Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 10:10:01 AM
After quite a bit of work and self-analysis, I think this is pretty close to correct. There may have been an oversight somewhere, and if there is, I will correct it.
Hope you don't mind me asking Asmo, but do you consider killing someone less bad for you than stealing a box of chocolates?
Friends and family of the person you killed would likely retaliate in a more severe way than the owners of the stolen chocolates.
Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 06:25:27 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 10:10:01 AM
After quite a bit of work and self-analysis, I think this is pretty close to correct. There may have been an oversight somewhere, and if there is, I will correct it.
Hope you don't mind me asking Asmo, but do you consider killing someone less bad for you than stealing a box of chocolates?
Friends and family of the person you killed would likely retaliate in a more severe way than the owners of the stolen chocolates.
I refer to Tank's instructions, specifially:
QuoteAssume that for acts that may be illegal that you are 100% sure you will not be caught or prosecuted in any way.
EDIT: That said, retaliation is not the issue here.
If I can pay for those chocolates, I will - they are not for me anyways because I dislike chocolate, and I find the idea of gifting stolen property distasteful. It devalues the gift and therefor the gesture.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 06:48:59 PM
I refer to Tank's instructions, specifially:
QuoteAssume that for acts that may be illegal that you are 100% sure you will not be caught or prosecuted in any way.
EDIT: That said, retaliation is not the issue here.
If I can pay for those chocolates, I will - they are not for me anyways because I dislike chocolate, and I find the idea of gifting stolen property distasteful. It devalues the gift and therefor the gesture.
Ahhhh, it becomes a consciousness thing. You feeling guilty for stealing chocolates or gifting stolen chocolates, but not feeling as much guilt for killing a person that has harmed you.
Thanks for explaining.
Melmouth, I find it interesting that you find killing someone who has hurt you to be a good thing, but being mean to someone on the internet because you don't like them (perhaps because they hurt you) is a bad thing. That sort of follows my mental image of the British - do anything except be impolite. ;D
Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
Ahhhh, it becomes a consciousness thing. You feeling guilty for stealing chocolates or gifting stolen chocolates, but not feeling as much guilt for killing a person that has harmed you.
Thanks for explaining.
Yes and no.
I wouldn't feel overly guilty over killing someone who harmed me enough to provoke said reaction, but that's not the point here - if you look at the magnitude explanation before my "Bad Asmo" cathegory, killing someone who harmed me falls into a cathegory of things I would consider, possibly fantasize about and, given the right provocation, maybe even do. Stealing something I have the money to pay for... Well, it isn't something I would even consider, just like I wouldn't consider killing a stranger for his wallet or beating an old lady with a baseball bad just because I can.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 07:24:17 PM
Yes and no.
I wouldn't feel overly guilty over killing someone who harmed me enough to provoke said reaction, but that's not the point here - if you look at the magnitude explanation before my "Bad Asmo" cathegory, killing someone who harmed me falls into a cathegory of things I would consider, possibly fantasize about and, given the right provocation, maybe even do. Stealing something I have the money to pay for... Well, it isn't something I would even consider, just like I wouldn't consider killing a stranger for his wallet or beating an old lady with a baseball bad just because I can.
Lets say you were held at gun point and given the option of either killing someone whom has harmed you, or stealing a box or chocolates or being shot to death yourself, which option would you choose?
In my case, I would steal the box of chocolates. I'm not saying that is what you should do, I am just trying to understand your ranking and you better.
Melmoth - in response to your
Quote
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
Ahhhh, it becomes a consciousness thing. You feeling guilty for stealing chocolates or gifting stolen chocolates, but not feeling as much guilt for killing a person that has harmed you.
Thanks for explaining.
Yes and no.
I wouldn't feel overly guilty over killing someone who harmed me enough to provoke said reaction, but that's not the point here - if you look at the magnitude explanation before my "Bad Asmo" cathegory, killing someone who harmed me falls into a cathegory of things I would consider, possibly fantasize about and, given the right provocation, maybe even do. Stealing something I have the money to pay for... Well, it isn't something I would even consider, just like I wouldn't consider killing a stranger for his wallet or beating an old lady with a baseball bad just because I can.
How much would someone have to harm you to provoke you into killing them? Like, if they hurt your feelings bad enough? If they beat you up? If they killed one of your loved ones? Just curious where the line between fantasizing and actually killing lies.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
How much would someone have to harm you to provoke you into killing them?
I don't know. Up until this day, no human has died by my hand.
I can take quite a lot and will warn someone about to breach my limits of tolerance if possible. However, I think I do have the capacity to kill under certain circumstanes. Seriously harming someone I care about might well be one such instance.
Quote from: StevilLets say you were held at gun point and given the option of either killing someone whom has harmed you, or stealing a box or chocolates or being shot to death yourself, which option would you choose?
In my case, I would steal the box of chocolates. I'm not saying that is what you should do, I am just trying to understand your ranking and you better.
Held at gun point by the very person who harmed me? Then, if given the opportunity, I'd go for option a.
Held at gun point by someone else? Depends on my disposition towards that someone, but I would likely try to kill the gunman if given the opportunity.
Yes, under certain circumstances, I'd go for the chocolates, but I doubt provoking a fight-or-flight reaction is a good way of getting me to do that.
Quote from: AliMelmouth, I find it interesting that you find killing someone who has hurt you to be a good thing, but being mean to someone on the internet because you don't like them (perhaps because they hurt you) is a bad thing. That sort of follows my mental image of the British - do anything except be impolite. ;D
Haha, yes, you've pretty much got me pigeon holed.
Quote from: StevilQuote from: MelmothThough 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.
What if you and your loved ones are profiting from the unrest of others? Would that justify it?
I know I would kill to protect T. I *might* kill someone who hurt him if justice couldn't be wrought any other way. I can see that.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:55:02 PM
I know I would kill to protect T. I *might* kill someone who hurt him if justice couldn't be wrought any other way. I can see that.
Oh, there are several people I'd put myself in jail for ages to protect. I was talking about killing someone
after the actual harm was done.
Yes, if someone hurt T and then the law didn't take care of it, I might snap and hurt them myself. I could see it happening. I'm pretty much a pacifist, but all bets are off when it comes to T.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Yes, if someone hurt T and then the law didn't take care of it, I might snap and hurt them myself. I could see it happening. I'm pretty much a pacifist, but all bets are off when it comes to T.
See, I'm the same way when it comes to A. The question about killing an armed robber who entered my house made me pause to consider it, because while I'd generally put killing ANYONE at the bottom of the list (ie, least moral), all bets are off when it comes to my family, and you'd better believe that if anyone threatened my child or my family with an armed weapon, I'd either take them out in self defense or (more likely, as I'm a klutz who's never shot a gun/pulled a knife on anyone) wind up dying myself after trying to fight and hurt them. But standing back and allowing someone to threaten my girl wouldn't happen. When I say over my dead body, I mean it literally. Hell hath no fury like a protective mom. :P In a home invasion, though, I believe the police generally side with the victim and assume self defense isn't punishable by law if you used force to kill someone who was threatening to kill you.
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 11:38:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 11:38:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on February 23, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 11:38:10 PM
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. :P 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...
Quote from: Whitney on February 23, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 23, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 23, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
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.... ;D
Quote from: Whitney on February 24, 2012, 05:36:19 AM
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. ;D 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.
Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 07:32:09 PM
Melmoth - in response to your
Quote
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?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 23, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 23, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
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'
Quote from: Asmodean on February 24, 2012, 07:54:38 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 23, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 23, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 24, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 24, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
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.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 28, 2012, 10:15:23 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 28, 2012, 10:15:23 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
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.
I look at killing for the sake of killing as a moral issue and killing for any other reason as morally-neutral situational issue.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
Therefore I find it hard to view as "righteous" behavior. Maybe I'm just nitpicking though.
But what does "righteous" mean? If it means making the right decision then isn't protecting your own life the right thing to do?
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
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.
I completely disagree and believe violence is morally acceptable and righteous given the correct circumstances. If I walked into an alleyway and saw a child or even adult woman being raped, I would likely beat the culprit do death with my bare hands. I seriously doubt I would have any emotional or moral qualms about doing so. I actually have a family friend who did exactly that, and I view him as a hero, at least in him rescuing that one woman outside a bar.
Killing is not always murder, and should not be viewed so narrowly.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 01, 2012, 02:01:18 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
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.
I completely disagree and believe violence is morally acceptable and righteous given the correct circumstances. If I walked into an alleyway and saw a child or even adult woman being raped, I would likely beat the culprit do death with my bare hands. I seriously doubt I would have any emotional or moral qualms about doing so. I actually have a family friend who did exactly that, and I view him as a hero, at least in him rescuing that one woman outside a bar.
Murder is not always murder, and should not be viewed so narrowly.
This. I'd define murder as the premeditated taking of an innocent life -- ie in this instance, someone who is NOT raping/beating/killing someone else. If I saw someone (especially a child, a woman, or anyone elderly) getting beaten or harmed ANYWHERE, I don't know if I'd literally be physically strong enough to murder someone (I don't own a weapon and I don't have a ton of strength) but my focus wouldn't be on murdering them, it would be on making them stop whatever evil thing they were doing -- so I'd try to take them down and out however I could, even if they turned on me instead. If knocking them upside the head or doing some other act of violence to them accidentally killed them, well, I don't consider that murder. I'd consider that defending someone who can't defend themselves. If for some insane reason the authorities saw my actions as being criminal... well, what can I say. Some things in this life are WORTH getting charged/doing time for, and protecting an innocent person's one of 'em.
Good for your friend for defending the woman outside the bar. When people step up and take action to take out a perpatrator and stop an act of horrible violence, I see them as a hero for what they do, too.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 01, 2012, 02:01:18 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
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.
I completely disagree and believe violence is morally acceptable and righteous given the correct circumstances. If I walked into an alleyway and saw a child or even adult woman being raped, I would likely beat the culprit do death with my bare hands. I seriously doubt I would have any emotional or moral qualms about doing so. I actually have a family friend who did exactly that, and I view him as a hero, at least in him rescuing that one woman outside a bar.
Murder Killing somebody is not always murder, and should not be viewed so narrowly.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F9161%2Ffixed.gif&hash=c2ae6461414c75393dff00d7891dd29057839d2b)
Murder must be murder how could it be anything else? ;) :D
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 01, 2012, 02:01:18 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 29, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
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.
I completely disagree and believe violence is morally acceptable and righteous given the correct circumstances. If I walked into an alleyway and saw a child or even adult woman being raped, I would likely beat the culprit do death with my bare hands. I seriously doubt I would have any emotional or moral qualms about doing so. I actually have a family friend who did exactly that, and I view him as a hero, at least in him rescuing that one woman outside a bar.
Murder Killing somebody is not always murder, and should not be viewed so narrowly.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F9161%2Ffixed.gif&hash=c2ae6461414c75393dff00d7891dd29057839d2b)
Murder must be murder how could it be anything else? ;) :D
:D Tankfairy to the rescue!
Thanks Tank. I read that post twice and did not catch that.
being loved rather than loving somebody, that's the real foundation cracker
I would do, or already have done all of the aforementioned acts/behaviours
in their independent context-restricted essence they are ever-so neutral, like using the loo
one could argue it is good to relieve yourself of unessecary constraints
on another note, the list can be a monitor of mental health / contemporary balance
for in earnest if we are to be together, as we are presumable designed to be, the common logic rather than morality dictates the order of good impressions and positive bridges of belonging
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:23:46 PM
Melmouth, I find it interesting that you find killing someone who has hurt you to be a good thing, but being mean to someone on the internet because you don't like them (perhaps because they hurt you) is a bad thing. That sort of follows my mental image of the British - do anything except be impolite. ;D
You obviously haven't met too many of them.