Is a gun "evil"; what if I use a gun to protect my family against a band of raiding theives and rapists, was it ok to protect my family by shooting the men in the knee to protect my family so they wouldn't hurt their person?
2006-09-10 03:48:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
All in perspective. Even a blade of grass in the wrong spot is considered a weed.
2006-09-10 13:34:53 · answer #1 · answered by peppermint_paddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The gun is not evil it is an object. The person using the gun to intentionally kill someone makes it evil in that instance only because of premeditated intent. To use a gun to protect ones family from an extreme danger is not because you are trying to prevent harm and sometimes the only way to do that is by force if the situation warrants it. The person who has the intent of doing great harm to your family is the one containing the evil.
Morality is a matter of perspective to a point. Not everyone in this country agrees on what is moral depending on many things including background, race, ethnicity, gender and religion. Some morals transcend that and are agreed upon by all, some not.
2006-09-10 03:57:29 · answer #2 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you define morality? What is absolutely right and good? Then you have to define right, and good. Morality, as I understand it, is doing what is best for everybody, causing the most good, and doing the least harm at the same time. All of these terms are subjective, and it is virtually impossible to understand cause and effect enough to know whether your actions will cause and inspire more good, or ill. So morality is really a tricky issue. I strive to understand how my actions effect others, and how it will impact their decisions, and how those decisions will affect others, and I'm still not very good at it. The best I can do is try and get better. But that opens a whole new level of morality. Are my actions manipulative? Is trying to perceive how my actions affect others, and the subconsequences of their actions the same as trying to control another person so that my subjective view of morality is accomplished? Again, it's really in the eye of the beholder.
2016-03-27 05:22:08 · answer #3 · answered by Lorraine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethics is fluid, so therefore not just in the eye of the beholder, but neither is it handed down from on high. Ethics involves an ongoing conversation within society. Some of the rules we live under are pretty standard. (Don't kill, steal, or lie.) But there are circumstances where ethical rules conflict, and in our discussions with one another we can achieve some meeting of the minds.
Ethical perspective is not something someone can achieve alone. Even if you reach a different conclusion than the rest of your society, you've achieved it after hearing the other options that are under consideration.
2006-09-10 03:56:06 · answer #4 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Excerpt from link bellow.
That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief.
It also became clear to me that science, despite its unquestioned powers in unraveling the mysteries of the natural world, would get me no further in resolving the question of God. If God exists, then He must be outside the natural world, and therefore the tools of science are not the right ones to learn about Him. Instead, as I was beginning to understand from looking into my own heart, the evidence of God's existence would have to come from other directions, and the ultimate decision would be based on faith, not proof. Still beset by roiling uncertainties of what path I had started down, I had to admit that I had reached the threshold of accepting the possibility of a spiritual worldview, including the existence of God.
2006-09-10 04:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A gun is not evil. Only humans are evil.
Morality is not flexible, not a matter of perspective.
It only seems to be a matter of perspective to 1) people who have not thought through every situation, or 2) people who want to change their morality to suit their own needs, typically after the fact.
2006-09-10 03:56:39 · answer #6 · answered by Tom D 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that would be yes...it's a matter of "perspective" and is in the eye of the beholder. We don't need dogma to know how to live. It's pretty basic to treat others as you want to be treated. Most people know that without Sunday School...and they also learn it hard way.
2006-09-11 02:37:15 · answer #7 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is definitely in the eye of the beholder....What someone may have the liberty to do with a completely clear conscience, another esteems as highly evil.
2006-09-10 04:08:02 · answer #8 · answered by Denise W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of 'perspective'. Many people get killed with their own guns. A person i know shot his own daughter thinking she was a theif (she slipped out to go and see her boyfriend). I wouldn't get a gun, but that is just my personal choice, it is my perspective.
2006-09-10 03:55:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow you must have the gun right under your pillow and be a real quick draw just like the wild west.
If you have kids you shouldn't have a gun unless it is under heavy lock and key.
2006-09-10 03:52:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋