Kobeunderbite wrote:
It depends but preventing the murder without compromising the doctor's life would be ideal.
For sure, but why is there is an explicit rejection/repulsion by the idea of someone murdering a murderer? Proportionality is a component of all defense/self-defense ethics, but the guy is literally committing murder.
Obviously, if you were rank ordering outcomes, stopping the abortion without harming the doctor ranks as a better outcome than killing the doctor, but why does the later shift from "morally correct but really unfortunate" to "morally incorrect" ?
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Kobeunderbite wrote:
It depends but preventing the murder without compromising the doctor's life would be ideal.
For sure, but why is there is an explicit rejection/repulsion by the idea of someone murdering a murderer? Proportionality is a component of all defense/self-defense ethics, but the guy is literally committing murder.
Obviously, if you were rank ordering outcomes, stopping the abortion without harming the doctor ranks as a better outcome than killing the doctor, but why does the later shift from "morally correct but really unfortunate" to "morally incorrect" ?
In theory I agree with you, but in practice it would be difficult to justify the murder of the doctor to the general public, and thus wouldn't really move the needle in the right direction in terms of the big picture (outlawing abortion). It's a tough pill to swallow but we need to play the game to some extent if we want the right final outcome.
Kobeunderbite wrote:
In theory I agree with you, but in practice it would be difficult to justify the murder of the doctor to the general public, and thus wouldn't really move the needle in the right direction in terms of the big picture (outlawing abortion). It's a tough pill to swallow but we need to play the game to some extent if we want the right final outcome.
So, you are moving from ethics to utilitarian thinking?
You all are 55+ million murders in the hole since 1973. That's a pretty big pill, especially when 99.999+ percent of the Christian (or pro-life) population doesn't seem to take *any* overt/physical measure against abortionists.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
Kobeunderbite wrote:
In theory I agree with you, but in practice it would be difficult to justify the murder of the doctor to the general public, and thus wouldn't really move the needle in the right direction in terms of the big picture (outlawing abortion). It's a tough pill to swallow but we need to play the game to some extent if we want the right final outcome.
So, you are moving from ethics to utilitarian thinking?
You all are 55+ million murders in the hole since 1973. That's a pretty big pill, especially when 99.999+ percent of the Christian (or pro-life) population doesn't seem to take *any* overt/physical measure against abortionists.
Yes there have been mistakes made in the past but all we can deal with is what's on our plate now. As satisfying as it would be to hang each and every abortion-er, it wouldn't lead to the legislation of laws that made abortion punishable by death, or something along those lines.
More black babies were aborted than were born in New York City last year. Very sad.
