return conscientious objector to USA?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Let me give you a scenario: what if you were a London police officer who suddenly found himself confronted by this terrible situation: in the middle of a crowded subway station standing before you is a terrorist with a backpack full of explosives. Your gun is drawn and aimed at his head. In a matter of seconds he will detonate the explosives he carries sound logic rather than tradition (though tradition is often based on sound logic).

"You'd be publicly ridiculed and would spend the rest of your miserable life in agonizing shame and self-hatred."

"If I kill the intruder in the process, that's a risk I must take to ensure their safety."

We certainly operate under different paradigms.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The fact that some have used the rationale of self-defense in circumstances where it was inappropriate does not invalidate the idea itself. If you are unwilling or unable to tell the difference between a legitimate act of self-defense and what the Nazis did in the Holocaust then the fault is in you, not in the idea of self-defense.

Yes, shoc ...[text shortened]... how backward the anointed like you think the idea of protecting ourselves and our loved ones is.

Where's the dividing line for "legitimate"? Who makes that determination?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Where's the dividing line for "legitimate"? Who makes that determination?

Please answer this question first as you have refused to respond to it:

Why do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please answer this question first as you have refused to respond to it:

Why do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense?

I thought this covered it:
"I think all intentional taking of human life other than oneself is murder."

That leaves us with you explaining when you believe it is "legitimate".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I thought this covered it:
"I think all intentional taking of human life other than oneself is murder."

That leaves us with you explaining when you believe it is "legitimate".

That doesn't answer "why", does it? What is the basis for such an extreme belief?

I already answered when I think killing is justified; in self-defense. Does that really require an explanation?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That doesn't answer "why", does it? What is the basis for such an extreme belief?

I already answered when I think killing is justified; in self-defense. Does that really require an explanation?

What do you want me to say? I can't think of a scenario where killing in self-defense would be justified. Evidently you believe there are.

I thought it'd be okay within context, but since you insist:
Where's the dividing line for "legitimate"? Who makes that determination?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What do you want me to say? I can't think of a scenario where killing in self-defense would be justified. Evidently you believe there are.

I thought it'd be okay within context, but since you insist:
Where's the dividing line for "legitimate"? Who makes that determination?

What I want is for you to give the basis for your beliefs. This is the Debates forum after all. You seem to want to insist on just stating something without giving any reason why you think you are correct. What kind of "debate" is that?

Self-defense is legitimate; as to what the exact dividing line is that depends on the context, of course. You, of course, know that and are being disingenuous. As to who makes that determination, the actor does initially. That is unremarkable. As to the ultimate determination of whether his actions were justified, there may or may not be an authority competent to make that determination. Even if there isn't, that doesn't mean that any action by anybody is legitimate; the Natural Law applies to all.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What I want is for you to give the basis for your beliefs. This is the Debates forum after all. You seem to want to insist on just stating something without giving any reason why you think you are correct. What kind of "debate" is that?

Self-defense is legitimate; as to what the exact dividing line is that depends on the context, of course ...[text shortened]... that doesn't mean that any action by anybody is legitimate; the Natural Law applies to all.

I suspect this is problematic because we have fundamentally different value systems. You place a person's right to use deadly force to protect his life/property above that of the life of a person who threatens said life/property. What's the basis for your belief?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What do you want me to say? I can't think of a scenario where killing in self-defense would be justified. Evidently you believe there are.

I thought it'd be okay within context, but since you insist:
Where's the dividing line for "legitimate"? Who makes that determination?

You think it is impermissible to kill somebody who is attempting to kill your spouse or child? Wow. That view is so ridiculous there could only be a religious explanation for holding it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I suspect this is problematic because we have fundamentally different value systems. You place a person's right to use deadly force to protect his life/property above that of the life of a person who threatens said life/property. What's the basis for your belief?

Natural Law.

What's the basis for your contrary belief? Why is the life of someone who is about to kill you or your family more valuable than your own or your family's?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Natural Law.

What's the basis for your contrary belief? Why is the life of someone who is about to kill you or your family more valuable than your own or your family's?

Well, I think it gives it a name more than explains "why".

It's not more valuable. However, I don't recognize a right to take it because of a perceived threat.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, I think it gives it a name more than explains "why".

It's not more valuable. However, I don't recognize a right to take it because of a perceived threat.

You don't think someone has a right to life? That really is the starting point for any theory of rights. Do you recognize any rights at all?

As to the Natural Law, I am referring here to ethical theory to wit:
According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm


It is a fundamental part of human nature to want to live and to protect ourselves and those close to us from harm. From that, it is fairly straightforward to derive a right to act in self-defense against imminent harm.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't think someone has a right to life? That really is the starting point for any theory of rights. Do you recognize any rights at all?

I believe everyone has a right to life. The difference is that you recognize exceptions to this.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe everyone has a right to life. The difference is that you recognize exceptions to this.

No, I don't recognize an exception to a right to life. I do recognize that someone by their actions can forfeit that right (or any right for that matter). You seem to think that there is an exception to the right to life i.e. that one has to accept death if someone else chooses to kill him.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe everyone has a right to life. The difference is that you recognize exceptions to this.

What good is a right that cannot be enforced?