An ethical question

[nathanbforrest45]

Is one life worth more than another life? Is it acceptable that one should die so another can live? In other words, if a person is being attacked and murdered is it ethically sound to kill the attacker? Is the attackers life worth less than the attacked? What if the attacker .is also prepared to kill several other people so by killing the attacker you actually save several lives?

Discuss

[Peter1469]

Yes.


In other words, if a person is being attacked and murdered is it ethically sound to kill the attacker? Is the attackers life worth less than the attacked?

The attacker is acting unjustly. (Assumption for this thread).

[nathanbforrest45]

So? One person dies either way. Why is one more important than the other?

[Peter1469]

So? One person dies either way. Why is one more important than the other?

Importance isn't the issue. Why would it be? Sometimes the great die for the insignificant.

[Common]

The question isnt if one life is worth more than another. The answer to that direct question to me is No.

If you put it in the context of self defense the answer to that question is yes

[Germanicus]

Why do you need to kill the attacker to stop them from killing the victim? Police in England dont carry a gun for the most part. And why do they need to? Also, in most parts of the world people do not shoot and kill someone for breaking into their house like Americans do. And American media actually acts like a home owner that just shot and killed some idiot is a hero.

I do not see why a non lethal solution isnt possible.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Why do you need to kill the attacker to stop them from killing the victim? Police in England dont carry a gun for the most part. And why do they need to? Also, in most parts of the world people do not shoot and kill someone for breaking into their house like Americans do. And American media actually acts like a home owner that just shot and killed some idiot is a hero.

I do not see why a non lethal solution isnt possible.
The coke-addled, gun-packing thug breaking into your home in the dead of night isn't going to opt for a peaceful solution, so why should you?

[Germanicus]

How do you know? I know lots of people that break into houses. Most of them are good guys.

[Peter1469]

Why do you need to kill the attacker to stop them from killing the victim? Police in England dont carry a gun for the most part. And why do they need to? Also, in most parts of the world people do not shoot and kill someone for breaking into their house like Americans do. And American media actually acts like a home owner that just shot and killed some idiot is a hero.

I do not see why a non lethal solution isnt possible.

Not everyone is trained to overtake an aggressor without just killing the aggressor. When I was married, had an armed person entered my condo, I certainly could have easily subdued one aggressor (two, and they would just have to die) but my wife could not. That is why I taught her how to point and shoot. End the threat.

[Peter1469]

How do you know? I know lots of people that break into houses. Most of them are good guys.

They wouldn't break into houses in Texas. :smiley: Or even northern Virginia where I live. (They would have a good time in Maryland and the District of Columbia because guns are practically outlawed there.)

Rather than being good guys, I would refer to them as pieces of shit, and fair targets.

[Polecat]

This is a philosophical question. Ethics are another matter. It is not at all hard to rationalize a disparity in worth of human life. Depends almost entirely on where you're looking from.

[Peter1469]

This is a philosophical question. Ethics are another matter. It is not at all hard to rationalize a disparity in worth of human life. Depends almost entirely on where you're looking from. How would a pure philosophical view differ from an "ethics" view? I see ethics as philosophy.

[Polecat]

I see ethics more as a structured set of values.

[Peter1469]

I see ethics more as a structured set of values.

That is morality. At least for me.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes.



The attacker is acting unjustly. (Assumption for this thread).

Agreed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why do you need to kill the attacker to stop them from killing the victim?

No, but your heroes the Chinese think it's ethical to execute prisoners in order to harvest their organs. Heck, sometimes they don't even wait until they are dead!

China’s Organ Harvesting Atrocities Under the Spotlight in Italy (http://investigating.wordpress.com/)

December 24, 2013 | By Falun Gong practitioners in Italy

(Minghui.org) The issue of forced live organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners has garnered a fair amount of attention in Italy recently, both in the media and in the Senate. Evidence and expert testimonies were presented at a Senate hearing organized by the Human Rights Committee in the Italian Parliament on December 19.


Major Italian media outlets such as Corriere della Sera (Evening Courier) and RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana) reported on the hearing and exposed the crimes of organ harvesting in China.

China Harvests the Majority of Its Organs From Executed Prisoners (http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/07/china-harvests-the-majority-of-its-organs-from-executed-prisoners/277959/)

On the morning of July 12, Zeng Chengjie, a businessman and real estate developer from China's Hunan Province, was executed by firing squad. Mr. Zeng, 55, was convicted of illegal fundraising involving 3.4 billion RMB ($550 million). His daughter, Zeng Shan, later protested on Weibo that the court had not notified the family before her father's execution. It was a full two days after his death that the Zeng family finally received the execution notice by mail. Postmarked "July 13," the notice was issued on July 12, the day of Zeng's execution.

The hasty and secretive execution prompted suspicions among Weibo users. Many in particular have questioned whether or not authorities harvested Zeng's organs for use in transplant operations. The government cremated Zeng and did not disclose the record of events surrounding his execution, so there is no way to know what happened to Zeng's body. Nonetheless, the practice of using executed prisoners' organs for transplantation is an open secret in China.


Huang Jiefu, who served as vice minister of China's Ministry of Health for 12 years and was in charge of China's organ transplant development until stepping down in March, has admitted on various occasions that the majority of organs used for transplantation in China come from executed prisoners. A March 2012 article co-authored by Huang in a major medical journal, The Lancet, asserted that "65 percent of transplantation operations done in China use organs from deceased donors, over 90 percent of whom were executed prisoners."

Is it ethical to kill a person attacking you or another and there is a valid fear for their or your life? Yes.

Is it ethical to kill someone for profit? No, it is not.

[pragmatic]

I see ethics more as a structured set of values.

Ethics is a subset of philosophy. At least it was in the curriculum course guide at university...




//

[pragmatic]

Is one life worth more than another life? Is it acceptable that one should die so another can live? In other words, if a person is being attacked and murdered is it ethically sound to kill the attacker? Is the attackers life worth less than the attacked? What if the attacker .is also prepared to kill several other people so by killing the attacker you actually save several lives?

Discuss

Actually you asked several questions there.

With regard to equal value of lives, the answer is "no". They are not equal.

Society has deemed the value of the person being attacked to be of greater value than the attacker. Hence, the right to self defense. Up to and including killing the attacker in the process.

On this point i would agree with "society".





//

[Ravens Fan]

Is one life worth more than another life? Is it acceptable that one should die so another can live? In other words, if a person is being attacked and murdered is it ethically sound to kill the attacker? Is the attackers life worth less than the attacked? What if the attacker .is also prepared to kill several other people so by killing the attacker you actually save several lives?

Discuss

I think it comes down to our own natural instincts of self preservation. If somebody is coming after me with the intent to kill me, I'm going to do anything and everything in my power to stop them.

Your questions are a bit too vague though. The answers change with context.

[nathanbforrest45]

Actually you asked several questions there.

With regard to equal value of lives, the answer is "no". They are not equal.

Society has deemed the value of the person being attacked to be of greater value than the attacker. Hence, the right to self defense. Up to and including killing the attacker in the process.

On this point i would agree with "society".





//


Which society? There are certain aspects of Hinduism which would argue (Gandhi among them) that you are never justified in taking a human life.

How does one know if an attacker or the person being attacked is the greater villain?

[Max Rockatansky]

How does one know if an attacker or the person being attacked is the greater villain?

That's how a lot of black people get shot by cops!

You are correct, as someone walking up to a fight, it's difficult to determine who is the villain and who is the victim. In such a case, it is better to hold fire and wait until the situation clarifies itself. Victims often try to escape. Villains, once they gain the upper hand, may try to kill the victim with a rock or strangle them.

As a victim, the situation is much clearer. If someone breaks into my home at night, given I've verified the location of all "friendlies", I'd be inclined to shoot.

[nathanbforrest45]

That's how a lot of black people get shot by cops!

You are correct, as someone walking up to a fight, it's difficult to determine who is the villain and who is the victim. In such a case, it is better to hold fire and wait until the situation clarifies itself. Victims often try to escape. Villains, once they gain the upper hand, may try to kill the victim with a rock or strangle them.

As a victim, the situation is much clearer. If someone breaks into my home at night, given I've verified the location of all "friendlies", I'd be inclined to shoot.


Going back to the Hindu example most will side with you. You have an ethical right to defend your own life, even to the point of deadly force (but only as an absolute last resort). Others, again say your life is not worth anymore than the attackers. I tend to disagree with that to be honest!

As Clint Eastwood stated in "The Unforgiven"

It's a helluva thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.

Since the outcome is the same, i.e. the loss of a life, why are you the better, more ethical person, for taking that life?

[nathanbforrest45]

By the way Max. I see you are a Heinlein fan. The every first book I ever checked out of the library was "The Rolling Stones" by Heinlein. My two favorite books are "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Starship Troopers"

[pragmatic]

Which society? There are certain aspects of Hinduism which would argue (Gandhi among them) that you are never justified in taking a human life.

How does one know if an attacker or the person being attacked is the greater villain?

American society.

And would be curious to see a link to the Gandhi writings that claim taking a life is never justified. Am wondering what context that is in....






//

[pragmatic]

By the way Max. I see you are a Heinlein fan. The every first book I ever checked out of the library was "The Rolling Stones" by Heinlein. My two favorite books are "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Starship Troopers"


Time Enough for Love was wonderful....

[Max Rockatansky]

By the way Max. I see you are a Heinlein fan. The every first book I ever checked out of the library was "The Rolling Stones" by Heinlein. My two favorite books are "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Starship Troopers"

My first was "Have Space Suit, Will Travel". Those are two of my favorites too, but I also include "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the group. Above "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" but below "Starship Troopers".

FWIW, "Starship Troopers" used to be on the Commandant's reading list. It's no longer there, but I see "Ender's Game" is on it. http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content.php?pid=408059&sid=3340488

[Peter1469]

Which society? There are certain aspects of Hinduism which would argue (Gandhi among them) that you are never justified in taking a human life.

How does one know if an attacker or the person being attacked is the greater villain?

I added the caveat that the attacker was the aggressor. I did that on purpose.

[Ravi]

They wouldn't break into houses in Texas. :smiley: Or even northern Virginia where I live. (They would have a good time in Maryland and the District of Columbia because guns are practically outlawed there.)

Rather than being good guys, I would refer to them as pieces of shit, and fair targets.
That's silly. I live in Floriduh and almost everyone above the age of 5 has a gun. Break ins abound.

[Peter1469]

That's silly. I live in Floriduh and almost everyone above the age of 5 has a gun. Break ins abound.

Well, they don't here....

[Max Rockatansky]

That's silly. I live in Floriduh and almost everyone above the age of 5 has a gun. Break ins abound.

How many of the 5 year olds are shot breaking and entering? Have your Second Graders graduated to home invasion?

[Germanicus]

No, but your heroes the Chinese think it's ethical to execute prisoners in order to harvest their organs. Heck, sometimes they don't even wait until they are dead!

I know that. And I think that it is sensible. Why waste organs? They are going to kill the person anyway. If they have good organs then use them I say. And I have discussed this topic with my little sister who works for The Red Cross doing something with organs and she agrees. I think many westerners would agree when they thought about it. Why waste organs?

[Germanicus]

They wouldn't break into houses in Texas. :smiley: Or even northern Virginia where I live. (They would have a good time in Maryland and the District of Columbia because guns are practically outlawed there.)

Rather than being good guys, I would refer to them as pieces of shit, and fair targets.

Some may consider you to be a piece of shit and a fair target. And yeah, in Australia people do not take a gun to break into peoples houses usually. And they do not expect to be shot. That is crazy.

[Max Rockatansky]

I know that. And I think that it is sensible. Why waste organs? They are going to kill the person anyway. If they have good organs then use them I say. And I have discussed this topic with my little sister who works for The Red Cross doing something with organs and she agrees. I think many westerners would agree when they thought about it. Why waste organs?

If the US did such a thing, why do I feel you'd be slamming us for committing atrocities by ripping the living flesh out of people you felt didn't get a fair trial?

[Germanicus]

Not everyone is trained to overtake an aggressor without just killing the aggressor.

Or capable.

If a fly lands on me I will kill it. But I do not think you need to kill people. Guns should not be for the public. Your ex wife should have a tazer or something. Non lethal.

[Germanicus]

the US did such a thing, why do I feel you'd be slamming us for committing atrocities by ripping the living flesh out of people you felt didn't get a fair trial?

((:

Well the USA has gone too far. I dont care if commie nazis take over. Anyone but money printing, resource stealing, imperial America. And yeah, if USA took organs I would probably be against it. But, the west has a diferent criteria to China. USA is 'advanced' so USA cant take organs. China can if they like. They are still developing as a society and also their culture is very different and we must respect it. Cultural humility will be important in the Asian Century.

[Peter1469]

Some may consider you to be a piece of shit and a fair target. And yeah, in Australia people do not take a gun to break into peoples houses usually. And they do not expect to be shot. That is crazy.

If they tried it here, they would have a good chance of getting shot. And why shouldn't they?

[Mister D]

If they tried it here, they would have a good chance of getting shot. And why shouldn't they?

Did he really just say that?

[nathanbforrest45]

Or capable.

If a fly lands on me I will kill it. But I do not think you need to kill people. Guns should not be for the public. Your ex wife should have a tazer or something. Non lethal.


My exwife had something far worse than a tazer. A divorce lawyer

[MrJimmyDale]

I have a friend that was as missionary in Mexico with his wife and 2 young sons(9&12). They were victims of a home invasion by masked intruders and were tied up and forced to watch as the mom was assaulted. They all survived and returned to the US afterwards.

In Sunday school class we were talking about self defense and weapons in the home. Me and my best friend both said that we owned plenty of guns and ammo for protection. He said that he did not and would rather him and his family die than to kill an intruder in self defense.

His rational was that him and his family were Christians and were going to heaven if they died. The intruder at least will have a chance to repent and be saved if they survived.

[Adelaide]

Is one life worth more than another life? Is it acceptable that one should die so another can live? In other words, if a person is being attacked and murdered is it ethically sound to kill the attacker? Is the attackers life worth less than the attacked? What if the attacker .is also prepared to kill several other people so by killing the attacker you actually save several lives?

Discuss

It's up for the police and courts to deal with people who commit violent crimes like murder, and I don't believe in the death penalty. Every life in the physical/existence sense is equal. Obviously people will choose to do different things with the gift that is life, which might make their lives and their contributions worth more than another person's, but at the very base every life is equal.