I am certain that I wish it more resolutely than most folks. I HATE suffering, especially unnecessary suffering.
Nevertheless, after some serious thinking on the subject, I have concluded that refusing to resort to violence in some instances is morally wrong.
Here's a little of my thinking on why it is moral to use force against a deadly assailant, or even to kill him (or her):
What’s the value of your life? The value of mine? Are we of equal value? What about the guy living under the bridge or the runaway strung out on dope and forced to peddle her wares on the corner?
Jefferson, brilliant hypocrite that he was, penned the immortal words that form America’s answer—“all men are created equal.” I may not be as smart as you, or as tall or as good looking, but I am your peer. We have “the same privileges, status, or rights”; we are “equal before the law” (dictionary.com). Jefferson was right, or at least his words were.
Personally, I take things further. I value all sentient life, not just the lives of human beings. I found the recent story of a woman killing animals for the sexual gratification of her viewers horrifyingly obscene—far worse than any consensual act between adults. I believe that depictions of such events, even cartoons, should be banned just like child pornography, the Supreme Court notwithstanding. Not that children and animals are equal, and not that sexual exploitation of animals is as bad a thing as the violation of children, but that animal abuse is also wrong.
I believe in the rights of the sentient—that which can suffer is entitled to protection from unnecessary pain. In other words, entities capable of suffering have the right not to be subjected to gratuitous, unnecessary suffering. They have this right by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. That too is self evident in my book.
And yet, while holding the idealistic, “bleeding heart” ideas expressed above, I still believe that not all men (read “human beings”) are equal. At this moment, there are human beings whose lives are worth less than yours and mine. They are also—of necessity—worth less than the lives of the people under the bridge or the lives of the crack whores on the corner.
No, I didn’t just contradict myself. The fact that all of us are created with “the same privileges, status, or rights” doesn’t mean that we remain so. There actually are people whose lives are worth less than those of other humans by any morally sound measure. Much less.
If all of us are created equal, let us call that worth “H”—1 human value. Your life is worth H and my life is worth H. Your child’s life is worth H.
Assuming that you are a decent human being—which incidentally has nothing whatsoever to do with your “privileges, status or rights”—you will value my life highly. You would go out of your way to preserve my life or prevent my unnecessary suffering.
But I could change your valuation of my life. If I attacked your child, if I posed a mortal threat, you would—assuming again that you are a decent person—do whatever you could to stop me. If necessary you would kill me. And you would be correct. IN THE MOMENT OF MY DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT, you would value your child’s life more than mine. (I know, I know, you do that anyway. Keep reading.)
How much more would your child’s life be worth than mine? Let’s think it through. What if there were two of me? After you killed the first one, the second one was still hell-bent on deadly assault. Once again you would—assuming that you are a decent person—do whatever you could to stop me. If necessary you would kill me. And you would be correct. Again.
The answer is the same for 3, and 4, and 5 and… 1 trillion of me. In fact, there is no number of my lives—IN THE MOMENT OF MY DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT—that are worth the life of your single, solitary innocent child. An infinite number of my lives are not worth 1 H.
Ok, but your child is special, you say. It doesn’t matter. Substitute the neighbor’s kid. Or the old lady who lives down the street. Or someone you never met. Substitute that guy at work you can’t stand. Or the crack whore. The math should work out the same. I only used your child because it made the initial example stronger.
By engaging in an unjustified deadly assault against another human being, I HAVE REDUCED MY VALUE TO ESSENTIALLY ZERO FOR THE DURATION OF THE THREAT. The moment I break off my assault, I regain my worth. Then you should call an ambulance to help me. If you can safely do so, you may even choose to administer medical assistance (after seeing to the victim, of course).
This is just my humble opinion, mind you. But I think everything I’ve said is morally and logically justified. I also think that many who favor self-defense rights and the RKBA intuitively agree with what I’ve said.
Logic and morality support this conclusion, not hardheartedness or emotionalism. Yes, there is emotion—you were emotional about your kid, weren’t you? But the issue isn’t whether there is emotion, the issue is whether there is naked, irrational emotion. The issue is whether a decent person can follow the logic and apply both sides of it to himself.
If a decent person who thinks like this sees a man stabbing a woman, he doesn’t concern himself with the man’s safety. He doesn’t try to shoot the knife out of the guy’s hand or try to wound his stabbing shoulder. His only concerns are the lives of the woman, the lives of any bystanders and his own life. The assailant’s life is worth less than 1 H, infinitely less. It does not even merit consideration IN THE MOMENT OF THE DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT.
You yourself agree with the action, if you will but accept the valuation. If you had Bill Gate’s and Warren Buffet’s combined fortunes, would you bet them at Vegas hoping to win a penny? Betting any innocent person’s life against a felon’s IN THE MOMENT OF THE FELON’S DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT is worse.
Infinitely worse.
I know you can see how the same logic applies to your friend. If he were in mortal danger and to save his life you had to chose between shooting a basher or watching, the moral choice is clear.
Imagine yourself a week later. Which could you justify to your conscience more easily--watching or shooting? Let YOUR conscience be the judge. The only remaining question is whether it is more moral to be prepared for that moment to let it catch you unprepared. That last question comes into clear focus when you love someone likely to be attacked.
Of course you will chose your own answers, but that's the path from where you are to where we are.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
