View Single Post
Old June 16, 2009, 02:08 PM   #124
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Doesn't a moral obligation exist to remove dangerous elements from society if the situation is presented to us?
The interesting question is to where this view is operative. In our scenario, you are in a situation where a threat of grievous bodily harm does exist and you could use a potential level of lethal force to stop it - but you could also retreat.

If the goal is to protect yourself - and retreat is effacious - do you have the moral authority to use potentially lethal force? That's the question.

The self-defense discussions have never overtly taken the position that you should remove dangerous elements as a preventive measure. It is always to protect yourself.

By extension of prediction - if you had a car accident when you were hit by a drunk driver and you did survive - you know predictively that this driver will do this again - should you have the moral obligation to execute him or her on the spot? Drunks kill lots of folks.

No one is saying that if you need to protect yourself - you shouldn't. But if you can escape - it proactive killing moral?

Note - this is an interesting question and we expect reasonsed discussions - pure blood lust and clean the gene pool, HOOHA - isn't going to fly. Let's keep it on a quality plane. Thanks.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Page generated in 0.03052 seconds with 8 queries