Quote:
|
You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.
|
You expressely allowed a murder by ommission of action. Therefore you are morally responsible.
Quote:
|
As for the last part - killing in defense of your family - this seems to me to be another version of the sniper and the bomber and the million people, no? Anyway it's quite simple. If I kill the would-be murderer then I have murdered a person. If I don't then I have murdered no-one.
|
You're confusing "murder" and "killing". I'd suggest looking the word "murder" up, as you would see that killing in defense is NOT murder, as it is neither a crime nor does it contain malicious aforethought.
So then, again, you'd be responsible for the murder by NOT killing to prevent the murder.
A tend to agree with Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." As such. inaction would be equally morally culpable when the presense of action can prevent an evil.
Quote:
|
wonder, would you describe yourself as a Christian? If so, then this notion should not seem so absurd to you as you pretend.
|
I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist, depending on the day.
Quote:
|
You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario. I cannot guess whether that is just plain arrogance or intentional flame baiting.
|
He presumes to know how a typical human being will respond, and I tend to agree with him.
Again, I refer to the concept of depravity. If you don't feel okay with killing a combatant who's about to slaughter a civilian family because your system of morality prevents the very prevention of evil, one must wonder why. To do so simply because of a personal, mental gratification in doing so is depravity, sorry to say.