Imagine John dug up some clay from the ground and made a pot out of it. Then James took the pot. John objected and James took out a gun and shot him in the face.
Imagine John dug up some clay from the ground and made a pot out of it. Then Matthew took the pot. Matthew sold the pot to James. John objected and James took out a gun and shot him in the face.
Are James’ actions in these scenarios just or unjust?
Shooting someone in the face because of a mere pot is unjust.
They must go to private court to settle the matter, and to find restitution that is just for both parties.
Shooting the guy in the face is dealing more than what is needed.
Instead of this being an eye for an eye, this is an eye for the whole body and then some more
It is overly punishing.
Edit- Your scenarios are quite confusing.
Seriously, can I be a race car driver?
@ Andrew Cain
wat
You can be a tank driver or a fighter pilot.
@ Andrew Cain
I dun get it…ur makin my brain implo-
Splat
“You can be a tank driver or a fighter pilot.”
Then I win.
GODDAMMIT I STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT
Luminar doesn’t want to play?
This James sounds like an asshole. Is he the same guy that steals bikes?
I call fighter pilot!
Shouldn’t John be the one doing the shooting? If you want to have a debate at all?
Hmm infact, after shooting, he could ressurect one, and torture the other?
I like rainbows.
It did say Imagine.
In my opinion James’ is responsible for the debate not happening. I think if John was trying to debate he wouldnt shoot him. This is HHH stuff right
No, it’s James. I’ve seen people on this forum imply that James is in the right in this scenario so I’m wondering if they’ll show themselves here.
I’d say his actions in both scenarios are unjust.
Depends on the pot, really. If it’s really nice, I could see how James would shoot someone over it.