Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

People seemed to really like arguing about this, so let's give it a home in its own thread!

I believe we left off discussing the following (ignoring the trigger, which had long since been left behind) -

Is it acceptable to use lethal force to prevent a damaging but nonlethal crime? For example, if you are armed with a death ray of some sort, that always kills, is it morally acceptable to use it on them to prevent the rape?

Does this change if they don't threaten you? (for example, drugging you to make you weak, or just overpowering you) If they do threaten you, but not lethally? (They are violent and hurt you and threaten to hurt you more if you don't cooperate)? If they threaten you lethally? (say, with a gun to the head?)

I could say a lot more about it, but I'll tie it back to the main topic: Is your own well being and the risk to it worth more than the life of someone trying rob it from you?

(This discussion is NOT about revenge or gratuitous after the fact violence, at least not for now. Keep it related to the core premise of prevention.)

[Hiiri]

Are the only options to use the death ray or walk away? If so, it's a silly thing to discuss as it has little to do with reality.

If someone stole my lollipop, I'd love to shoot them in the head. Is it the right thing to do in the big picture? No.

[kaijyuu]

I'm sort of a pacifist. I'd punch someone if I felt it'd do something good, but it's unlikely that such a situation would ever come up. For lethal violence, the situations I'd kill are pretty much limited to protecting others or myself (and there are several where I'd rather get killed myself than kill someone else).

Violence is always a last resort for me. I'll always put flowers in the barrel of their gun first.

If someone stole my lollipop, I'd love to shoot them in the head.

...Is this hyperbole?  You'd actually get gratification for harming someone over something petty like that?

[Levi]

Is it acceptable to use lethal force to prevent a damaging but nonlethal crime? For example, if you are armed with a death ray of some sort, that always kills, is it morally acceptable to use it on them to prevent the rape?

I might do it, but it wouldn't be morally acceptable.

If they threaten you lethally? (say, with a gun to the head?)

Then its probably morally acceptable.  I value my own life more than the guy with the gun to my head.   

[GlyphGryph]

Are the only options to use the death ray or walk away? If so, it's a silly thing to discuss as it has little to do with reality.

Its useful because it's good to get a decent baseline before "Say you happen to be carrying a firearm when the attempt happens. If you have the option to give in, to defend yourself in a manner that only has a 25% chance of success but a low chance of death, say, 20% (Shooting them in the leg) versus a defending yourself in a manner that has a high (80%) chance of success, but a much larger chance to kill them (80% again), like a a shot to the chest or face, which do you choose? Or do you go all out, multiple shots to the chest and head, giving an almost guarantee of death and prevention? Are any of them immoral? How does changing the relevant percentages "

If you'd rather argue a more realistic scenario, go ahead, I was trying trying to skip by that to what the question ultimately boils down to, or else you'll get people wiggling about with just as unrealistic scarecrow arguments.

[Darvi]

If someone stole my lollipop, I'd love to shoot them in the head.

...Is this hyperbole?  You'd actually get gratification for harming someone over something petty like that?

It was a really good lollipop.

[pisskop]

Force is justified, as a reserved method of control.  As you may know, there are several levels of force/coersion.

nonverbal force.
verbal force.
Implied force.
physical presence.
nonlethal force.
lethal force.

[The Fool]

If I had a choice of stopping someone with lethal force in cases of violent crimes I might. Granted I would threaten the hell out of them first, but still.

Is it morally right? Probably not from society's perspective, but I'd be alright with it if it saved someone else.

[GlyphGryph]

What if it just saved them from serious injury, but you know there's practically no chance of it killing them?

[Criptfeind]

I'd do it.

[10ebbor10]

Psychological research indicates that when humans are faced with this sort of moral problems (Ie shooting someone to save someone else) they tend to do the thing that requires the less effort/ less risk to themselves. This can go quite far. Your risk of drowning in a pool with lots of people*(but no guard) around are larger then when there's only one person around.

*People don't react because they don't see others reacting, asking themselves if the victim is really drowning or not. If he isn't, they'd make a stupid mistake. Hence, they do nothing.

[Zangi]

People seemed to really like arguing about this, so let's give it a home in its own thread!

I believe we left off discussing the following (ignoring the trigger, which had long since been left behind) -

1. Is it acceptable to use lethal force to prevent a damaging but nonlethal crime? For example, if you are armed with a death ray of some sort, that always kills, is it morally acceptable to use it on them to prevent the rape?

2. Does this change if they don't threaten you? (for example, drugging you to make you weak, or just overpowering you) If they do threaten you, but not lethally? (They are violent and hurt you and threaten to hurt you more if you don't cooperate)? If they threaten you lethally? (say, with a gun to the head?)

I could say a lot more about it, but I'll tie it back to the main topic: Is your own well being and the risk to it worth more than the life of someone trying rob it from you?

(This discussion is NOT about revenge or gratuitous after the fact violence, at least not for now. Keep it related to the core premise of prevention.)

1. I would shoot the bastard if it is legal to do so.  If I would get into any trouble over it, I won't.  I'd also consider the paperwork and time spent to 'clean up loose ends' afterwards versus the non-lethal crime in question.  (Rapers will get shot.)  Morally right?  I don't really see it as an issue under the circumstances...
2. The above still stands.  It just has a much higher chance of someone getting shot...

Yes, my well-being is worth much more to me then someone who is doing crime that has negative implications to my own well-being.

[Darvi]

Isn't their thinking more along the lines of "Eh, somebody else will handle it, and if not, then I will only have a negligible amount of blame anyway."?

[GlyphGryph]

What about someone who is robbing you? Is it still true, and how often? Does the dollar amount matter, or just the method of robbery? (obviously a mugging has a much higher chance of you could getting physically hurt, and could be argued on that end)

[kaijyuu]

If you're getting mugged then it's in your own best interest to hand over your cash. Fighting back vastly increases the chance of you getting hurt.