Is property important enough to shoot for?

[Correia]

Damn Riktoven, I wish I could be as tough and manly as you when I grow up.

Strangely enough, I know that several of the people on my side of the aisle in this debate in this very thread have served in the military, law enforcement, have shot people, have killed people in self defense, have prosecuted people in court, have defended themselves in court in self defense incidents, taught hundreds of people the applicable state laws on use of force, and a few other things that indicate they might have a flipping clue what they're talking about.

You can spin and twist however you want. I'm not the US Army. National Security and military actions are not shooting the guy stealing your car.

Once again going back to BS fantasy land where Jesus wants you to kill everybody for the good of society and disregarding the whole, you know, going to prison thing, I guess I'm just a nancy boy pansy because I don't delight in killing somebody who doesn't need it.

Strange. I've been called many things in my life. But Bliss Ninny is a new one.

 

[daysleeprx]

Indeed...since when did anyone say anything about military?

I think comparing a warzone to a guy walking off with my DVD player is a bit extreme.

 

[daysleeprx]

Damn Riktoven, I wish I could be as tough and manly as you when I grow up.

hahaha, love it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I like ArfinGreebly's response.

I find it a bit odd and amusing that folks want to turn to the Bible to interpret ethics on shooting to protect property. Aside from the theft itself, there is little contextual direct correlation to use between Biblical society as written by scholars decades and decades after the fact, then highly edited, and then edited again during translation, and the society of today. For example, there was no insurance or insurance companies to help protect property in Biblical times.

For those worried about the value of human life, all that I can offer is that the person doing the stealing should be the one worried about the value of his/her life as his/her life isn't my concern.

 

[hso]

If I weren't such a good moral human being, I could be tracing the IP addresses of the non-shooters replying to this thread back to their valuables that they emphatically say they would do little to defend. I bet it could be one heck of a haul if enough of you are in the same area.

So stealing is immoral, but killing someone over stuff is ok?

 

[ugaarguy]

The soldiers who volunteer for military service knowing full well they may be ordered to shoot someone who is not a direct physical threat to themselves

Riktoven, you disgust me. You have abviously not served, at least not recently. It's clear you've never attended a Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) class and been taught about use of force. Even if I was ordered to shoot someone who was not a physical threat to me I would refuse. Just following orders is not an excuse, and it is the individual's reaponsibility to disobey an unlawful order to avoid commiting a crime. Irresponsible comments like that dishonor me, my fellow Airmen, and my brothers and sisters in the other services. Get your facts straight before make such a vile and ignorant post.

 

[ronto]

Assuming the law said I could...Yes, I'd shoot to wound...like in the legs...but if I missed and killed the robber...that's his bad luck... and my bad shooting.

 

[taliv]

the answer to the original question (and HSO's) of course, depends on your philosophy, and there are lots of them, obviously.

For Christians, shooting someone over property is an entirely indefensible position. It is completely contrary to both the instructions and examples found in the Bible.


For Utilitarianism, a far more popular philosophy (in fact, and ironically, most Christians make decisions based on utilitarianism instead of Christianity, but that's neither here nor there), the answer is a lot more fuzzy.

Utilitarianism ("greatest good for the most people") is more of a "high road" philosophy, than others like hedonism (whatever feels good) or nihilism (there is no good)... and yet, it's fairly simple to construct an argument using utilitarianism to justify whacking some half-value knucklehead over a car stereo.

One such argument posited in this thread already is the

harsh consequences applied to a few will deter a lot of minor annoyances; conclusion: killing a dude results in a net greater good for the most people than letting the dude go

arguement. This is a macro-level focus across a large population.

The point is that the above argument is rational and ETHICAL, regardless of whether the underlying premise (deterence) is realistic, so long as you accept utilitarianism. (which i don't, personally)


Humorously, (much like some Christians go back to the OT to justify the opposite opinion) a utilitiarian focusing on the micro-level could also argue that even a moderately annoying inconvenience, like the theft of a harley, isn't worth permanent physical damage to another person, since they look to minimize the bad, or maximize the good across the population. (in this case, just two people and their families, etc)

So killing and not killing are both ethical and justifiable by the same philosophy? Ethics is just so much piss in the wind.


But as for valuing life and property, reality is, as a group, we value a LOT of things more than life. For example, driving is worth more than 30,000 lives per year. Everything from abortion to unhealthy fast food is basically justified by this "high road" philosophy that quantifies the greatest good for the most people.

The predictable objections come when people view the equation from a micro instead of macro level... "but how much is YOUR life worth?" Talk all you want, but in the end, your life is only worth what you're willing to give up for it. So don't feed me a bunch of crap about how you can't put a value on your life, while you're smoking, eating mcdonalds, driving a motorcycle, enlisting in the military, etc. I'm not saying those things are "bad". I'm just saying you're making decisions that potentially trade your life for something. Sometimes, like Pat Tillman, they're entirely honorable and extremely admirable, but they're still decisions that place a value on life and have consequences.

...and stealing or vandilism, etc. are such decisions. So, while shooting someone over property is out of the question for me, when someone gets killed in the commission of a crime (however minor), I feel it is at the same time tragic from a Christian perspective, but no less than they deserved.

in other words, I'm not opposed to shooting thieves because their life is worth more than my property. I'm opposed to it because I'm a Christian.

 

[JMusic]

Riktoven don't mistake doing right for weakness. I don't care for threats if that babble was intended as such. I hope you get well soon. Have a good day.

Jim

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

I think every viewpoint has made, discussed, debated and pretty much ground up into paste. Everybody is so busy spouting their own sermons we can't call this a debate any more.

Everyone go back and read post #180, on page 8, by sm, to get some real-world perspective on the matter.

I'm gonna close this one before something bad happens.