I don’t think so. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, though. Anyway, unless A is really threatening B’s life, how can A be justified in using violence ?
is it an obligation at all? If so, why?
Because killing people is wrong. Realizing that is what makes us civilized. “To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.” – Any more quibbling ?
That given that it’s not always clear when somebody is initiating aggression if you disregard proportionality then things will be very “messy” for lack of a better word.
Indeed.
Killing in self-defense is not wrong, or is it? Should one pursue pacifism?
I think restraint and compassion make us civilized.
It is hard, because you continue to assert that your values which coincidentally are similar to my values, are the basis for rights. Which is all well and good, until we encounter someone with different values, who also believes that their value system comprises the basis for rights.
Really, this is a subjectivist approach. It’s similar in argument, after argument after argument here. Everyone wants to insist that their value system is the correct one, and when someone like me tries to argue for value neutrality, somehow I am the bad guy for being open minded.
So yeah, there is still quibbling, but do you feel today is any different than yesterday, or the last 300 days, in that we might actually make some progress in the discussion, by removing your personal value judgments from the discussion? I’m not holding my breath.
If by self-defense you mean stopping a lethal threat, no it is not wrong.
If one wants to…
The thing is, rights are based on moral values. There’s a “right to not be killed” because killing is morally wrong.
On the other hand, saying that rights are based on ‘objective’ lines on the ground doesn’t really make rights objective.
Actually it begs the question of the origin of those more conventional(for lack of a better word) property rights.
So, I wonder if you really understand the problem at hand.
Your is, yes.
Morals are subjective. They differ, person to person, culture to culture etc. No one can live “morally” unless it is by his own personal code, because there are simply too many variations for an individual to account for every time they take an action.
People don’t have a “right to not be killed”. As self-owners, they have a right for their property (their body) not to be aggressed against.
See that’s just silly. Now you’re making it personal again and avoiding the direct argument. Which is why this discussion never progresses.
We are trying to get at what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’, no ? nirgrahamUK said as much. Whether we call this field morality, ethics, or any other name, is not the point. Now, are you saying that what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ is dictated by subjective preference ? Right and wrong have nothing to do with natural law ? Or maybe there’s not such a thing as natural law, and ‘rights’ are just whims that a bunch of lawyers come up with ?
That’s just a different wording. Anyway, why do self-owners own their bodies ? You realize that saying that a self-owner owns himself is just circular logic, no ?
But let’s use your terms. Self-owners own their bodies, so one should not damage or destroy these bodies because bodies are ‘private property’. (but why should private property be respected ?? oh, never mind)
The question, of course, remains : HOW does a trespasser lose ownership of his/her body ?
Frankly, I don’t see why. You complain about subjectivism and then the next thing you say is that morals are subjective. If morals are subjective, then, IMO, so are rights and the whole discussion is pointless. And besides, if morals/rights are subjective, you’ve refuted your own defense of the landowner’s right to kill trespassers.
Ok. All of this is going to end. NOW. You want to have the same debate over and over? Take it to private message. Period.
This WILL be enforced.
I relent. It is pointless.