"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> 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.
So the legitimacy of the killing depends on whether someone believes
that what you are doing is motivated by 'seeking good'? That leaves
the scenario open for someone to think it is legitimate for the
'Defender of the People' to kill the 'Oppressor of the
People'....which is not a result that either of us want.
'Good' is very tricky to define and lots of people prefer differing
'goods'. I agree that there is usually a significant difference
between a SWAT Team Officer's actions and those of a 'Terrorist' -
but other people don't see things quite that way. If they are being
asked to accept that there is a moral distinction between the actions
of the two then they need something more than 'seeking good' because
they know too well that the 'Terrorist' is an over-zealous idealist
who sees so little alternative that he has degenerated to thuggery -
seeking good by fouler and fouler means, but still seeking good.
Perhaps the difference is in how the violence fits into their lives
and their willingness to consider using non-violent means. The more
that violence is their last resort, limited to actions taken to
reduce violence, and is the least amount of violence needed to
accomplish the goal the more likely it is that the violence can
consistently be labled 'justified'. The more that violence is the
first choice, the less that it reduces violence, and the more
devastating it is the less likely it is to be seen as 'justified'.
cheers,
Christopher {not 'Chris'}
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
