3 ms·

If I am in the desert, and have only 1 litre of water, and someone takes it by force, they may have just killed me. If I need my car to support myself financial

If I am in the desert, and have only 1 litre of water, and someone takes it by force, they may have just killed me. If I need my car to support myself financially, and it is stolen, my life might well be ruined. Regardless of what the law states, if someone tries to damage my livelihood, for whatever reason and in whatever way, I am morally justified in damaging them to protect myself, and in doing so I stop them from repeating that damaging behavior in the future. This, generally, makes the world a better place to live in, as long as you don't engage in predatory behavior.

watwut 8y ago
You might have reason for last water, but not for stolen car. Stolen car is not sure death nor attempted murder. Even if stolen with gun. You just rationalized killing someone by refraiming his action as something more deadly as it is. Which is literally reason why these laws about limits of self defense exists.
- craftinator 8y ago
  And that's the issue. Where do you draw the line of having people take your stuff? At what point is it going to completely ruin your life to have something stolen? I draw the line at having anything stolen, because to some degree I rely on all of my property, and anyone who tries to illegally acquire it will not likely try the same again.
  - watwut 8y ago
    There is far way from "to some degree I rely on it" and "stealing it is effectively trying to kill me. The self defence laws exists literally because of people who rationalized murders with far fetched reasoning like that.
    - craftinator 8y ago
      These self defense laws are loose, inconsistent, and use 20/20 hindsight instead of intent. You can believe you are doing the right thing in the moment, but still be convicted because you necessarily acted on imperfect information. You can say the same about many laws, I imagine. My point is that it doesn't matter what someone is trying to steal. They can't know what impact it will have on you; they don't care what impact it will have. By choosing to violate you, they are inherently choosing to make you an enemy, an opponent, a victim. I firmly believe that this means they have chosen to give up the protections of our legal system in favor of brigandry. I can't see how a murder can occur in these circumstances, with one party forsaking the law to victimize another... No law, no murder.
fwip 8y ago
You're only morally justified in a proportionate and necessary response. If your boss fires you, that's a pretty real threat to your livelihood. Is that attempted murder? Are you going to respond by assaulting him? Any time you think the world is black and white, you're wrong.

watwut 8y ago

You might have reason for last water, but not for stolen car. Stolen car is not sure death nor attempted murder. Even if stolen with gun. You just rationalized killing someone by refraiming his action as something more deadly as it is. Which is literally reason why these laws about limits of self defense exists.

craftinator 8y ago
And that's the issue. Where do you draw the line of having people take your stuff? At what point is it going to completely ruin your life to have something stolen? I draw the line at having anything stolen, because to some degree I rely on all of my property, and anyone who tries to illegally acquire it will not likely try the same again.
- watwut 8y ago
  There is far way from "to some degree I rely on it" and "stealing it is effectively trying to kill me. The self defence laws exists literally because of people who rationalized murders with far fetched reasoning like that.
  - craftinator 8y ago
    These self defense laws are loose, inconsistent, and use 20/20 hindsight instead of intent. You can believe you are doing the right thing in the moment, but still be convicted because you necessarily acted on imperfect information. You can say the same about many laws, I imagine. My point is that it doesn't matter what someone is trying to steal. They can't know what impact it will have on you; they don't care what impact it will have. By choosing to violate you, they are inherently choosing to make you an enemy, an opponent, a victim. I firmly believe that this means they have chosen to give up the protections of our legal system in favor of brigandry. I can't see how a murder can occur in these circumstances, with one party forsaking the law to victimize another... No law, no murder.

fwip 8y ago

You're only morally justified in a proportionate and necessary response. If your boss fires you, that's a pretty real threat to your livelihood. Is that attempted murder? Are you going to respond by assaulting him? Any time you think the world is black and white, you're wrong.