The death of another individual is no small matter, and with all due respect your question is a little too general so I can only assume that you are speaking in the case of violence against your own person. Governments have taken it upon themselves to legislate laws regarding the killing of people, such as in the respect of capital punishment for certain crimes. Also, some people may view vengeance as justifiable for grave wrongs committed against them. While neither of the two are easily justifiable, the 'right, so to speak, to kill another in protection of self has always been seen as a natural right. Since life is considered the greatest human good, the right to maintain that life is supreme above all.
The odd thing is in this discussion, that the right for my life to be maintained necessarily applies to the person who may be attempting to harm me, since they are human as well. Thus moral philosophers have always agreed that self-defense is a right but in the degree to succumb the threat. Police officers, for example, are not taught to shoot to kill, but if the situation warrants to shoot to disarm the danger. Killing becomes an extreme necessity if there is simply no other alternative to protection or control of the situation.
Since we are humans and naturally flawed, a lot of factors will play a role in the action. Emotion, reflex, fear, etc. can over take us and sort of 'pre-determine' our actions for us. It is always important to understand the intention of the individual. If your intention is to strictly kill, then you do not become any better then the person attempting the harm.
2007-01-26 19:50:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by ergo sum 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
many, many, many of them, but the key is if i thought i could get away with it.
2007-01-26 18:59:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by tomhale138 6
·
0⤊
0⤋