Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EasyG
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vanya
But there is also an obligation to make sure, if possible, that no one else is hurt through your own action; and that should include the person who is threatening you,
|
No, you are not obligated to make sure that the person threatening you is not hurt by your actions.
This is total nonsense.
|
EasyG, if you're going to respond, have the courtesy to respond to someone's complete thought, rather than taking a snippet out of context.
What I said was that you have such an obligation,
if you can protect yourself by other means than the use of deadly force. No one who is arguing for a moral duty to retreat has said that you have an obligation to be a victim, or that you shouldn't exercise your right to self-defense. But self-defense means protecting yourself by whatever means are available and necessary, up to and including, as a last resort, deadly force.
The use of deadly force is, and should be,
a last resort -- what part of that isn't clear to you? If a lesser means of defending yourself is available, then you have a moral duty to use it in preference to deadly force. The reason for this has
everything to do with the moral good of not harming someone else if it's avoidable... it's also true that it has a bit to do with common sense, i.e. protecting yourself from the legal ramifications of using deadly force, but that's a separate issue.