2 ms·

I think what the GP was getting at is that they're both actions that are (in the mind of the person executing the action in question) necessary to achieve the d

I think what the GP was getting at is that they're both actions that are (in the mind of the person executing the action in question) necessary to achieve the desired effect. If you think that it is absolutely necessary to stop the knife-wielding attacker then you'll take any action necessary to do so. That shooting him in the leg was enough doesn't mean you wouldn't have gone further. If you think there's an international Jewish conspiracy that must be stopped you'll also take any action necessary to do so. The difference in scale is, I think, irrelevant. Under no circumstances would someone need to kill millions of people to stop a single stabber. At that point you're arguing the analogy, not the argument.

coldtea 3y ago
>The difference in scale is, I think, irrelevant. Under no circumstances would someone need to kill millions of people to stop a single stabber. At that point you're arguing the analogy, not the argument. The argument is made in the form of an analogy though. And what's more the parent insists that the main difference is "scale". I don't think the main difference is scale. I think the difference is one is a legitimate action in defense, and the other is not. That's objectively so, regarless of if Hitler believed in a conspiracy or not. And even if he did legitimately believe in a Jewish conspiracy, still killing non-participating Jews (like babies and regular folk) would not be in defence even then, it would be proactive. One could legitimately believe a whole class of people are in a vast conspiracy, and still find killing them that way abhorent and not wanting to do it. That would be like the cop killing a guy who thinks might attack someone with a knife in the future, or who thinks their kid will.
- boxed 3y ago
  [flagged]
- c22 3y ago
  What exactly makes an action a "legitimate action in defense?" John T Williams had a knife, but I'm not sure his killing was legitimate.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    (a) It being in defence (b) The force used being proportionate to the danger In that case John wasn't attacking anyone at the monent, so no defence. The 4 shots are also way disrpoportionate to the non-danger. And they came within 5 seconds of ordering to drop his knife, which again is not enough time to react (also assuming he could hear it). In this case the shooting is more of an illegitimate action of offense. Note that police doesn't just do actions for defence, but also e.g. to enforce some law. But the shooting, 4 times, lethally, of someone away from you, carrying a knife, within 5 seconds of you having told them to drop it, is not justified even under this context. At least it wouldn't be acceptable in any civilized country.

coldtea 3y ago

>The difference in scale is, I think, irrelevant. Under no circumstances would someone need to kill millions of people to stop a single stabber. At that point you're arguing the analogy, not the argument. The argument is made in the form of an analogy though. And what's more the parent insists that the main difference is "scale". I don't think the main difference is scale. I think the difference is one is a legitimate action in defense, and the other is not. That's objectively so, regarless of if Hitler believed in a conspiracy or not. And even if he did legitimately believe in a Jewish conspiracy, still killing non-participating Jews (like babies and regular folk) would not be in defence even then, it would be proactive. One could legitimately believe a whole class of people are in a vast conspiracy, and still find killing them that way abhorent and not wanting to do it. That would be like the cop killing a guy who thinks might attack someone with a knife in the future, or who thinks their kid will.

boxed 3y ago
[flagged]
c22 3y ago
What exactly makes an action a "legitimate action in defense?" John T Williams had a knife, but I'm not sure his killing was legitimate.
- coldtea 3y ago
  (a) It being in defence (b) The force used being proportionate to the danger In that case John wasn't attacking anyone at the monent, so no defence. The 4 shots are also way disrpoportionate to the non-danger. And they came within 5 seconds of ordering to drop his knife, which again is not enough time to react (also assuming he could hear it). In this case the shooting is more of an illegitimate action of offense. Note that police doesn't just do actions for defence, but also e.g. to enforce some law. But the shooting, 4 times, lethally, of someone away from you, carrying a knife, within 5 seconds of you having told them to drop it, is not justified even under this context. At least it wouldn't be acceptable in any civilized country.