Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

A Philosophical Conversation


JollySipper

Recommended Posts

I believe it all comes down to:

Do right, do the best you can, and leave the world a better place than you found it.

I live my life that way. I am not a religious person, but I believe this is the very root of all religions.

I agree, but the problem for a lot of folks comes down to the definition of "right". 

Again, many say that without religion, there is no possible definition of "right".

I disagree, holding the belief that if I treat others as I would like to be treated, I can't possibly do them any "wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right and wrong are not absolutes, for instance it's generally accepted that it's wrong to murder someone, but what if that someone is Hitler?

In my own philosophy, it's OK to take a human life if the person is in the act of killing or threatening death or serious injury to another person...or me.

Killing Hitler would have been simply killing someone who was killing others. Not too complicated in my view.

Conversely, I DO have a problem with state-sanctioned execution. ONE man may not kill another man with premeditation, but 12 men on a jury, or "society", are free to commit pre-meditated murder as long as they play the game by the rules. Innocent people HAVE been executed by the state.

I believe firmly in the doctrine that "it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to kill one innocent one".

I also believe a person is responsible for protecting his own life, and the lives and safety of his family, BEFORE the police get there.

If you kill the SOB who's raping your child, there's no question of guilt and you save the state a lot of bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my own philosophy, it's OK to take a human life if the person is in the act of killing or threatening death or serious injury to another person...or me.

Not just in your own philosophy, but in American law as well (I can't speak for other countries). It's called "justifiable homicide." Legally, it's what's known as an affirmative defense.

Or, as Captain Mal Reynolds once put it so eloquently, "If somebody tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back." B)

(No more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right and wrong are not absolutes, for instance it's generally accepted that it's wrong to murder someone, but what if that someone is Hitler?

This reminds of something I read in a book a long time ago.;

Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends. [The Lord of the Rings. The Two Towers. Book Four. I. The Taming of Sméagol. My emphasis.

 

I never had Hitler or Saddam or anybody else cause me great personal loss or grief, but I can understand some might feel it necessary to have somebody killed. Philosophically though, it seems to me that neutralizing them should be sufficient. As in confining Napoleon to the island of St. Helena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds of something I read in a book a long time ago.;

 Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. 

And another related thought...a man should not make his moral decisions based on fear for his own safety.

It's fine to defend oneself, but it's also necessary for anyone calling himself human to come to the aid of those who can't defend themselves.

Like an abused child. Or like 6 million Jews that the world stood by and watched go to their deaths.

There are too many who say "it's not my problem" or "it's not my job" or "it's too difficult to deal with" or "I don't want to get involved" or "I don't want to think about it" or countless other excuses for allowing evil to flourish.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly, and a rope is cheaper still and can be used multiple times. The question though is wether it is fundamentally right to kill them.

Once you find yourself in a position where you're facing severe injury or death from a moron with a long criminal history (who you've never seen before), who's kicked your door open in the middle of the night, who's whacked out on drugs and booze, who doesn't give a tinker's damm about anyone but himself, and who ignores the first warning shot from a .357 magnum, I think you'll find that the "fundamental rightness" becomes pretty self-evident.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you find yourself in a position where you're facing severe injury or death from a moron with a long criminal history (who you've never seen before), who's kicked your door open in the middle of the night, who's whacked out on drugs and booze, who doesn't give a tinker's damm about anyone but himself, and who ignores the first warning shot from a .357 magnum, I think you'll find that the "fundamental rightness" becomes pretty self-evident.

Oh, but there is no doubt what the most practical solution to this situation is. Both for you personally, and for society as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that every situation is somewhat different, individuals are different, motives are different, degrees of courage and cowardice are different, and human-nature is notorious for finding expedient solutions that may not always be the optimum solutions. Philosophy is not much more than an exercise in intellectual self-stimulation, and doesn't accomplish much other than letting the philosopher fill reams of paper or bask in the sound of his own voice.

Like I said earlier, treat others the way you would ideally be treated, and be prepared to defend yourself from people who don't abide by that rule. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was this talented Danish guy - Piet Hein (1905-1996) - who had such clarity of mind and command of the language that he was able to pin down his observations on life in just a few short lines. And in verse form to boot. Look up about his "grooks". I like them.

LIVING IS...

Living is
a thing you do
now or never --
which do you?

 


THOSE WHO KNOW

Those who always
know what’s best
are
a universal pest.

 

 

SOCIAL MECHANISM

When people always
try to take
the very smallest
piece of cake
how can it also
always be
that that's the one
that's left for me?

 

A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.
No -- not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.
No -- not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.

That one is very clever!  I like it...............  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another related thought...a man should not make his moral decisions based on fear for his own safety.

It's fine to defend oneself, but it's also necessary for anyone calling himself human to come to the aid of those who can't defend themselves.

Like an abused child. Or like 6 million Jews that the world stood by and watched go to their deaths.

There are too many who say "it's not my problem" or "it's not my job" or "it's too difficult to deal with" or "I don't want to get involved" or "I don't want to think about it" or countless other excuses for allowing evil to flourish.

Now we move from the area of philosophy more into the realm of state law.

You're allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself (and, I believe, members of your family) in all 50 states. I believe this extends to strangers in some states, but not in others.

Keep in mind that if you use lethal force in a defensive situation, it's almost certain to become a legal, financial, and personal nightmare for you, even if you were right both morally and in the eyes of the law. It's a life-altering event on a level with divorce, being fired, having a close family member die, etc. It's not something to be done lightly or casually. I know people in the defensive community who have thought it all through and made the conscious decision that they are NOT going to play that card in defense of a stranger, saving it only for themselves and their family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you find yourself in a position where you're facing severe injury or death from a moron with a long criminal history (who you've never seen before), who's kicked your door open in the middle of the night, who's whacked out on drugs and booze, who doesn't give a tinker's damm about anyone but himself, and who ignores the first warning shot from a .357 magnum, I think you'll find that the "fundamental rightness" becomes pretty self-evident.

Two quick points about this post:

1. The moron's "long criminal history" will have no bearing on the situation legally, unless you can prove that you knew it at the time.

2. I'm not firing any "warning shots" indoors from a .357 magnum. I have no interest in blowing out my hearing (and probably my night vision), breaking local firearms-discharge laws, reducing my available firepower, and sending a lethal projectile God-knows-where, just to demonstrate to a home invader that I am not yet ready to kill him. (Yes, I am prepared to articulate to investigators and/or a jury why warning shots are, in general, a bad idea.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we move from the area of philosophy more into the realm of state law.

You're allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself (and, I believe, members of your family) in all 50 states. I believe this extends to strangers in some states, but not in others.

Keep in mind that if you use lethal force in a defensive situation, it's almost certain to become a legal, financial, and personal nightmare for you, even if you were right both morally and in the eyes of the law. It's a life-altering event on a level with divorce, being fired, having a close family member die, etc. It's not something to be done lightly or casually. I know people in the defensive community who have thought it all through and made the conscious decision that they are NOT going to play that card in defense of a stranger, saving it only for themselves and their family.

agreed. If you have ever taken a concealed carry weapon class, there is a fair amount of time spent discussing/explaining when you draw a weapon, what the ramifications are.

The folks who always come out when a police officer shots and kills someone and state "Why did they have to kill them? They could have shot him in the leg!" don't have the training that goes with being a police officer. Yes, wounding the suspect is more humane, but in a split second, an officer has to assess the threat and decide. Much easier to do afterwards and not in the heat of the moment.

I own guns and enjoy going to the range and honing my skills along with competing with my kids to see who is the best shot. I hope to never have to defend myself with one of them but feel that I am prepared to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two quick points about this post:

1. The moron's "long criminal history" will have no bearing on the situation legally, unless you can prove that you knew it at the time.

2. I'm not firing any "warning shots" indoors from a .357 magnum. I have no interest in blowing out my hearing (and probably my night vision), breaking local firearms-discharge laws, reducing my available firepower, and sending a lethal projectile God-knows-where, just to demonstrate to a home invader that I am not yet ready to kill him. (Yes, I am prepared to articulate to investigators and/or a jury why warning shots are, in general, a bad idea.)

When you've been-there, done-it, you may feel differently. I've been there. The incident is public record. I am not proud of it, I wish it had never happened, and in the same circumstances I'd do exactly the same thing. I recall quite vividly what went through my mind during the incident, and every conscious decision that led up to the conclusion.

I fired my warning shot down, where it could do no harm and not ricochet. I did NOT WANT to have to kill the SOB. A .357 makes a loud noise, enough to make anyone relatively sane and capable of being reasoned with back off. Fool didn't stop, so I stopped him. One shot, center of mass. The other one ran away, and once his back was towards me and he was no threat, I let him go.

I was held and questioned by the authorities for several hours while the crime-scene techs did their thing at my home, released, no charges filed. THEY told me of his increasingly serious record, and were of the opinion that, had I not ended him, he probably would have eventually killed someone who couldn't pull the trigger, or had chosen to not have a trigger to pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

                      Treat Other People as You Want to be Treated.

A big +1 to that.

And I'd maybe add: try to walk a mile in their shoes, or if you can't, at least recognise that while their shoes shoes might not fit you, they could still be a perfect fit for them.

bestest,

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we move from the area of philosophy more into the realm of state law.

You're allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself (and, I believe, members of your family) in all 50 states. I believe this extends to strangers in some states, but not in others.

 

Almost....

Specific to what Bill and you have been discussing, this is what is referred to as "the Castle doctrine."

In other words, you have a right to launch into eternity (be it up or down- only a greater court than man's can make that call,) somebody who brakes into your home or place of business and threatens to cause you harm or harm to your family.

Massachusetts does not recognize this doctrine of common law, and in fact, forbids it outright. A recent attempt to overturn this very bad chapter of Massachusetts General Law (MGL Ch. 278, sect. 8a,) was sent down in flames by the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth.

This attorney has a pretty good summary of how it works here. http://www.massachusettscriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/10/the-castle-law-in-massachusett.html

Charlie Larkin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you've been-there, done-it, you may feel differently. I've been there. The incident is public record. I am not proud of it, I wish it had never happened, and in the same circumstances I'd do exactly the same thing. I recall quite vividly what went through my mind during the incident, and every conscious decision that led up to the conclusion.

I fired my warning shot down, where it could do no harm and not ricochet. I did NOT WANT to have to kill the SOB. A .357 makes a loud noise, enough to make anyone relatively sane and capable of being reasoned with back off. Fool didn't stop, so I stopped him. One shot, center of mass. The other one ran away, and once his back was towards me and he was no threat, I let him go.

I was held and questioned by the authorities for several hours while the crime-scene techs did their thing at my home, released, no charges filed. THEY told me of his increasingly serious record, and were of the opinion that, had I not ended him, he probably would have eventually killed someone who couldn't pull the trigger, or had chosen to not have a trigger to pull.

so in essence, you're 'humble-bragging' you (justifiably?) killed someone - on an internet model car forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so in essence, you're 'humble-bragging' you (justifiably?) killed someone - on an internet model car forum?

No, I'm making the point that no matter how many 'opinions' there are concerning the use of lethal force to defend oneself, they're meaningless until an individual has experienced the dilemma personally.

...as meaningless and useless as almost everything you've ever contributed to this forum.

And I'm suggesting that people closely examine their own philosophical and moral positions on the idea of arming themselves for self-defense. The police won't arrive in time to do any good once there's an intruder in the house. This is a very serious issue, and when the bad guy is in your living room, it's a little late to try to figure out what to do.

As a member of this community and not some news-item, I'm in the unenviable position to make the point that bad things DO happen to people, sometimes relatively close to us, through no fault of their own, that the world IS a dangerous place, and that personal preparedness IS something to seriously consider.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you've been-there, done-it, you may feel differently. I've been there. The incident is public record. I am not proud of it, I wish it had never happened, and in the same circumstances I'd do exactly the same thing. I recall quite vividly what went through my mind during the incident, and every conscious decision that led up to the conclusion.

I fired my warning shot down, where it could do no harm and not ricochet. I did NOT WANT to have to kill the SOB. A .357 makes a loud noise, enough to make anyone relatively sane and capable of being reasoned with back off. Fool didn't stop, so I stopped him. One shot, center of mass. The other one ran away, and once his back was towards me and he was no threat, I let him go.

I was held and questioned by the authorities for several hours while the crime-scene techs did their thing at my home, released, no charges filed. THEY told me of his increasingly serious record, and were of the opinion that, had I not ended him, he probably would have eventually killed someone who couldn't pull the trigger, or had chosen to not have a trigger to pull.

Ah. Notice my weasel-words, in general, warning shots are not a good idea.

In your case, it all worked out, and good for you. I just don't want to leave anyone with the impression that one has to or even should fire one or more "warning shots" before getting down to bidness. The warning shot is not in my "default programming," though of course it's always there as an option if I judge in the moment that it would be useful, as you did. (Though if I'm understanding the story correctly, it didn't have the desired effect. Might be useful to have witnesses say that you tried, it, though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...