Potential juror - "No. If someone shoots at you, it's murder if you shoot back."
Never attribute to malice.
This is an alarmingly common line of thinking, especially in more progressive areas. Some would prefer to take (what they believe to be) the moral high ground from the grave.
You know what? I find it distasteful how frequently this idea is mocked when it comes up in political conversation. Personally, I can't imagine ever shooting someone to kill, even in self-defense. In fact, "don't kill people" sits almost at the root of my value system, and I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Something tells me you have never found yourself in certain situations, say for example you likely have never been kidnapped by firearm, and until you are placed in such a traumatic situation it's nice to pretend you know how you would act one way or another, but until such time it's truly an untested value.
Sure, it's possible if e.g. there was a hostage situation and somehow I was the only one with a gun. But I would feel no pride and the shame would stay with me for the rest of my life. The cavalierness of "self-defense fetishism" worries me.
I've had to use a shotgun to prevent a carjacker from taking someone's vehicle at gunpoint until the sheriff arrived.
Don't kill people unless required. I don't want to kill someone, ever, if avoidable; but the world we live in leaves us no choice sometimes if someone has made a poor decision.
I have role-played thousands of scenarios with the help of computer games, and watched a large quantity of violent Hollywood movie scenes, so I can easily imagine both killing in self-defense and pre-emptively murdering people that may or may not actually deserve it.
The best I can say is that it would be morally unacceptable for anyone to murder you, specifically--a person who has publicly renounced killing. And because you desire to not kill in your own defense, it is therefore more acceptable for me to kill someone else in your defense.
But doing so would offend your own values, so do I have time to judge whether that is a principle you would die for?
It gets complicated.
Fortunately, the law only deals with what is legal, and not with what is right. Sometimes, breaking the law is the only upright thing to do. If the law says it is still murder to kill in self-defense, then you kill that assailant, and then you take whatever punishment the state dishes out for it--not because it is just, but because you shouldn't fight an adversary that you cannot defeat. Obviously, it is better to live under laws that match your personal principles, but we can't always do that.
Pacifism is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take, but I do not think it could exist without non-pacifists willing to use force to defend those pacifists. And that is why I am not a pacifist myself. Obviously, it would be better all around if everyone could be a pacifist, but that experimental world quickly falls apart whenever anyone goes renegade.
Comments
Never attribute to malice.
This is an alarmingly common line of thinking, especially in more progressive areas. Some would prefer to take (what they believe to be) the moral high ground from the grave.
You know what? I find it distasteful how frequently this idea is mocked when it comes up in political conversation. Personally, I can't imagine ever shooting someone to kill, even in self-defense. In fact, "don't kill people" sits almost at the root of my value system, and I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Something tells me you have never found yourself in certain situations, say for example you likely have never been kidnapped by firearm, and until you are placed in such a traumatic situation it's nice to pretend you know how you would act one way or another, but until such time it's truly an untested value.
Sure, it's possible if e.g. there was a hostage situation and somehow I was the only one with a gun. But I would feel no pride and the shame would stay with me for the rest of my life. The cavalierness of "self-defense fetishism" worries me.
I've had to use a shotgun to prevent a carjacker from taking someone's vehicle at gunpoint until the sheriff arrived.
Don't kill people unless required. I don't want to kill someone, ever, if avoidable; but the world we live in leaves us no choice sometimes if someone has made a poor decision.
I could bluff it but I don't think I'd pull the trigger.
Hard decision to make. I have a wife and daughter I want to come home to.
You're free to make that decision and quite possibly die for it. Don't attempt to make it for me via legislation.
I have role-played thousands of scenarios with the help of computer games, and watched a large quantity of violent Hollywood movie scenes, so I can easily imagine both killing in self-defense and pre-emptively murdering people that may or may not actually deserve it.
The best I can say is that it would be morally unacceptable for anyone to murder you, specifically--a person who has publicly renounced killing. And because you desire to not kill in your own defense, it is therefore more acceptable for me to kill someone else in your defense.
But doing so would offend your own values, so do I have time to judge whether that is a principle you would die for?
It gets complicated.
Fortunately, the law only deals with what is legal, and not with what is right. Sometimes, breaking the law is the only upright thing to do. If the law says it is still murder to kill in self-defense, then you kill that assailant, and then you take whatever punishment the state dishes out for it--not because it is just, but because you shouldn't fight an adversary that you cannot defeat. Obviously, it is better to live under laws that match your personal principles, but we can't always do that.
Pacifism is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take, but I do not think it could exist without non-pacifists willing to use force to defend those pacifists. And that is why I am not a pacifist myself. Obviously, it would be better all around if everyone could be a pacifist, but that experimental world quickly falls apart whenever anyone goes renegade.
You're welcome to not defend yourself, but this discussion is about whether the government gets to enforce your ideals with force of their own.