4 ms·
This is incorrect, it is an appeal to false authority, the "Nuremberg" defense. If you, as an individual, take by force the property of a person that has not de
by glennvtx 5y ago
This is incorrect, it is an appeal to false authority, the "Nuremberg" defense.
If you, as an individual, take by force the property of a person that has not demonstrably harmed another, you are a thief.
If you kick in the door of another human being, that has not demonstrably harmed another's person, or by extension, property, you are an armed home invader.
"The law" does not change your moral obligations.
"the law" is historically speaking, a very poor measure of morality.
You have every right to extract a lethal price
from those that would trespass your person or property at gunpoint, as is happening here. They are armed robbers, and will continue to be until it is no longer worth "the cost".
- edmcnulty101 5y agoFighting criminals and killing evil people is considered moral. The police could argue that the they are moral by taking drug money from drug offenders, and using a no knock warrant To catch a criminal.... and as a matter of fact that's exactly what is argued. Many Indian people consider it immoral to eat a cow but that's moral in America. The Germans viewed the Jewish people as evil and so the guards could have believed they were doing something moral at Nuremberg. Morality is vague and hard to pin down. The law doesn't reflect morality but morality isn't objective, so that's good. Laws are supposed to be purely utilitarian and functional and to represent what society as a whole views as the correct way to keep the machinery of society running smoothly.
- tsol 5y ago>Many Indian people consider it immoral to eat a cow but that's moral in America. Technically, but that's an Hindu belief not a Indian belief
- edmcnulty101 5y agoX group views Y practice as immoral.