Justified Killing - Progressive vs Conservative morality

[Cow Poke]

My generation was fairly liberal on social issues when I was in my early 20's. We wise up as we get older.

At least that's the hope.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm not. The practice is legal in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands and NZ are pretty similar in levels of liberalness/socio-cultural development. There's no population-wide polling on the issue, but the couple of friends I've chatted to about it have the same view as me.

The GP is generally seen as disgusting in most of the civilized world, except a very few European countries with a high view of euthanasia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4309136/

[Adrift]

Millennials in general are just plain "liberal" across the board by the standards of the older generations. They're virtually all liberals on all the major issues that used to matter in the US. But millennials do have divisions between themselves and are split into two main camps: Libertarians and progressives. Both are liberal on social issues, both are anti-war, but they differ on guns, economics (libertarians are right-wing, progressives are left-wing), and the philosophical justification for their worldview.

Not really what I've seen on places like Reddit. While they are more libertarian-centric, they are most certainly card carrying left wingers. So, for instance, there was MASSIVE support in favor of Bernie Sanders in this recent election among them, while still holding their views on gun ownership.

[Mountain Man]

My generation was fairly liberal on social issues when I was in my early 20's. We wise up as we get older.

As the saying goes, if you're not a liberal when you're younger then you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you're older then you have no brain.

[Mountain Man]

I think they are savvy to the fact that the government just isn't going to come riding in to save the day like the cavalry in old Westerns and if you want the ones you love as well yourself to be safe in a crisis then you need to be the one to step up to the plate.

"When seconds count, remember, the police are only minutes away."

[Spartacus]

Millennials in general are just plain "liberal" across the board by the standards of the older generations. They're virtually all liberals on all the major issues that used to matter in the US. But millennials do have divisions between themselves and are split into two main camps: Libertarians and progressives. Both are liberal on social issues, both are anti-war, but they differ on guns, economics (libertarians are right-wing, progressives are left-wing), and the philosophical justification for their worldview.

You seem to be ignoring the millennial view on abortion.

[rogue06]

"When seconds count, remember, the police are only minutes away."

What most people don't understand is that the job of the police isn't to protect people per se, but to investigate crimes and apprehend those who broke the law. Sort of after the fact stuff. There was even court decisions (Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and Castle Rock v. Gonzales) where someone sued the police for not protecting them and the court ruled that the police weren't responsible for their protection.

[Bisto]

Okay, I will chalk that up to fear. I would prefer to be beaten up than have a person die. Because I value intelligent life.

Good afternoon, Mr. SL.

Reading through this thread, this particular view catches my attention, as I had not heard it before. In your opinion, is there not a line where harm done to other people's lives outweigh the criminal's life? From your post I infer that if a person is out to beat up a man, the man is not justified in defending himself lethally (assuming he has no other way of stopping the criminal). What if a person is out to beat up the man's wife and children? As long as the criminal says "but I won't beat them to death", in your view, the man would not be justified to defend them lethally (assuming he has no other way of stopping him)?

I am sorry if the scenario seems simplistic. I get your point on intelligent life, and the intrinsic value of both men's and their families's lives, but I wonder where you would draw the line, if anywhere. My own opinion on the matter is not yet settled, but I am making a point I presume some of your opponents here could have elaborated on, but never did in the following posts.

[rogue06]

Okay, I will chalk that up to fear. I would prefer to be beaten up than have a person die. Because I value intelligent life.

If you're talking about getting a bloody nose or a black eye I tend to agree, but what if you're subject to being maimed, crippled, blinded or suffer brain damage as a result of the beating? Or a loved one is also at risk of a similar beating and maybe being raped after the person(s) is/are done with you? Would you refuse to protect yourself from a predator who is willing to do this sort of harm and very likely has before or will do so in the future?

[Jedidiah]

The GP is generally seen as disgusting in most of the civilized world, except a very few European countries with a high view of euthanasia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4309136/

Don't worry about that, there is no slippery slope.

[Jedidiah]

If you're talking about getting a bloody nose or a black eye I tend to agree, but what if you're subject to being maimed, crippled, blinded or suffer brain damage as a result of the beating? Or a loved one is also at risk of a similar beating and maybe being raped after the person(s) is/are done with you? Would you refuse to protect yourself from a predator who is willing to do this sort of harm and very likely has before or will do so in the future?

Yeah! I was not talking about a punch in the nose, but a real threat.

[Carrikature]

Not really what I've seen on places like Reddit. While they are more libertarian-centric, they are most certainly card carrying left wingers. So, for instance, there was MASSIVE support in favor of Bernie Sanders in this recent election among them, while still holding their views on gun ownership.

Using 'Reddit' in this manner is like saying 'Americans'. There's nothing like a consistent ideology among Redditors. It'd be different if you were listing specific sub-reddits.

[CMD]

Yeah! I was not talking about a punch in the nose, but a real threat.

...although even a single blow can be deadly or cause serious, life-long damage. There have been no shortage of instances where someone - even someone young and healthy - has been killed or paralyzed from a single punch, kick, knee, elbow, or a throw to the ground.

A single blow to the chest or back can stop your heart (commotio cordis), cause internal bleeding, result in potentially fatal damage to internal organs such as the liver, spleen and kidneys (often as a result of broken ribs), and cause severe neck and spinal cord injuries.

A single blow to the head can cause internal bleeding, swelling, contusions, diffuse axonal injuries, the formation of blood clots...

This is hardly an exhaustive list, and the risks of serious injury or death only go up if you're anything other than a healthy young adult in good physical condition and/or your attacker has a size/strength advantage over you.

Starlight's attitude of "it's just a beating, no big deal" is all kinds of laughably stupid.

[Starlight]

Reading through this thread, this particular view catches my attention, as I had not heard it before. In your opinion, is there not a line where harm done to other people's lives outweigh the criminal's life? From your post I infer that if a person is out to beat up a man, the man is not justified in defending himself lethally (assuming he has no other way of stopping the criminal). What if a person is out to beat up the man's wife and children? As long as the criminal says "but I won't beat them to death", in your view, the man would not be justified to defend them lethally (assuming he has no other way of stopping him)?

I am sorry if the scenario seems simplistic. I get your point on intelligent life, and the intrinsic value of both men's and their families's lives, but I wonder where you would draw the line, if anywhere. My own opinion on the matter is not yet settled, but I am making a point I presume some of your opponents here could have elaborated on, but never did in the following posts.

It seems a very strange hypothetical scenario where the only available defense is lethal defense. For example, if you had a gun, which is the main weapon that offers lethal defense, then your options include threatening to use it on the criminal and actually using it non-lethally on an arm or a leg and attempting to disable them. However, it is my view that a criminal trying to beat up your family does not validate shooting them four times in the chest, for example.

In general, the answer to your question is that I do not agree that the use of lethal force is reasonable in such situations, because the value of the criminal's life outweighs the non-lethal harm done to people. Not to mention that it sets a terrible precedent of people thinking they are free to kill criminals whenever they feel threatened.

[Starlight]

Starlight's attitude of "it's just a beating, no big deal" is all kinds of laughably stupid.

Your reinterpretation of my view is all kinds of laughably stupid. I never said a beating wasn't a big deal. What I said was that the value of intelligent life is a bigger deal.

I'm saying that the view of "they're just a criminal, therefore their life doesn't matter and it's fine for people to kill them" is unacceptable and immoral.