeing was the only option. While we were just children, I feel like this is a necessary and universal law. The moral relativism that comes from allowing individuals to pick their targets for "self-defense" as being righteous to kill just sickens me. I've trained martial arts but I've never had to use them in self-defense. I've never been in a single fight in my life outside the ring.

If you just had to kill or beat someone up in self-defense, I highly doubt the first things out of everyone else's mouths is going to be "way to go! High five! You sure showed him!" And if so, I don't want to live on the same planet as you. It's of my beliefs that there are two sides to every story, and by killing the other person, you have the complete power of writing your own history, so to speak. It has always bothered me when people only view individual people in the contexts of their actions, and not as individuals just like themselves who happen to have been misguided. I would think everyone has committed a crime or misdemeanor at some point in their lives; do you really wish there was someone with a gun standing by to shoot you when you did so? I just think it's morally irresponsible to glorify the act of killing when it should be seen as a necessary evil. I am firmly pro-choice for example, but I don't see it as a morally good thing in all cases. If it would undoubtedly lead to mass suffering if the child was born, then I would consider it moral. But how much do you know about the context of the burglar situation? There are two sides to be weighed here. It sickens me when people can just write off another person's life as if they are sub-human just over the context of the situation.

I hope I'm making sense here. I don't condone criminals or anything, and I'm one of the most harmless guys ever. But I just can't stand the attitude of waiting for people to mess up and then glorifying it when they do. The point of punishment is not moral revenge, but rather to correct problems or to prevent problems from happening in the first place. If the person is beyond redemption, that is when defense/killing is a necessity, but still not moral.

But what if they are armed with a very loud brass instrument? (I'm sorry.)

Also, I think there's a separate discussion thread.

[Stevil]

If a stranger is in your house with a gun or knife then your life is in danger. If you can't flee, no exit route or have other family in the house then you must defend yourself. There is no point testing the intruder to see if they will drop the weapon or quickly try to kill you. If you have the opportunity, you must do what you must in order to survive.

Don't be a hero, just do what you must.

[Asmodean]

I personally find it pretty messed up to think any act of self defense is a righteous one. It gives the message that killing in and of itself isn't undesirable, it just matters who you do it to, in the case with the burglar.

Well... Yes.

That there is pretty much how I see it.

[NatsuTerran]

Well I see it that way as well, but that to me doesn't make killing go from an immoral act to a moral act, but merely from immoral to neutral. I don't think anyone feels accomplishment from needing to kill someone to save their life, I would hope not. Therefore I find it hard to view as "righteous" behavior. Maybe I'm just nitpicking though.