At 01:12 PM 3/5/01 -0800, Chris wrote:
>> And this is what I tried to debunk with my revised example.
>> If the SWAT Team Officer and the terrorist meet face to face
>> in a dark alley, and faced with imminent death, seek to kill
>> the other - then the SWAT team is justified in making the
>> kill, while the terrorist is not.
> why? what information that is contained in your revised example
>makes this so? if that information is not in the example - what is
>it?
Michael Harney argued that killing in self-defence was o.k. Since my
first example had the terroirst gratuitously executing a prisoner, I
revised it to make the terrorist killing in self-defence. IMHO, the
terrorist is still unjustified in killing someone seeking to do good, even
in self-defence.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
