MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
This is strictly a "devil's advocate" argument.
The argument has been raised time and again for and against using lethal force in the defence of property. The argument against it is generally something to the effect that property lacks the value of life and so shouldn't be defended as vigorously.
To counter this argument I'll say this. My property IS my life. It didn't come for free. I had to pay money for it, and my money is earned with my life. If someone kills me they haven't taken ALL of my life. I've lived 31 years which noone can take from me, they an only take the rest of it, however long that may be. But by stealing property from me they are, in effect, taking previous parts of my life. They are stealing from me chunks of my life that I was away from my family, away from my friends, away from my hobbies, sleep, enjoyment.
These are pieces of my life that were spent at work in various jobs earning the money to own that property.
So the crux of the argument is this:
If a cancer patient has his one last miserable and painful month on Earth taken from him by murder, is that really actually worse than stealing a man's car, which may have taken him twelve completely healthy and otherwise enjoyable months work to earn?
Bear in mind, technically, stealing the car is a greater overall loss to the man.
I'm looking at this from a moral point of view. I'm already aware of the law and I know the two don't always coincide.
The argument has been raised time and again for and against using lethal force in the defence of property. The argument against it is generally something to the effect that property lacks the value of life and so shouldn't be defended as vigorously.
To counter this argument I'll say this. My property IS my life. It didn't come for free. I had to pay money for it, and my money is earned with my life. If someone kills me they haven't taken ALL of my life. I've lived 31 years which noone can take from me, they an only take the rest of it, however long that may be. But by stealing property from me they are, in effect, taking previous parts of my life. They are stealing from me chunks of my life that I was away from my family, away from my friends, away from my hobbies, sleep, enjoyment.
These are pieces of my life that were spent at work in various jobs earning the money to own that property.
So the crux of the argument is this:
If a cancer patient has his one last miserable and painful month on Earth taken from him by murder, is that really actually worse than stealing a man's car, which may have taken him twelve completely healthy and otherwise enjoyable months work to earn?
Bear in mind, technically, stealing the car is a greater overall loss to the man.
I'm looking at this from a moral point of view. I'm already aware of the law and I know the two don't always coincide.