> I want to discuss the concept of "Killer". In the above example
> had you not acted to save your family there would have been a net
> reduction of lives. You would have acted to cause death. How is this
> different to your concept of killer.
Another very challenging question. Thanks, Tony.
hmmm. Your critique of "killer" seems to rest on *responsibility*,
something I have been touting for awhile. You say that we have a
responsibility to act as protectors of life. That we should kill one
man, to stop him from killing others.
But who am I, Tony, to judge the value of lives on a *quantative* basis,
as if three was better than two simply because it is *bigger*?
And in calling him a "killer", Tony, who am I to judge the *qualitive*
aspects of that man, and decide that he needs to die now?
And the answer is this: I am a living, breathing human being, who wants
to continue my life. And my want, Tony, to continue living, can easily
be extended to others. I recgonize that others want to continue living
as well. Including the potential killer.
So I *am* involved in this situation. I cannot deny my responsibility.
But what is that responsibility? Do I *have* to kill him?
The warrior code: (paraphrased here) "It is better to hold than
hurt, to hurt than cripple, to cripple than kill. The greatest warrior
is he who never needs to kill."
I just finished a series of books by Orson Scott Card about Xenocide --
the killing of entire species of intelligent life -- and I think it
applies. The basic philosophical outlook of the first part of the first
book was where you sit. Total destructive force is *necessary* when
there are no alternatives. i.e. we should feel no remorse at killing a
man who is going to kill others. His death was called for by his own
actions.
But the novels end on exactly the opposite note. That total destructive
force is *never* necessary. That it is always possible, at least amoung
raman[1], to talk it out. To observe, to grow, to understand and
become bigger, stronger, becuase of our mistakes. (imperfection rant)
But I seem to have drifted. "How is this different to your concept of
killer."
New (but similar) situation:
A killer is here. He gives you a gun and tells you to kill him. You
don't. He kills someone. He tells you to kill him. You don't. He
kills someone. He tells you...
Where do you draw the line?
How do you make him listen?
The answer is: it's always possbile, given enough training, to merely
cripple the killer. Shoot his leg. Or his trigger finger, if you're
feeling hot. Then he has stopped killing people.
But you have had to use force.
You have had to hurt him.
I see no way around it.
> BTW are you the christian who I mentioned seemed a bit strange
> cos you were aparently a christian but not dumb? If so hello again, as
> you realise I have been almost exclusively in this thread (too busy to
> get 100percent engaged.) I am amazed if you are still calling yourself a
> christian, last time I recall Dave Mcfazden had you in a corner from
> which there was no escape, you must be bloody minded to still be a
> christian after this much time in Cov, we have something in common then.
Actually, I am currently considering myself an atheist. That was John,
who considers himself a Christian. I'm just spreading the "new Justice"
of Jesus. BTW, where is John? Wasn't it only supposed to be a few
days he was gone?
> The essential sameness between the two is this:
> BY KILLING ONE OF THEM YOU WILL CAUSE A NET SAVING OF LIVES.
But you will also propagate the meme that one death is *better than*
two. That force is a good thing, if applied against the prior (or
potential) use of force. The question is: is that a meme you want to
spread?
> Actually if someone does actually kill my defense will be that I
> was joking.
I preach honour. Responsibility. Courage. And he's *JOKING*...
> We are drifting here. The point we differ on is this. I believe
> it would be a moral and virtuous act to kill a well chosen Tabacco inc
> spokesperson. Im not sure the law would judge it so. Is it your simple
> christian ethics that are stopping you from entertaining the notion of a
> morally virtuous killing (this is CoV remember, I assume such simple
> ethical laws are up for questioning.)
Yes, such "simple" ethical laws are up for questioning. Just look at
your own words, Tony. "A morally virtuous killing"... how can this be?
How can force ever be good? Especially *deadly* force? There is an
inherent contradiction in modern Justice, with it's emphasis on
retaliating force. I had thought that Jesus' new Justice was the
answer, but it just doesn't work, in many situations. <sigh>... this
looks like a life long project.
ERiC
[1] Raman -- conscious intelligent species. As opposed to varelse,
which are mere animals.