Moral philosophy and lethal force.

[jlbraun]

So I have commissioned a semi-hippie / liberal / leftist friend of mine to do an abstract painting for my new house. I have had her do them before on various subjects, but this one was different. Previous topics were "finding the self", another was "creation of the modern state". The topic was of interest to me, as I began to explore it before I bought a firearm. The topic was "the moral philosophy behind the application of lethal force".

We typically have a discussion before she starts, and this one started with my proposition that nonviolent or passive resistance only works when your opposition is a moral being - Gandhi would have recieved two bullets in the head instead of a free India had he been resisting the Nazis instead of the British. She agreed. We discussed the difference between morality and ethics, saying that while ethics are a social contruction, morality is a spiritual one - and she opined that ethics that arise in a moral vacuum tend to be self-serving and tend towards evil in their extreme forms - witness Enron and Lord of the Flies. Morality is derived from a recognizance of something higher than oneself, whether that is a capital-G God or simply the collective human spirit.

I said that the problem with applying violence as a moral person is that you can be paralyzed by your own moral sense in a crucial moment when you must respond with violence to stop someone from killing or maiming (ie an enemy without morals). After some thought, she replied that paralysis is in fact not a bad thing, because it indicates that you're reacting as a rational, moral being in an extreme situation, and not as an animal. "Animals react blindly, humans don't." She then said that in lieu of paralysis, one should step outside of one's own personal moral sphere and trust in God / the human spirit (because you as an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically). In such a position, you are in effect giving yourself over to your training and instinct and letting them run free, rather than questioning and rationalizing each step. After the violence is over, God / the human spirit will be there to help you deal with it later. At the end, I informed her that I owned firearms now and that's why I was requesting the painting.

There's probably some holes in our conversation, but I found it quite interesting. I'm not trying to justify violence done from some arbitrary moral center (such as terrorist suicide bombings), just exploring it from the viewpoint of someone suddenly confronted with the need to do violence in self-defense.

The painting should be interesting, and about 3x4 feet. I may post a picture when she finishes.

 

[Zen21Tao]

nonviolent or passive resistance only works when your opposition is a moral being - Gandhi would have recieved two bullets in the head instead of a free India had he been resisting the Nazis instead of the British.

While I tend to agree with this in the sense that I don’t think criminals would succumb to peaceful resistance, if I was taking a devils advocate position I would attack this premise on the grounds that a hypothetical made up example doesn’t justify excepting this premise as true. The laws of quantum probability indicate that anything is inherently possible (though it can be highly improbable) until that time in which it doesn’t occur. Similarly one can always claim that is possible that some immoral being can succumb to passive nonviolent resistance. Any immoral being shown not to succomb to passive resistance would only validate your premise for that one immoral agent and as such can't be generalized onto other (yet to be tested) immoral agents.

It also seems that you imply that violence itself is inherently evil. I would argue that violence is amoral that it is the intended outcome or motive behind the violence that has a moral element. Put the most moral mother in a room with her child, a gun and an attack (be it man or animal) and I think that the mother would react by using the gun to save the child as if it was instinct. There may be guilt afterwards but that can be more accurately attributed the cognitive dissonance between belief and action. In fact I would go as far to say that no action is inherently good or evil it is how the act is interpreted by society and the individual.

(Just my 2 cents)

 

[Jeff]

Violence is always evil. But it is not always evil personified.

If a social encounter or dynamic has failed to the point where true violence-- the act of aggression leading to physical harm or death-- is the most virtuous path, then the very presence of evil has been allowed to occur.

At such times, it is quite common that the aggressor has acted personally or naturally virtuous, therefore acting morally neutral or good. The act itself is still evil, because the opposite of evil is good (defined as positively good or neutral), and violence cannot exist within a harmonious or good act.

Personified evil would be the agents of Nazi Germany, conducting their agenda under the total absence of morality. The US becoming involved in the war and eventually ending the Nazi agenda would be construed as situational evil, because the problem could not be resolved without further violence, or was not possible with reasonable endeavor, as understood by humankind at the time.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Morality is derived from a recognizance of something higher than oneself, whether that is a capital-G God or simply the collective human spirit.

Maybe that is my problem. I am not a religious being (in fact, quite far from that, I am actually opposed to religion). Without a belief in an eternal soul and an afterlife, humans are just another animal. I can't say for certain because I have never been in combat or been in a situation where lethal force was an option, but right now, I am not so sure it wouldn't be as easy for me as shooting a deer, or any other animal. I try to rely on nature as my guide. If lethal force would be justified in nature, then I tend to view it as morally defensible.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Violence is always evil. But it is not always evil personified.

If a social encounter or dynamic has failed to the point where true violence-- the act of aggression leading to physical harm or death-- is the most virtuous path, then the very presence of evil has been allowed to occur.

A lion that attacks a zebra to eat is performing an “act of aggression leading to physical harm or death” yet the animal is only acting out of instinct. One can hardly claim that a lion is inherently evil.

the opposite of evil is good

Actually the opposite of evil would be holy. The opposite of good is bad. When it comes to the concept of good and bad it is the outcome that determines when something is good or bad. You are told to flip a coin. You do so and it lands on heads. Is this good or bad? If you were told you would receive a reward for heads then the result would be good. If you are told you would be punished the result would be bad. In either case the action of flipping the coin is neither good nor bad.

As for whether or not the act is good or evil, the very definition of evil differs from group to group but in each case it is members of the group that defines the concept of "evil". Consider the act of the lion eating the zebra, both of the creatures exist and act independently of human consciousness. Before humans were around to define evil animals were performing violent acts on one another. Since evil is a concept created by man one can hardly claim the concept existed before man existed to create it.

 

[rangerruck]

I think nietzche said " the highest organizing principle of any society is i'ts ability to make war". This statement applies only to how advanced the society is, and therefore also includes it's ability not to make war, not to attack, to use reason, etc. Morality is the same as ethics, in society the people decide together what is good or bad,what they will aloow or not allow, and these things become law. some may say that ethics has more slack than morals, but really it is just us individually guessing as to what another person or group would or would not allow, and then compromising our own principles to get there. A history lesson here, one of the cities destroyed with Sodom and Ghommorrah( one of four) was a city that was recently found some recent legal documents from . This document stated that rape was legal, if you had sex with the other person, age or sex irrelevant, as long as you had it with them in your bed, and your bed could be outside in front of your door, then it was legal.
Of the five cities mentioned ,only one was not destroyed, which if i remember right is modern day haifa. This city decided among it's people, that they would follow the teachings of Abraham, and it was codified into their law. I believe this is the only city still in existence, none of the others were reinhabited.
So i see no difference between morality and ethics, one maybe corporate, but compromise should not come into play when discussing what will be the common law.
Animals do react, they never act , and they also react based totally on instinct , gut reaction, and emotion. Like most Dems. I and most gun owners i would think , act according to , " if i see a and b happening, then c is likely to happen" . That is planning, then we try to practice or train for the possibility of the event to occur, that is prediction, with training. So that when the situation occurs, training and reflexes take over, eliminating as much emotion or thought process as possible. This is so we can stay one step ahead of the situation, so that we may be able to " see" a situation happeining in slow motion as it were, so we can actually think within the occuring situation, and rapidly plan for our next move, but we must try to remove the emotion factor as much as possible, to get to the right decisions as fast as possible. Emotions are like a spice or flavoring, to add to our experience to help us make future decisions, but should not be the primary source of our decision making.
Any good psych book and the bible allways state the thought or state of human being as "mind , will , and emotion." There is a reason this is the correct order, not just 'cause it sounds good and rolls of the tongue easier this way.

 

[ugaarguy]

Warning: Judeo-Christian Reply...

so please understand this description of morals and ethics from that background. There are some other religious perspectives included.

Few realize that the word ethics (L. ethicus) means only "customs of a nation"; morality (L. moralis) means merely "customs, mores." The words themselves are detached from any objective standard of right and wrong. For example, cannibalism and bigamy were considered 'moral' and 'ethical' behaviors among nineteenth century New Guinea bushmen. Abandoning one's tribe and territory, however, was 'immoral', that is, against the group's mores.

The words moral and immoral (according to custom and not according to custom) are an affront to God. They imply that man himself can determine what is right and wrong...

The Hindu Bhagavad Gita "teaches the supremacy of freedom over morality." Its dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna concludes:

[T]here can be no absolute moral values because all things are changing, evolving. A particular moral value represents only a particular perspective offered by a particular time at a particular level of evolution.

- All quotes above from;
RIPLINGER, G.A., 1993. New Age Bible Versions
Ararat, VA, USA: A.V. Publications Corp.

All of that to explain that morals and ethics are ever-changing man made definitions of right and wrong. We see this in our own society today in the RKBA debate. One side says there is nothing wrong with firearms ownership, the other says everything is wrong with it. In this particular instance the US Constitution, Amendment Two, serves as the higher authority showing the former viewpoint correct, and the latter incorrect. Without higher authority right and wrong will always be subject to the popular will of man. Some will rely upon the Courrts, the legislature, and the constitution as their higher authority. Others will rely upon God in whatever form they acknowledge Him as. Pax has some excellent insight on this from a Christian perspective on her site here; http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC/TOC.htm#Ethical and Religious.

In conclusion this is a moral/ethical debate so each person will draw their own conclusions from personal experience, lifestyle, upbringing, beliefs, etc.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I disagree. I believe that it is not only possible but absolutely vital that human beings be able to acknowledge certain acts as evil--murder, rape, theft--without the belief in any god.

Religion is somewhat of a sore spot for me so I'll keep my posts on this topic brief in order to keep from going into a rant.

 

[LAK]

I said that the problem with applying violence as a moral person is that you can be paralyzed by your own moral sense in a crucial moment when you must respond with violence to stop someone from killing or maiming (ie an enemy without morals). After some thought, she replied that paralysis is in fact not a bad thing, because it indicates that you're reacting as a rational, moral being in an extreme situation, and not as an animal. "Animals react blindly, humans don't."

Right, this is one of the things that separate us from animals. This sense is, from a Catholic theological terms, the natural law. It is against human nature to kill another human being. And even someone who has never been told so, will feel a natural inward sense of resistance to doing so.

She then said that in lieu of paralysis, one should step outside of one's own personal moral sphere and trust in God / the human spirit (because you as an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically). In such a position, you are in effect giving yourself over to your training and instinct and letting them run free, rather than questioning and rationalizing each step. After the violence is over, God / the human spirit will be there to help you deal with it later. At the end, I informed her that I owned firearms now and that's why I was requesting the painting.

Again, theologically speaking, a human being will naturally resist killing another human being. This resistance might be diminished in persons who have had their consciences dulled or suppressed for various reasons.

The application of lethal force - or killing - is then a matter of discernment as to whether it is killing in self defense or that of another, to preserve or protect property, or in time of war, execution of a lawful judicial sentence of death etc.

If there is a clear understanding of a justified killing as opposed to murder, the most likely cause of paralysis might be fear of being killed or injured - or the strictly legal considerations. Matters of local or State law. If there is any doubt as to a clearly just decision having been made, then a fear induced paralysis or hesitation might occur.

All of that to explain that morals and ethics are ever-changing man made definitions of right and wrong. We see this in our own society today in the RKBA debate.

I disagree. At least within the Christian faith, such things do not change. If they are changed in society at large - if morals are "ever-changing" - it is simply a manifestation of a change in the status quo.

And at least in the Christian context, one must differentiate between what are matters of morals, and what are purely secular matters.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Deanimator]

We typically have a discussion before she starts, and this one started with my proposition that nonviolent or passive resistance only works when your opposition is a moral being - Gandhi would have recieved two bullets in the head instead of a free India had he been resisting the Nazis instead of the British.

Probably would have happened with the French too. After all, they pioneered the concept of close air support as a "crowd control device" in Vietnam in the after WWI.

 

[entropy]

Whatever one's religion, the time to have made the choice whether killing is justified is long before such incident occurs. Therefore there should be no 'momentary paralysis' resulting from a moral dilemma. There should merely be an immediate 'shoot-no shoot' decision based on threat level. If you cannot make the desicion based on that criteria alone, using deadly force is probably no the best option for you.

I respect the Zen philosiphy of letting bugs go and all that, but I also agree with Ted Nugent when it comes to the "I can't take a life" argument:


"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." --Ted Nugent

 

[Stiletto Null]

Well, simple utilitarianism tells you that forcing people to do anything without their consent or actively against their wills is generally bad, and killing random members of society is always bad. Basically, unhappy peons reduces societal efficiency, and random pointless killing of peons weakens the strength of whatever social contract is in place (whether we're talking about a system with government or some vague peaceful anarchy/communal system), also reducing the efficiency of society.

Or, "use of force against innocents is bad for society".

***

Meantime, this artist friend of yours sounds like she's got her head screwed on reasonably well. (For an artist. )

 

[jlbraun]

See, this is why I like this site.

Note that I said that I wasn't trying to draw conclusions about morality in general, rather, I was attempting to define how an individual reacts in a deadly situation.

In answer to those that said humans define morality, that's completely wrong and opposite of what I said. There are a certain set of basic things that God / the human spirit recognizes as inherently evil - murder, torture, and rape. Those things don't change. Social mores may ebb and flow, but we as human beings know in the pit of our stomachs that these things are wrong.

MTMilitiaman: I disagree. I believe that it is not only possible but absolutely vital that human beings be able to acknowledge certain acts as evil--murder, rape, theft--without the belief in any god.

Absolutely. That's why I threw in the "human spirit" part. No capital-G or lowercase-g god anywhere in there.

rangerruck: Morality is the same as ethics, in society the people decide together what is good or bad,what they will aloow or not allow, and these things become law. some may say that ethics has more slack than morals, but really it is just us individually guessing as to what another person or group would or would not allow, and then compromising our own principles to get there. A history lesson here, one of the cities destroyed with Sodom and Ghommorrah( one of four) was a city that was recently found some recent legal documents from . This document stated that rape was legal, if you had sex with the other person, age or sex irrelevant, as long as you had it with them in your bed, and your bed could be outside in front of your door, then it was legal.

That's what happens when you isolate yourselves from the human spirit.

Zen21Tao: It also seems that you imply that violence itself is inherently evil. I would argue that violence is amoral that it is the intended outcome or motive behind the violence that has a moral element.

No, that's not what I said. I said that an immature being that hasn't thought about it would consider all violence as evil and be paralysed in a crucial moment because their moral sense is immature.

 

[antsi]

I have always defined violence as the unjustified use of force - much as murder is to killing. In this sense the justified use of force in self-defense would not be violence or murder - it's a justified use of force; potentially a justified killing.

 

[griz]

She then said that in lieu of paralysis, one should step outside of one's own personal moral sphere and trust in God / the human spirit (because you as an individual cannot handle applying justified lethal force without being harmed psychologically and ethically).

Describing defence as "stepping outside of one's moral sphere", implies to me that you believe the action is immoral. I gather from the rest of your comments that you do not believe it is immoral, so there should be no need to leave your morality behind. I agree that your thoughts and actions will be clouded by adrenaline and the resistance to harming others. But the questions of morality should have been resolved before you are even armed, not just before the use of arms.

And I would like to see the painting too.

 

[ugaarguy]

All of that to explain that morals and ethics are ever-changing man made definitions of right and wrong. We see this in our own society today in the RKBA debate.

I disagree. At least within the Christian faith, such things do not change. If they are changed in society at large - if morals are "ever-changing" - it is simply a manifestation of a change in the status quo.

And at least in the Christian context, one must differentiate between what are matters of morals, and what are purely secular matters.

You sir are starting to see why morals and ethics are not adequate - they are societal definitions of right and wrong. Look a little further up in my post where Riplinger explains this with the definitions of the two words.

I disagree. I believe that it is not only possible but absolutely vital that human beings be able to acknowledge certain acts as evil--murder, rape, theft--without the belief in any god.

Ahh so if your sister is raped how do you react? In most Western, i.e. traditionally Judeo-Christian, countries our customs teach us to act in anger toward the rapist and in compassion toward our sister. In contrast, in most Muslim countries your customs teach you to act in anger toward the rapist, and toward your sister; to kill her to cleanse your family name and honor. Which reaction is correct? It depends upon the society you live in. This may be an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point.

As for my perspective on it, I have no doubt that self defense is right (morality aside) as a Christian. Defense of others, particularly women, children, and those who are weak, is not only right, but inaction would be wrong. I certainly hope that I never have to take a life, but my commitment to preserve the life of myself or another innocent takes precedence. As a Christian I am to "forgive those who trespass against me." However, this forgiveness does not preclude consequences being suffered as a result of the action. The same is true in my daily life; while Jesus Christ forgives me of my sins I still suffer consequences of doing wrong and reap rewards of doing right.

This is a very thought provoking thread and I'm really enjoying reading perspectives from folks with different backgrounds than my own.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Well, simple utilitarianism tells you that forcing people to do anything without their consent or actively against their wills is generally bad, and killing random members of society is always bad. Basically, unhappy peons reduces societal efficiency, and random pointless killing of peons weakens the strength of whatever social contract is in place (whether we're talking about a system with government or some vague peaceful anarchy/communal system), also reducing the efficiency of society.

Or, "use of force against innocents is bad for society".

That is simply wrong. Utilitarianism is a form of Consequentialism that asserts that the moral status of a decision is determined solely by the utility of the outcome. If the outcome of forcing someone to do something results in a net gain in utility then the act is morally good.

Here is the famous thought experiment of an imagined train traveling down an imagined track. On the track are three people that can't move. You can’t stop the train you can only change tracks. However, there is a single person stuck on that alternate track. The choice here is do you not act and allow three people to die or perform an act (changing tracks) that causes one person to die. The Utilitarian would have to choose to kill the one to save the three since saving three lives provides more utility than saving one.

On the other hand a Deontologist would say that you have to let the three die rather than actually cause a single death. Deontology is a moral philosophy that asserts that some actions are just wrong regardless of consequences or circumstances. To a Deontologist killing someone is, murder and murder is wrong. However, allowing someone to die isn’t murder so it is more moral to allow three to die that to kill one.

 

[Jeff]

A lion that attacks a zebra to eat is performing an “act of aggression leading to physical harm or death” yet the animal is only acting out of instinct. One can hardly claim that a lion is inherently evil.

No. This thread deals with morality, therefore the assumption of "violence" is human-related. Yes, we are animals; but we are thinking animals who utilize judgment, ethics, insight, and morality.

The lion does not use violence against a zebra anymore than a male dog and a female dog from the same litter perform incest during mating. They are inbreeding, but that is a biological term. Incest and violence are anthropological terms, and therefore deal with humanity.

One might be able to describe the act of lion vs zebra in lesser terms of the word, such as descriptions in nature-- but those are secondary terms borne of personification. They are poetic. The primary definition of violence is an anthropological concept: 1) Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

Actually the opposite of evil would be holy.

No. The primary definition of evil is: 1) Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

The opposite of holy is unholy, and both terms are theological in nature. At its most fundamental, evil is not a theological term, it is a moral term. Evil tyrants can exist in non-religious realms, and interact with non-religious peoples and events.

Since evil is a concept created by man one can hardly claim the concept existed before man existed to create it.

Evil, as a definition, isn't created, it is only observed. Good and bad are also terms observed by man. The terms deal with the state of morality, Objective or otherwise, and require sentient creatures to identify them.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Whatever one's religion, the time to have made the choice whether killing is justified is long before such incident occurs. Therefore there should be no 'momentary paralysis' resulting from a moral dilemma. There should merely be an immediate 'shoot-no shoot' decision based on threat level. If you cannot make the desicion based on that criteria alone, using deadly force is probably no the best option for you.

Well said.

For the record, this lifelong atheist has been making moral decisions since childhood. It's not difficult, although it occasionally seemed so in my late teens and early twenties.

The decision to defend my life against predators was made in my early thirties, when I briefly worked as a prison guard, and saw with my own two eyes what victims are up against.

 

[gezzer]

You are thinking too much.

I believe my life and my families are better and more important than some drug crazed murder-rapist-thief. They will be stopped by any means at my disposal with no MORAL regret.

One should not feel wrong about destroying EVIL it does not matter why they had become so.

 

[Baba Louie]

WOW! You guys are waaay over my head here... I think. No, I'm sure.

Is not violence an act of intense aggression, and can it not be used for good and/or evil purpose?

Louis L'Amour once wrote, "If only evil men are willing to use force, what will happen to the good men? Some of these bad men understand nothing but violence. It seems to me that there is a time to use a gun and a time to put it down."
-and-
"You cannot submit to evil without allowing evil to grow stronger. Greed feeds greed, and crime grows with success. Our giving up what is ours merely to escape trouble would only create greater trouble for someone else."

from: A Man Called Noon by L.L.

Everything is relative to... a culture's point in time. Not to mention our current (or old?) definitions of words.

Of course, L.L.'s writings are a product of his times, as we are of ours. Our culture is somewhat different than that of 1870 Western America, vastly different than 1680 Africa (or the America's) where tribal warfare was the order of the day. As was slavery. Or human sacrifice. Those cultures were different from ancient Rome, where 1 in 3 were slaves. Crucifixion, a reality. Lions eating humans for the sake of spectator sport (???) a norm. Life was cheap it would seem. Certainly, their values/ethics were not, and are not, our values today.

When in Rome... might be sound advice. Others, myself included, might follow the adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Where violence is a way of life, you'd best practice daily.

Where it's the odd occasional occurance... you'd best practice daily, even while others, with more intelligence than I and who know better (I admit they're out there), look down and frown upon such goings on.

But, I am weak. Life is not fair. Nor is it just. Whatever those words mean.

And I chose not to be violated, nor do I always feel bound by duty to retreat.

jlbraun, an interesting concept, to attempt to put down on canvas in abstract(?) graphic imagery, this concept of ethics/lethal force. For some reason, I'm picturing Jeff Cooper in a modified weaver stance with a raven on his shoulder saying "nevermore" superimposed over a yin-yang symbol... (LOL) the duality of man...

 

[12-34hom]

Unfortunately, the world we now live in, the immoral people outnumber the moral ones. After ten years as an peace officer i am jaded, but the sheer #'s of people with ulterior motives and those that are flat out evil are quite willing to victimize anyone to justify their wants.

The justified use of deadly force on another human being - as a civilian - is one of the aspects not truly considered by many who CCW. The ramifications are wide ranging and many are unprepared for what follows after such an incident takes place.

That is why such places as this one and TFL are essential for our firearms community at large. The serve as a reminder and a place to learn about the human experiance as it pertains to the world we now live in.

12-34hom.

 

[BootnyLeeFarnsworth]

Whatever your philosophy on the use of physical force against another person is, it has to stand up against those that don't buy into it.

Yes, under certain circumstances non-violence is effective. Generally they were economic not "moral" circumstances; the Nazis wouldn't have been able to prosper while suppressing 500 million people either (British rule lasted a lot longer than Nazi rule). Same goes for MLK - black people voting & working & buying things was much better than making it so there aren't any black people (in the eyes of those in power at the time). I don't think there was much "moral" to it. So those were effective tools at the time, coupled with violence (from different groups of people with the same goal), although in both cases pure violence probably would have succeeded.

But, that doesn't mean they're the only or even best methods of preserving yourself and your morals in all or most cases.
This is the real world.
If there is no physical force used to kill another, then what's to stop those that believe violence is profitable from being correct?
If there's no physical force used (jail, death, financial disinsentive - backed up by force), then violence (and theft) becomes the correct way to live (literally).

While you're stepping outside yourself and leaving it in God's hands, the BG, living in the real world has just murdered you, taken all your stuff, fed his family, etc. In terms of which one of you is acting in his best interest, it is the BG, not your passivist self, that will survive and procreate, which is really the point (of life and society).

Really, it comes down to whether or not your issue (protecting your life and property against someone who wants to take them) can be handled without killing or endangering the BG (who has the potential to benefit you under alternate circumstances). And also whether the best solution to achieve that goal is by taking direct physical action yourself, attempting to "reason" with the BG, or deferring to the police (both relying on physical force).

That's a practical decision, not a moral one. Where I live, "reasoning" with a BG doesn't seem very practical in terms of keeping me alive.

---
"Hey! Don't shoot, I'm a Libertarian!"

 

[rbernie]

Yes, we are animals; but we are thinking animals who utilize judgment, ethics, insight, and morality.

There's your mistake in analysis, right there.

WOW! You guys are waaay over my head here... I think. No, I'm sure.

Me too, mah fren.... This all makes my head hurt.

Lethal force for the purpose of survival just, well, exists. Lethal force for any other purpose (e.g. immediate or deferred gratification) can be clouded with morality, but fighting for survival (to include lethal force) is just in the DNA.

<shrug> But like I said, this all makes my head hurt.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I know how difficult self protection decisions can be. I have had three encounters where I was prepared, but the situation de-escalated in time. In one case it was about 1lb of trigger pull away. I never wanted to hurt anyone, but always felt that defending ones own life is one of the few justifiable uses of force (other than defending an innocent person's life against evil intent). The lack of CCW murders show just how moral most people are.