View Single Post
Old July 28, 2010, 03:11 PM   #26
Evan Thomas
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,676
Originally Posted by WildtoughonehuhAlaska
Scenario: Bad guy has your wife with a knife at her throat and tells you he will slit it if you dont fire into the crowd of schoolchildren. You have no shot at attacker.
The wife gets a say in this, too. If she wants you to fire at the schoolchildren, you probably married the wrong person.

Each of these scenarios stipulates that you are faced with a choice of which "innocent" life to protect, that of a family member or a stranger. But, Wild, your responses to the initial scenario ignore the phrase "or a loved one." If you're not only defending yourself, but another (presumably defenseless) person, then:
Originally Posted by shafter
An innocent WILL die if I hold my fire.

An innocent MIGHT die if I shoot.

The choice seems rather obvious
Just so. But this is a completely different calculus from the choice to shoot and risk killing an innocent in order to save oneself alone. If that's the choice, then you're quite right:
The alternate question could have been phrased: "are you willing to commit homicide to save yourself?"
No, absolutely not. What gives me the right to decide that my life is more valuable than that of a stranger who is, ummm...
from Rule Four
...behind the target along the trajectory of the bullet.
Speaking of "religious texts" that one might interpret to mean "Don't shoot"...
Formerly known as Vanya.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; July 28, 2010 at 04:31 PM.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Page generated in 0.03912 seconds with 7 queries