7 ms·

What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination?

by plantain 5y ago

qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
- twojacobtwo 5y ago
  > to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify regaining possession of property, which is what the GP was talking about. Also: > At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide.
- cmac2992 5y ago
  How can the castle doctrine possibly be applied to most catalytic converter thefts???
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Typically, the laws governing one’s jurisdiction.
- plantain 5y ago
  I'm asking on a moral level.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    If human lives are valuable, then I suppose the same also applies to my own life. If a hostile stranger appeared at night in my house, I would take his life to protect mine. Yes, the entire situation is regretful, but it was his choice to make it happen, not mine. I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, or trespassing on my lawn.
  - chii 5y ago
    morality is subjective; there's no universal morality. That's why laws exist - to make clear what is acceptable to do, and what is not.
foxrider 5y ago
I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even have any rights to begin with or if these are just privileges granted to you by the others.
- ketzo 5y ago
  But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
  - foxrider 5y ago
    I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
    - uoaei 5y ago
      And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.
CamperBob2 5y ago
What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination? The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break into my house. If you want to argue that human life has inherent value that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never right for me to take someone's life in defense of my property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with something objective if you want to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs up your position. Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is always possible. Are there other points of view on this, that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same flaws as the original argument, and can't always be applied in the heat of the moment.)
- maxerickson 5y ago
  You are assuming a right to property (along the same lines as your argument about people assuming inherent value).
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago

What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination?

qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

twojacobtwo 5y ago
> to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify regaining possession of property, which is what the GP was talking about. Also: > At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide.
cmac2992 5y ago
How can the castle doctrine possibly be applied to most catalytic converter thefts???

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Typically, the laws governing one’s jurisdiction.

plantain 5y ago
I'm asking on a moral level.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  If human lives are valuable, then I suppose the same also applies to my own life. If a hostile stranger appeared at night in my house, I would take his life to protect mine. Yes, the entire situation is regretful, but it was his choice to make it happen, not mine. I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, or trespassing on my lawn.
- chii 5y ago
  morality is subjective; there's no universal morality. That's why laws exist - to make clear what is acceptable to do, and what is not.

foxrider 5y ago

I think that you have the right to protect your rights at all costs. If your rights are being violated it's OK to reclaim it by returning the favor. If you don't believe it then there's a discussion to be had about if you even have any rights to begin with or if these are just privileges granted to you by the others.

ketzo 5y ago
But surely there are degrees to this? I mean, if someone tall sits in front of you at the movies, they are violating your right to full viewership of the movie. If you get cut off in traffic, your rights are being violated. Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
- foxrider 5y ago
  I think you're confusing rights with something else here. I'm specifically talking about natural rights, and I don't know if you're trying to steer the dialog into "what is a right" or just have a wrong idea, but I am not interested in philosophy or deconstruction of well established concepts
  - uoaei 5y ago
    And who is it that gets to draw the boundary around "natural rights"? The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22. Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      A natural right is a right that you are born with. Rights aren't defined prescriptively in the way that you imply. They're enumerated and acknowledged. Not granted.

CamperBob2 5y ago

What gives you the right to make a life-ending determination? The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break into my house. If you want to argue that human life has inherent value that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never right for me to take someone's life in defense of my property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with something objective if you want to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs up your position. Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is always possible. Are there other points of view on this, that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same flaws as the original argument, and can't always be applied in the heat of the moment.)

maxerickson 5y ago
You are assuming a right to property (along the same lines as your argument about people assuming inherent value).
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago