The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Just curious as to how the members here perceive this issue.

When does one have the right to harm or kill another human being?

Only in self defense (or the defense of others) or are there other circumstances?
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
I wouldn't even say then that you have a "right" to kill. You do have a right to your own life, and to defend that.

If someone is infringing on your right to life, I don't think you magically gain a new right. I would say, however, that they are subjecting themselves to the consequences of their actions. They are the ones initiating and engaging in infringing upon you and your rights.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
RS1963
View Profile
Inner circle
2720 Posts

Profile of RS1963
I'm sure this is a huge can of worms that has been opened.


I think that if it is obvious that your life is or could be in danger from the actions of someone else. It would be best just to injure them enough to make it so they are not able to cause you harm. But this isn't a perfect world so that is not always an option.

Say both you and another person have guns. You know you have to shoot first or be shot and perhaps killed. You could shoot them in the leg. But that isn't always going to stop them from shooting you. You could try to shoot them in the arm or shoulder of the hand that is holding the gun. But that may not work. so in that case it's kill or be killed. If you shoot them and they die. As long as you aren't the one that was the robber or what have you. I say your killing the person was more than justified.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:52, gdw wrote:
I wouldn't even say then that you have a "right" to kill. You do have a right to your own life, and to defend that.

If someone is infringing on your right to life, I don't think you magically gain a new right. I would say, however, that they are subjecting themselves to the consequences of their actions. They are the ones initiating and engaging in infringing upon you and your rights.


This is interesting. What about taking a life in response to a threat of great bodily harm that won't result in death? I realize we're pretty much talking about hypothetical thought experiments, but would you say a person could kill someone if it were the only way to stop that person from cutting off his finger? What about if the threat is purely to property, e.g. he's stealing your car?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Some would argue for "pulling the plug", or at least allowing relatives that option, on terminally ill patients on life support.

I think if I'm ever in the situation where my soul's gone while my body lives on on autopilot (persistant vegetative state or the like) I'd rather my wife ended it for me so she could recover and get on with her life, instead of having to deal with it for months or years.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
My take:

Capital punishment, self-defense (to threat of death or great bodily injury), and defense of others.

I'm also in favor of so-called "Castle Laws," i.e. I do not believe there should be a "duty to retreat" from a trespasser.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
You are one strange lobo, Lobo. You don't kill to eat, but you're ok with killing conspecifics. Smile

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 15:03, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
You are one strange lobo, Lobo. You don't kill to eat, but you're ok with killing conspecifics. Smile

John


I'll take a random cow over a murdering human any day!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:52, gdw wrote:
I wouldn't even say then that you have a "right" to kill. You do have a right to your own life, and to defend that.

If someone is infringing on your right to life, I don't think you magically gain a new right. I would say, however, that they are subjecting themselves to the consequences of their actions. They are the ones initiating and engaging in infringing upon you and your rights.


This is interesting. What about taking a life in response to a threat of great bodily harm that won't result in death? I realize we're pretty much talking about hypothetical thought experiments, but would you say a person could kill someone if it were the only way to stop that person from cutting off his finger? What about if the threat is purely to property, e.g. he's stealing your car?


I would argue if it is the only viable way to stop them, then yes. I more or less agree with RS1963:

Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:53, RS1963 wrote:
I'm sure this is a huge can of worms that has been opened.


I think that if it is obvious that your life is or could be in danger from the actions of someone else. It would be best just to injure them enough to make it so they are not able to cause you harm. But this isn't a perfect world so that is not always an option.

Say both you and another person have guns. You know you have to shoot first or be shot and perhaps killed. You could shoot them in the leg. But that isn't always going to stop them from shooting you. You could try to shoot them in the arm or shoulder of the hand that is holding the gun. But that may not work. so in that case it's kill or be killed. If you shoot them and they die. As long as you aren't the one that was the robber or what have you. I say your killing the person was more than justified.


Of course, that is more explicitly about a situation where you life clearly is in danger.
I wouldn't say you would be justified in killing someone trying to take your car. If, however, you try to stop them, and they persist, well, then the situation may escalate to a point where your life may be threatened.

Again, this comes from you defending your property, but they insist on continuing and escalating to bodily harm, or threat there of.

I guess you could say that, even with the 'cutting off your finger' example, it is a matter of doing what is necessary to stop the initiator.
If someone is trying to cut off my finger, and I try to take my hand back, and then they start physically grabbing me, and forcing me to put out my hand, to the point of them wrestling me, full body and all, and I have a gun, then I would probably use it.

I, however, do NOT have a gun, as I don't want to use one, lol.

Basically, in attempting to stop someone from cutting off your finger, or some other offence, they persist, and they escalate, then, well, it is up to them what is required to stop them. They're the one's controlling their own actions, and if I present them with my response, and they persist, they are clearly saying they don't want to stop, even with what I am doing.

If they push to the point of rising their life, that is their decision.

Of course, this escalation can happen very rapidly. I wouldn't think it justified to kill someone for just trying to cut off my finger, but if I resist, and they persist, they clearly want to cut me, in spite of my resistance. If it leads to full body assault, then that's where it goes.

Chances are if someone is trying to cut off my finger, and I pull away, say I had a gun, I can pull it and make it apparent that such action is on the table, again, if they persist. I would not be justified in shooting them after I had pulled away. The immediate threat has stopped at that point. If they persist, the threat is back on, and they do so knowing I have a gun.


Similarly, they know I have my body, and if they persist, and it leads to full contact, then I am justified in using my body to stop them if I can.

I always think that what ever is necessary to stop the threat is what is justified. It needn't go beyond that, and once you stop it, it is up to the attacker how far they are willing to go.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:52, gdw wrote:
I wouldn't even say then that you have a "right" to kill. You do have a right to your own life, and to defend that.

If someone is infringing on your right to life, I don't think you magically gain a new right. I would say, however, that they are subjecting themselves to the consequences of their actions. They are the ones initiating and engaging in infringing upon you and your rights.


This is interesting. What about taking a life in response to a threat of great bodily harm that won't result in death? I realize we're pretty much talking about hypothetical thought experiments, but would you say a person could kill someone if it were the only way to stop that person from cutting off his finger? What about if the threat is purely to property, e.g. he's stealing your car?

Should we up the ante a little bit with the property question? What if it's a gang who want to take over your home, and kick you out? Let's assume for argument's sake that you have another domicile, so that it isn't a matter of bodily harm possibly occurring by becoming homeless.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16262 Posts

Profile of tommy
An eye.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

When does one have the right to harm or kill another human being?

I suppose this depends on the definition of right. Or how we are speaking about the term. Natural right? Intrinsic right? Legal right? Granted right?

If we have free will, perhaps we always have the intrinsic right to kill another human being. Just as we have the intrinsic right to do anything else we decide to do. That is not to say that one should do 'evil' things. And, of course, you have to be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Most arguments for or against taking of another human being's life revolve around a religious premise. Does anyone else here find this to be hugely ironic?
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 15:29, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:52, gdw wrote:
I wouldn't even say then that you have a "right" to kill. You do have a right to your own life, and to defend that.

If someone is infringing on your right to life, I don't think you magically gain a new right. I would say, however, that they are subjecting themselves to the consequences of their actions. They are the ones initiating and engaging in infringing upon you and your rights.


This is interesting. What about taking a life in response to a threat of great bodily harm that won't result in death? I realize we're pretty much talking about hypothetical thought experiments, but would you say a person could kill someone if it were the only way to stop that person from cutting off his finger? What about if the threat is purely to property, e.g. he's stealing your car?

Should we up the ante a little bit with the property question? What if it's a gang who want to take over your home, and kick you out? Let's assume for argument's sake that you have another domicile, so that it isn't a matter of bodily harm possibly occurring by becoming homeless.


I would say, like I said above, it would depend on escalation. Also, it depends on what YOU value. Are you willing to risk your life to defend your house? Are they willing to risk their lives to take your house?

Quote:
On 2010-10-22 16:12, landmark wrote:
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.


I'd disagree. I'd say it's reason is to control people. If it was to express a moral code about important issues, most religions would not have the many horrible edicts they do, and the subservient commands they do, and the restrictive ones, and the non compete clauses as well.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Plaque has rights. I want you all to stop brushing your teeth.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Self defense or defense of others. You only go as far as required to stop the attacker.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 14:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:...
When does one have the right to harm or kill another human being?...

The notion of right presumes a social context - and there are many such.

The notion human being presumes much more - and frankly we don't really have a good answer to "are you a man or a mouse" given the popularity of "Who Moved My Cheese".


Posted: Oct 22, 2010 6:34pm
----------------------------------
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 16:12, landmark wrote:
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.

Oh do tell us more about the behavior of those who claimed that there are "inalienable rights of man as bestowed by their creator". Genocide using biological weapons. Cultural imperialism. Nuclear weapons used and the threat thereof kept as a right in reserve. ROFL.

We hold these truths be self evident. The words and pretensions are ... extra.


Posted: Oct 22, 2010 6:38pm
---------------------------------
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 18:19, MagicSanta wrote:
Self defense or defense of others. You only go as far as required to stop the attacker.

From ever being forgotten by those who might try similar?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 18:34, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 16:12, landmark wrote:
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.


Oh do tell us more about the behavior of those who claimed that there are "inalienable rights of man as bestowed by their creator". ROFL.

You know what I always found funny about that? It's essentially a non sequitor. What made them think their rights were tied to a creator? I don't recall any of the bill of rights in the bible.
The way it's worded, the rights, and them being inalienable is what is apparently self evident, so what "evidence" tied that to a "creator?" Beside the fact that assuming there was at least a deist version a god was considered a virtual defacto default position.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 15:55, gaddy wrote:
Most arguments for or against taking of another human being's life revolve around a religious premise. Does anyone else here find this to be hugely ironic?


Not I, but interestingly(?) enough, I find the fact that you find it ironic to be rather ironic. In most of the major religious worldviews, life is eternal; our earthly presence is a tiny blip on the screen of eternity. Most people I've come across who aren't religious but discuss the situation from a religious perspective tend to cheat - they adopt an quasi-religious perspective from which to judge the position (negatively), but they maintain their secular perspective by never acknowledging that when weighed against the prospect of an eternal afterlife, the question of whether one spends 30 or 75 years on earth is rather incidental.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.25 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL