|justified death.Page 1 of 1 |
|Is it acceptable to kill in self defence? What force is acceptable, what if one could stop a person without killing.?What about times of famine, who should live or die? Who should get food or water on a boat with inadequate supplies.?What about adequate supply, should every person survive as a general right? What if you know there will be lack of supply in the future, should you make changes to provide during scarcity? If you are born rich, do you have more of a right to survive than your neighbor, given limited supplies? What is fair, do you feel any moral responsibility to a death that is preventable? Does a person have a right to self preservation? What about when person B is unaware or indirectly responsible for person A's lack of supply? What is your level of benevolence? Does being unaware make someone less responsible? What about someone who is aware, do they have anymore responsibility for someone else's death.?|
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:23:24 PM
Is it acceptable to kill in self defence? Yes , also if someone decides he wants my money clip , acceptable if I jam a Bic pen in his throat , he'll be less inclined then, I suppose .. Or I could wait the 30 minutes for a police officer to show up , to sort things out , .. Most humans are born with the innate sense of right and wrong , just like every people believes in a higher power .
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:38:04 PM
|What if they need your money clip to survive. Do they have a right to kill you for self preservation? Do you have a right to kill for survival, is that self defence? Defending your right to live? Under the assumption that poverty or need is innocent. |
What if you knew your money would save his life, is it an innate right or wrong to share your wealth to save another? Or, would you still feel the need to stick him in the neck with a pen.
Posted: 4/2/2009 6:07:32 PM
|Lots of great questions , with endless possibilities , but yes in the middle of civilisation ( Ohio? ) , threaten someone , you lose your right to life , ( hungry ? walk over there to a shelter ) |
( cold ? same thing )
Posted: 4/2/2009 6:22:51 PM
|Ok, answered in the context that person B, (group B, country B) has other acceptable alternatives and is still threatening, you have avoided the metaphor. Your retaliation is a direct result of an injustice occurring. As a question of humanism, sometimes we make decision that effects innocent people unable to seek aide. Or in a question of unsustainable how do you decide who should lack supply. In a case of "lack of supply" what action is justifiable for preservation?|
Consider money, any type of commodity, wealth, food, oil. Who has a right to it? What right does someone have to fight for food, money, for survival. Should you, a nation, a person or group, have a right to deny another, their right to live, when there is not a shelter around the corner offering what they need.
Posted: 4/2/2009 7:19:11 PM
In answer to your questions:
Yes : whatever is needed to protect yourself : One should try to do so. : Somebody else : me : yes : yes : no : yes : yes : I'd inform B of his responsibility and squeal on him to A : Pretty high : yes : yes.
Happy to clear it up for you...Any more questions?
Posted: 4/2/2009 7:42:04 PM
|Thanks for the condescending attitude. Self preservation is never a question of morality, or ethics. Is there an obligation to preserve others lives? Are you responsible for someones death based on your decisions. When you know lack of supply is a factor. I get that there are a lot of questions, they are linked to a central idea. Justifying ones death over another, my actions may preserve myself but kill another or many. Or, if someone kills another while they struggle to survive is that justified if they are innocent. You could consider it in concepts of a person or country. Greed means that another may not get what they need to survive. What right is there to deny the poor, even if it depletes another's wealth? What is considered fair, or just when inequality exists?|
Posted: 4/2/2009 8:16:26 PM
|If you are in a life boat at sea. there is not enough water of food for every one to survive. How do you decide what is fair. Save all, save only the number who can survive. Kill or let the rest starve. In a case where it is your personal life boat, who do you help, how much do you give up. Do you feel you should even share if it is yours to begin with. Then place this situation on a global situation.|
Posted: 4/2/2009 8:50:14 PM
Thanks for the condescending attitude.
I wasn't being condescending. I was (I thought) just being cute.
Well, OK, maybe it was a tiny jibe about all those questions you asked at the start of the thread. A full ethical exploration of each would have required a 400 page dissertation to get them covered and frankly I'd get CTS from all the typing. Lucky for me most of the questions had yes/no answers and didn't present too much of a moral dilemma to agonize over. Incidentally, I answered all of them truthfully and thoughtfully.
But just for taking it the wrong way, I'm not gonna answer any more of your damn questions!
I'm leaving & getting another beer (I think there's another one in the fridge somewhere....
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:21:19 AM
|>>>Is it acceptable to kill in self defence?|
>>>What force is acceptable, what if one could stop a person without killing.?
Well, clearly, if you knock a robber down and have control of the situation, then its no longer self-defense if they then beat them to death....
>>>What about times of famine, who should live or die?
Whomsoever can. I don't believe it is any one persons right to decide, save the individuals.
>>>Who should get food or water on a boat with inadequate supplies.?
Depends on who is selling- I'd say whoever can afford it, but then again, it really is a question of value- maybe whomsoever is selling it finds more value in saving children than adults, and thus would be uninterested in money- it really is up to them.
>>>What about adequate supply, should every person survive as a general right?
I don't believe they are entitled to it, no. They must be willing to earn it.
>>>If you are born rich, do you have more of a right to survive than your neighbor, given limited supplies?
No, you have equal rights- only the rich person has earned more, and thus has a greater ability to survive. The poor should not survive on the backs of the rich, or there would be no incentive in society to achieve anything, and we would all become leaches in a poverty stricten state.
>>> Does a person have a right to self preservation?
Isn't that a contradiction? A Right is a protection society gives to the individual, to protect them against the actions of the collective- so if you have the ability for self-preservation, then you do not need a protection, since you are able to acheive it without society's grace.
>>> What if they need your money clip to survive. Do they have a right to kill you for self preservation?
The situation you are describing doesn't apply to self-defense- you cannot violently rob someone, swindle someone, or coerce someone, and say you did it in self-defense. That person has just as much right to the value of their labour as you have to yours.
>>>What if you knew your money would save his life, is it an innate right or wrong to share your wealth to save another?
If you gain value from helping another, then by all means- you both suceed because of it. But that person does not have the right to your money- you have the right to spend it anyway you find value, but others do not have a right to dicate what you must and must not value(unless you live in a society where you are not free)
>>>Consider money, any type of commodity, wealth, food, oil. Who has a right to it?
No one has a right to money or any commodity- you do not have a right to currancy, but you do have a right to the currancy you've earned- an employer can no more rob you than a hobo.
>>> Should you, a nation, a person or group, have a right to deny another, their right to live, when there is not a shelter around the corner offering what they need.
>>>Is there an obligation to preserve others lives?
Only one- your children, until they reach an age that they are able to preserve their own. Otherwise, no.