I understand what you are saying here, and the emotional appeal is strong. However, it fails to take into account conflicts of interest.
A mugger attacks you, seeking to take your property. He has no right to
your property, but retains his right to life. You, of course, retain your right to the property in question, which could include your very life.
Now what? Your choice is to allow the mugger to do as he pleases, or to defend against him with possible fatality being the result for him, in
apparent violation of his right to life. That, of course, is a flawed view of the situation because the mugger is acting criminally. When doing so, one places his own claims (rights) in peril. It may be validly argued one way or the other as to whether a man has a right to act criminally, especially under certain circumstances. For instance, the starving man lost in the wilderness scenario where he stumbles upon a hunting cable, breaks in, and tends to his most basic needs in violation of the property rights of the owner of the edifice.
Whatever the position on such a matter, the violator nonetheless places himself at risk when committing crimes against others, even when he does so to save his own life.
For instance, imagine Johnny chooses to commit an act of self-preservation that will result in the death or injury to one or more others. Jimmy sees the pending threat, draws a weapon and shoots Johnny stone dead in order to save the would-be victims. We can assume anything we want about Johnny's knowledge aforethought, it makes no matter - he knew or did not know what his choice would precipitate for the others - he still holds the right to preserve himself, even if it results in the death of others. Why? Because he holds claim to Life itself -
HIS life, meaning is it equal to the claims of any other man, as well as the sum of all other claims on the earth. There exists no moral authority anywhere that may validly reduce the status of his claim to one of inferiority, no matter which other life stands in question, or how many.
Likewise, all other lives taken singly are equal in status to Johnny's. When Johnny's life is placed under immediate threat through no fault of his own (i.e., not as the result of Johnny's criminal behavior), he stands centrally within his right as a living, sentient being to exercise the means of making good on his valid claim to continue his existence. In equal fashion, those who fall under the threat of his choices pursuant to Johnny's decision not to go quietly into that night share equal authority to exercise whatever means they might have at hand to continue their own lives, as well.
Each party in question holds equal moral authority to act in defense of self. Circumstance in this case is such that equally innocent parties have come into conflict with one other through no faults of their own, each acting validly to preserve their lives pursuant to their individual claims and the valid authority that follows therefrom. If one or all parties are killed in result, nobody is to blame. If Jimmy kills Johnny, he rests innocent of any wrongdoing. If Johnny kills one or more of the innocent bystanders, he stands equally innocent. There is no point of justice to be made there because the threats arose
accidentally. The only party guilty of criminal acts is the one who threatened Johnny such that he felt compelled to act to preserve himself, assuming such a cause. But the same holds otherwise as well. If Johnny had a blowout on a mountain road such that he can either fly into a 5000' ravine to his death, or into a crowd of innocents, and he chooses the latter, he is guilty of no crime. Yet, a man on a bulldozer who pulls in front of the oncoming vehicle in order to save said innocents, resulting in Johnny's death, stands equally innocent in his choice to preserve life.
These are conflicts of interest due to pure accident of circumstance. Each man holds the equal authority to act in preservation of his first property: his life.
IOW, sometimes $#@! happens and nobody is to blame for the lousy outcomes.
Now ask yourself what the metes and bounds of this sort of thing might be. If Johnny were to be diagnosed with cancer and a week to live, does he rest within his right to kidnap a child and eat his kidneys, the only known cure for his malady? Is the answer as clear as it may seem on the surface?
You decide.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Connect With Us