The biggest thing that grabs me about your story is that you say 'many would say I was moraly correct in doing so because he posed an imminent threat to my family and myself.'
Before the initial assment of whether or not this was true. The other thing is that the first inclination is go fetch the gun, ahh but that is another thing with me. what would you say was the governing factor in all of this, fear? Then is is better to re-act out of fear, or to act after reasonable assement of the situation, in this case? On 15 Mar, 18:56, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > Reading through this thread I can't help but reflect on the time I > lived in North Carolina. It was a saturday afternoon in the summer > time and my children were in the wreck room playing video games. I > happened to be upstairs working in the bathroom and my younger son ran > up and huried me downstairs saying a man had just walked into the back > door. I immediatly went for my shotgun! The truth is that I was pissed > that someone had the gall to walk right into my back door. I stoped > and realized that it was still daylight so I could not shoot him. When > I got to the wreck room I found a drunken middle aged black man > standing there who called me "brother" and wanted to give me a hug. I > in turn grabed him by the shoulders and turned back to face the door > and led him out. He exclaimed "Aw c'mon man you know me!" With that I > grabed his bike, which he was tripping over, and him by the back of > his shirt and led him out to the street. I told him to get on his > bike, ride away and don't come back. By this time my wife had already > called the police. The police returned later to tell me that they > found the man passed out on someone elses front porch cluching a nutty > buddy cone which had melted all over him. I didn't press charges and > the police brought him home after letting him sleep it off in the > "tank". > So my point; Had it been after sunset I could have shot that man > and it would have been ethically "OK" for me to kill him. If I had > shot him, it would not have been ethical before sunset but many would > say I was moraly correct in doing so because he posed an imminent > threat to my family and myself. Personaly I have no moral dilemas in > shooting someone if they do in fact pose imminant threat. If it had > been dark I would not have been able to properly asses the situation > and might have shot the man. That would hve been both ethically "OK" > and moraly acceptable in NC, USA. Personaly, knowing in full of the > cicumstances, I would have felt terrible if I had shot that man. > > On Mar 15, 11:37 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So despite you asuranes that this is not an emotional response, I > > think it is so. > > > I would love to be able to say I would B, but who knows what would > > actualy happen. Just so that we are clear though. I hold no ideas > > about the sancticty of human life, I certianly do not belive in such a > > thing, and it is purel;y moral reasons I would like to say B and also > > has nowt to do with my own spirtuality. > > > The question though was not are their emotions involed in moral > > dilemers, it is clear that there are, but should there be? > > > You have not really answered this Slip, wanna have a go at doing so? > > > On 15 Mar, 15:33, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We also had other discussions on the death penalty, a much divisive > > > topic where we might as well toss Religion in with the Moral and > > > Ethical issues. > > > > A man comes home and finds two of his children beheaded and beaten, > > > blood everywhere, he goes into the closet and gets his shotgun and > > > slowly walks up the stairs, where at the top he finds his wife > > > brutally murdered as well. He hears moaning and sobbing coming from > > > the bedroom and as he walks over he finds a strange man raping his > > > teenage daughter. The man sees him and jumps off the bed, puts his > > > hands up and says he's sorry, that he doesn't know what came over him > > > and says please don't kill me. > > > > What to do Lee; > > > > (A) Tell the stranger that you are going to get help for him to see if > > > he can be rehabilitated. > > > > (B) Explain that because of your moral and ethical values and your > > > religious beliefs you can't kill him but you will make sure that > > > instead he gets food and shelter and medical care for the rest of his > > > life in an institution. > > > > (C) BLAM BLAM Death Penalty immediately issued while ridding the > > > world of a demented piece of garbage who most likely wouldn't be > > > rehabilitated anyway and if escaped would go out and kill and rape > > > some more victims. Recidivism rates speak for themselves. > > > > I'd go with (C) and with a clear conscience. This nonsense about a > > > moral social conscience in regards to murderers is IMO, faulted > > > reasoning. We've better things to do with our society than support > > > murdering mental defectives. What are we trying to prove? Do we pat > > > ourselves on the back and claim we are a more advanced society because > > > we don't even kill those who kill us? Are we more religiously > > > righteous and heavenly bound? Should we pamper Pit Bulls as well > > > after they inflict a lethal attack on an innocent child? > > > Oh and do you think for one minute that I would let my daughter have a > > > baby if she became pregnant from an incident like that? I'd perform > > > the abortion myself if I had to. > > > > US Prisons house over 2 million inmates, according to outdated sources > > > and out of that population thousands are people I wouldn't spend 2 > > > seconds thinking about other than their riddance. What is > > > rehabilitation for a "lifer", rehabilitation for "what?". > > > > As of August 2009 the total prison population of the UK stood at > > > 93,574. That is a lot considering the size of the UK. > > > > We need to stop raising and nurturing criminals. China might have had > > > it right, chop their heads off in the public square, let the people > > > see that crime really doesn't pay. I'd be the first to buy a ticket > > > to the show, let the heads roll. > > > > BTW, I'm not emotion about this, I'm laughing while typing. lol > > > > On Mar 15, 7:13 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Heheh very strange what we all take as common knowldge isn't it. > > > > > I had always understood the diffrance between morality and ethics to > > > > be this. Morality is one personal definition on what is good or bad. > > > > Ethics is concerened with doing that which is right. So one > > > > descriptive and the other more concerned with the doing, or actions. > > > > > I had always had this in mind when talking about morality here. > > > > However a little while back, and by that I mean less than a year. We > > > > had another debate about morality, some questions where asked abotu > > > > what I mean when I say 'Moral' and when I say 'Ethical', it seemed > > > > that my ideas where just a little out and due to the helpfull people > > > > here I re thought teh definitions that i had always belived where > > > > correct. That is: > > > > > Morality is still ones personal opinion on what is good and what is > > > > bad, but Ethics deals with a more social morality. That is you and I > > > > could have differing ideas due to our morality, but our ethics come > > > > fro the society or other groupings we find ourselves in. > > > > > Now you say that this is also wrong? Hhahah gees, a little help > > > > anybody? > > > > > On 15 Mar, 11:54, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I disagree. Morality is not a personal decision but a communal one and > > > > > is not innate but taught by the family and society. Morals are loose > > > > > enough to change according to current trends and therefore not fixed- > > > > > they are a cousin to "situation ethics". > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:31 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think that is wrong mate. Morality is no more than ones personal > > > > > > definition of what is right and what is wrong. > > > > > > > On 14 Mar, 06:27, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > And no: morals are not based on reason, ethics are based on > > > > > > > reason. > > > > > > > Morals are the "spiritual " measure of right and wrong and ethics > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > the intellectual/societal force that makes living in groups > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Ethics are what we get when we apply logic and concern for others > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > ourselves. Morals come from illiterate bronze and iron age > > > > > > > paedophiles > > > > > > > and misogynists in silly little collections of quaint tribal > > > > > > > stories. > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, Staples <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fiddler: > > > > > > > > > "Morals are far too fluid...to be a guide in any dilemma; > > > > > > > > reason...provides the ability to make decisions." > > > > > > > > > Assuming you actually meant this, you implied that: > > > > > > > > > 1. Morals are not a constant. > > > > > > > > 2. Morals are not based on reason. > > > > > > > > > How could anyone live with a system of morality like that - one > > > > > > > > divorced from rationality and is "fluid", e.g., changes from > > > > > > > > day to > > > > > > > > day - on what basis? Irrationality? I suppose so.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
