Quote:
Originally Posted by RU OX Alum
my perception wasn't good enough?
|
Your perception was fine, but I am asking people to look past numbers and stuff we can easily look up on the net and reguritate with cut n past; rather, use thier mind to give an opinion.
We can talk numbers all day...but how do feel or what do you think...hence 'philosopical' debate.
ok...let's try something....2 examples and let's see how it can be answered morally speaking:
I'm not trying to put any you on the spot here, I just want to move the conversation forward.
1. An elderly man they still let have a license but who drives only the doctor's office and the grocery store gives a ride to a friend who has a heart attack in the car. He heads for the emergency room, runs a stopsign he doesn't see, and plows into a group of schoolchildren crossing the street, killing two of them. Since it's undeniably killing but is neither self-defense nor state punishment under the law, what is it? Is it wrongful killing, or not?
2. An intruder breaks into your house at night. You have no idea if he's armed and dangerous, if he's so drunk he thought it was his house, if he's come to steal your property or to kill your family. You shoot first and ask questions later. Since there was no clear threat, just a presumed one, and therefore it was not direct self-defense but at most constructive self-defense, were you wrong or right to kill him?