From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 03:56:54 MDT
On Sunday 27 July 2003 14:12, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Barbara came up with quite a number of intriguing scenarios:
> > However, this is not really a fair example. What about if you have a
> > knife, and I know for a fact that you've threatened other people with the
> > knife and stolen their corn? What if you've just traded in your knife
> > for a machete? And I hear that you're on your way to rob me? Or my
> > neighbor? Should I go over to your house and blow you away with my
> > shotgun?
>
NO. But it is quite appropriate to noise it about that you will defend
yourself and your property with deadly force if attacked. If you "know for a
fact" this person has violated community laws then you should present your
evidence and have this person carted away if at all possible.
> I used to hate people who would not submit simple YES or NO
> answers to such questions. They'd always begin "It depends..."
>
> It depends on a number of things: firstly, what do I gauge will be
> this person's reaction to the fact that I have a shotgun and
> am inclined to use it on him if he proceeds unjustly with his
> machete? Let us suppose that this would sober him up, and moreover,
> that he's not the type to sneak up on me and kill me later on. Then
> moderation seems the best course.
>
This is not moderation. It is simply sane. Blowing him away without
sufficient evidence to convict on suspicion is highly unjust and itself
criminal and actionable malice.
> It would be idiotic IMO to try to place probabilities on all
> these possibilities or tendencies, so one should have to ponder it
> and length, and perhaps talk to others to gain the advantage of their
> thinking and experience before making a decision. Clearly, I ought
> to go kill him if there is a very large chance he will ambush me
> later. Moreover, since you bring up his past misdeeds, there looms
> the large possibility that we should jail or execute this person.
>
No, this [ambush likely] scenario is not sufficient reason to kill another
human being in a civilized society. What does talking to a bunch of other
people have to do with the clear issues and principles at hand?
- s
> > This is still not a fair example. How about this one: what if you have a
> > .22 caliber handgun, and I have reason to believe you intend to use it to
> > take over the community well that supplies all the water for irrigation
> > of crops? Should I go over to your house and blow you away, just in case?
> > Should your philosophy make a difference?
>
> Yes, your target's "philosophy" definitely should make a difference.
> If you just go over there and show him your shotgun, and muster all
> the true determination and decisiveness you actually possess, and
> attempt to make it clear to him that he can't get his way by threatening
> others with his gun, then you *may* be able to tell from his reaction
> what to do. I definitely would not go alone however---not for the sake
> of my personal safety, but for the sake of the impact of numbers, and
> to make my decision to take away his gun, or even to kill him, a group
> decision of all of the community that is involved.
>
> > Should it make a difference if your reason for taking over the well
> > is to redesign the irrigation system so that it functions more
> > efficiently?
>
> This definitely depends on how predisposed he is to talk things over.
> If he has decided upon his plan of action because people are dying
> and the council is stupid and stubborn, then perhaps both of you---
> armed---can talk some sense into the council. But:
>
> This perfectly well illustrates the paucity of information (necessary
> of course, in most written accounts) in your story. In a real situation,
> one's knowledge of all the circumstances would be so much greater.
>
> > How about a less complex situation: Suppose there is a bus carrying 45
> > innocent passengers. You have reason to believe that the bus driver
> > intends to drive the bus through a crowd of pregnant women at a LaLeche
> > League event. To allow the bus to continue on its present course may
> > result in the deaths of 50 women, 53 fetuses, and 2 bus passengers; and
> > at least 120 potential lives will be lost (some of the women killed would
> > have gotten pregnant and given birth again, after the births of the
> > fetuses they are presently carrying, and several of the bus passengers
> > are females of child bearing age). Do you blow up a freeway overpass as
> > the bus approaches, causing the bus to crash and burn?
>
> You then go on to shade this example with further important particulars.
> In every case you ask "does it make a difference if...", and the answer
> is always "yes". Our decisions would always be based, IMO, on all the
> available data. Only in rare circumstances would I close my ears and
> announce that I was simply going to adhere to some principle. On the
> other hand, in no case would I merely ignore the precious principles
> handed down to us by our ancestors.
>
> Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 04:05:28 MDT