Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:21:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> One should intervene if it is the right thing to do, irrespective of what
> the outcome may be(1). To say otherwise, suggests you would only use your
> gun to defend against "tyranny" if you thought you'd win. How weak is that?
It depends on how you define win. There isn't any point in dying for nothing.
There are situations in which dying is worthwhile. But not when it's just
pointless. If you could defend person X from a wrong, but would be killed, or
you could go on to defend both Y and Z, you might consider yourself under a
moral burden to let X be wronged. So it's not weak at all. It's just not
stupid.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) One should intervene if it is the right thing to do, irrespective of what the outcome may be(1). To say otherwise, suggests you would only use your gun to defend against "tyranny" if you thought you'd win. How weak is that? Scott A I shall (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
