I feel like ‘done nothing to you’ is too vague here.
If someone is currently attempting to murder my child is that ‘nothing to me’ or is emotional harm considered?
If someone is attacking a stranger in front of me is that ‘nothing to me’ or is the trauma of seeing another human attacked considered ‘doing something to me’
If someone is systematically committing genocide of a people not related to me in anyway (and it’s fully provable) is that ‘nothing to me’ or is it an affront to human decency and therefore count as harm to myself as a fellow human.
Basically there’s a million ways to justify someone has harmed you.
I’m sure you already know the (your, if you prefer) answers to these questions. Do you mind sharing them with us? I guess, at the end of the day, the bigger question is: do we have a moral duty towards our fellow men?
I mean I feel like the first two are obvious. Imminent harm happening immediately in front of us are pretty well trod moral grounds.
The third is probably just justice? 99% of the time that’s going to be handled via a war or international court or a trial of the previous government.
Things obviously get fuzzier the more defused your ‘personal harm’ is and I’m truly not sure where my line would be, especially as the more abstract it is the more the consequences influence my answer.
At some point I’m simply not willing to take the moral choice to kill someone doing something bad simply because of the personal impacts it would have on my life. Going to trial, possibly jail over it, mental trauma from having carried out the action etc.
And that’s only for scenarios where there’s rock solid evidence, which mostly wouldn’t be the case. If I had spotty evidence then I’m less willing to take risks on any sort of action.
I understand “not taking risks” as a morally correct stance if you don’t have enough information (you could mistake the victim for the offender, for instance), but I understood these scenarios as something you’re present for, understand clearly and are capable of acting upon. I know this goes way beyond the original question, but, would you say that “the right thing to do” remains obvious, it’s just that it’s not so easy to be self-sacrificial? I mean, if you could singlehandedly stop a genocide from taking place, but you were gonna be somewhat traumatised for it, or someone in your family had to pay the price, I think stopping it remains the right thing to do, regardless of how willing we would be to do it, right?
Oh yeah, totally agree with that take. My ability to execute is separate from the moral good or bad of the situation.
Through that lens, then I’d consider most of these scenarios a moral good. I’m not really someone who holds with ‘all life is sacred’ or ‘everyone can be redeemed’, at least in scenarios where they have actively sought to kill others. For whatever reason, some humans are just bad people and need to be eliminated for the safety of others.
If they were easily neutralized, I’d prefer going through a proper justice system, but if not, then that’s merely a consequence of their own actions that they were taken down.
There’s no ethical way to kill someone who’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die.
I feel like ‘done nothing to you’ is too vague here.
If someone is currently attempting to murder my child is that ‘nothing to me’ or is emotional harm considered?
If someone is attacking a stranger in front of me is that ‘nothing to me’ or is the trauma of seeing another human attacked considered ‘doing something to me’
If someone is systematically committing genocide of a people not related to me in anyway (and it’s fully provable) is that ‘nothing to me’ or is it an affront to human decency and therefore count as harm to myself as a fellow human.
Basically there’s a million ways to justify someone has harmed you.
I’m sure you already know the (your, if you prefer) answers to these questions. Do you mind sharing them with us? I guess, at the end of the day, the bigger question is: do we have a moral duty towards our fellow men?
I mean I feel like the first two are obvious. Imminent harm happening immediately in front of us are pretty well trod moral grounds.
The third is probably just justice? 99% of the time that’s going to be handled via a war or international court or a trial of the previous government.
Things obviously get fuzzier the more defused your ‘personal harm’ is and I’m truly not sure where my line would be, especially as the more abstract it is the more the consequences influence my answer.
At some point I’m simply not willing to take the moral choice to kill someone doing something bad simply because of the personal impacts it would have on my life. Going to trial, possibly jail over it, mental trauma from having carried out the action etc.
And that’s only for scenarios where there’s rock solid evidence, which mostly wouldn’t be the case. If I had spotty evidence then I’m less willing to take risks on any sort of action.
I understand “not taking risks” as a morally correct stance if you don’t have enough information (you could mistake the victim for the offender, for instance), but I understood these scenarios as something you’re present for, understand clearly and are capable of acting upon. I know this goes way beyond the original question, but, would you say that “the right thing to do” remains obvious, it’s just that it’s not so easy to be self-sacrificial? I mean, if you could singlehandedly stop a genocide from taking place, but you were gonna be somewhat traumatised for it, or someone in your family had to pay the price, I think stopping it remains the right thing to do, regardless of how willing we would be to do it, right?
Oh yeah, totally agree with that take. My ability to execute is separate from the moral good or bad of the situation.
Through that lens, then I’d consider most of these scenarios a moral good. I’m not really someone who holds with ‘all life is sacred’ or ‘everyone can be redeemed’, at least in scenarios where they have actively sought to kill others. For whatever reason, some humans are just bad people and need to be eliminated for the safety of others.
If they were easily neutralized, I’d prefer going through a proper justice system, but if not, then that’s merely a consequence of their own actions that they were taken down.
I like the cut of your jib, greenskye. ✌️
And I wish I could say something else regarding the topic but we agree too much on it, hehe. Take care, and thanks for the chat!!
Is this controversial? I guess it is if by ‘someone’ you’re including nonhuman animals.
Huh?
There’s no ethical way or no ethical reason to kill them?
There’s both, it’s just bugging me that I don’t understand how I disagree with you.