20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it is a last resort and all other peaceful means of preventing the abortion have failed then, yes, I would say it is morally permissible.
So shooting him at his home is morally impermissable. How about as he was about to make the first incision in the operating room?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerSnotnose comments as usual. It's open as the thread is open, isn't it?
Why don't we just open this up to the other readers of this thread? See what they think? Or do you have special expertise in this area?
There's been very little debate about the moral permissibility of 1. Why do you think that is? Because 1) virtually no one uses PDE and 2) very few people are pacifist to the degree that they would allow a child to be killed when that could be avoided by killing the would be murderer.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo the moral mistake James Kopp made was in not shooting Dr. Slepian at a later time. Thanks for playing.
If it is a last resort and all other peaceful means of preventing the abortion have failed then, yes, I would say it is morally permissible.
EDIT: Does it matter that it would have been more difficult to shoot him as an abortion was getting under way? There are guards at abortion clinics these days. Does it matter that by shooting him at his home James Kopp was eliminating the possibility of harm to others (if he shot at him during the abortion he might hit the "baby"😉?
20 Feb 07
What about this comment from a Robert Ferguson - is it consistent with Christian theology (if not why?):
If James Kopp actually shot baby
killer Slepian- he did NOT violate the sixth
commandment "Thou shall not Murder." or "kill"
as the intent was to *prevent* future innocent
humans from imminent death.. The word "kill"
(ratsach) in the Sixth Commandment is never
used in the context that stopped abortionist
Slepian from killing additional innocent humans.
Justifiable homicide is a legitimate spiritual
practice and is a "reasonable worship/service"
for those presenting their bodies a living sacrifice
as earnestly requested of Christians in Romans
12:1-2 Saving an innocent life from an unjust
aggressor is a good, honorable and Godly thing.
Laws which allow one man to defend himself
against another, even with lethal force should be
honored and applied to these men (and women)
of valor as they stem from the truth of God's
word.
This and plenty more are available at http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKoppDeclaration.html
You can even add your name to the Declaration of Support for James Kopp!
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said earlier, people use PDE all the time without explicitly calling it out or "compartmentalising their thoughts". For instance, the doctor who decides to give a young patient an injection (quite painful for a child) judges correctly that it is moral -- and if you asked him to detail the basis on which he reached his judgment you'll see that it is something very much like PDE (if not the same). PDE is implicit in common situations where you hear things like "I didn't mean to hurt you" and everyday wisdom like "Two wrongs do not make a right" or "Evil may not be done so that good may come of it".
People don't compartmentalize their thoughts in the manner you and PDE propose. And the fact they don't makes PDE useless. It seems to be used primarily for after the fact justification to get to the "right" result as the examples in your link makes clear (terrorist bombing - bad; hiroshima -OK).
PDE isn't some arcane doctrine drawn up by ivory tower philosophers -- it's an articulation of common moral decision procedures we use.
And, btw, I do not hold that the Hiroshima bombing was morally permissible.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderJuvenile barbs as usual. Dialogue is supposed to be civil, remember?
Snotnose comments as usual. It's open as the thread is open, isn't it?
There's been very little debate about the moral permissibility of 1. Why do you think that is? Because 1) virtually no one uses PDE and 2) very few people are pacifist to the degree that they would allow a child to be killed when that could be avoided by killing the would be murderer.
As I've been saying all along, people do use PDE but not as an explicit algorithm every time they are faced with difficult moral choices. If you prod the people who felt that H1 was morally permissible you'll see that many of them do, indeed, articulate their reasoning in terms very similar to PDE. Further, as Nordlys responded, I hold that very few of them will respond that they intended to kill the woman.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's probably true (I assume you mean when it could only be avoided by killing the would-be murderer). However, I am still not convinced most people would think the would-be murderer should be killed, rather than using killing as a last resort when saving both lives is not possible. I may be wrong, and I don't have any studies to refer to. If there are studies out there which back up what you said, I'd love to see them. (Of course, if there are studies out there which back up what I have said, I would be even happier.)
2) very few people are pacifist to the degree that they would allow a child to be killed when that could be avoided by killing the would be murderer.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're conflating the two senses of "moral" as I said earlier. Saying something is morally permissible is not the same as saying that it is the morally optimal thing to do or that it is incumbent on everyone in that situation to do. 'Morally permissible' does not equate to 'morally required'.
So the moral mistake James Kopp made was in not shooting Dr. Slepian at a later time. Thanks for playing.
EDIT: Does it matter that it would have been more difficult to shoot him as an abortion was getting under way? There are guards at abortion clinics these days. Does it matter that by shooting him at his home James Kopp was eliminating the possibility of harm to others (if he shot at him during the abortion he might hit the "baby"😉?
Regarding the points you raised in your edit -- they do not matter with respect to the moral permissibility of shooting Dr. Slepian in his home.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerCertainly they will say that their primary purpose was saving the life of the child; that is uninteresting. But most will see that the intent to kill the woman is inseparable from the intent to save the child; any other interpretation is "ivory tower". And most will say that killing a would be murderer is a moral permissible act.
Juvenile barbs as usual. Dialogue is supposed to be civil, remember?
As I've been saying all along, people do use PDE but not as an explicit algorithm every time they are faced with difficult moral choices. If you prod the people who felt that H1 was morally permissible you'll see that many of them do, indeed, articulate their reasoning in terms ve ...[text shortened]... lys responded, I hold that very few of them will respond that they intended to kill the woman.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't support James Kopp as I hold his action to be morally impermissible, as I explained earlier. If all you want to achieve with this thread is tar pro-lifers like me by association then simply say so. I'll just point out that this is neither dialogue nor debate - but politicking.
What about this comment from a Robert Ferguson - is it consistent with Christian theology (if not why?):
If James Kopp actually shot baby
killer Slepian- he did NOT violate the sixth
commandment "Thou shall not Murder." or "kill"
as the intent was to *prevent* future innocent
humans from imminent death.. The word "kill"
(ratsach) ...[text shortened]... html
You can even add your name to the Declaration of Support for James Kopp!
I don't know if Bob Ferguson's comment is consistent with other Christian denominations' theologies, but it is not consistent with Catholic moral theology which does hold to PDE.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not conflating them at all and you know it. I'm talking moral permissibility as I've already pointed out several times.
You're conflating the two senses of "moral" as I said earlier. Saying something is morally permissible is not the same as saying that it is the morally optimal thing to do or that it is incumbent on everyone in that situation to do. 'Morally permissible' does not equate to 'morally required'.
Regarding the points you raised in your edit -- they do not matter with respect to the moral permissibility of shooting Dr. Slepian in his home.
Why don't they matter? Is reducing the danger to others not a part of the moral calculus?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour position is that killing Dr. Slepian would have been morally permissable in an operating room but not at his home. Is that not correct?
I don't support James Kopp as I hold his action to be morally impermissible, as I explained earlier. If all you want to achieve with this thread is tar pro-lifers like me by association then simply say so. I'll just point out that this is neither dialogue nor debate - but politicking.
I don't know if Bob Ferguson's comment is consistent with other ...[text shortened]... ' theologies, but it is not consistent with Catholic moral theology which does hold to PDE.
20 Feb 07
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you regard it as any less immoral for a mother to kill her soon-to-be-born baby (e.g., due in one day) than for a mother to kill her just-born-baby (e.g., one day old)?
OK, remember that these examples take as a given that a human being/person exists from the moment of conception.
1) KellyTay is walking down the street and sees Woman A about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B. He pulls a gun out and shoots Woman A, killing her but saving the life of Baby A.
Moral or immoral act?
2) Kelly ...[text shortened]... lthy baby. KellyTay has thus saved the "life" of the unborn "baby".
Moral or immoral act?
If not, at what point does a moral difference emerge (e.g., due in two days vs. two days old; due in three days vs. three days old; etc.)?
If so, at what point does a moral difference vanish (e.g., due in two hours vs. two hours old; due in two minutes vs. two minutes old; etc.)?
This is fertile ground for a Sorites paradox, don't you think?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is any other interpretation "ivory tower"? Because you say so?
Certainly they will say that their primary purpose was saving the life of the child; that is uninteresting. But most will see that the intent to kill the woman is inseparable from the intent to save the child; any other interpretation is "ivory tower". And most will say that killing a would be murderer is a moral permissible act.
I hold (and, I hold, reasonably so) that most people would see lethal force as a last resort. Contrary to your assertion, in my experience most people are sensible enough to distinguish between the intent to save the child and the intent to kill the woman. They are not so bloodthirsty as to demand the death of the woman, or feel regret that she still lives (supposing she survives the shot).
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerRed herring. In this case, the intents are the same as one can't accomplish the saving of the child without killing the would be murderer. And the vast majority of people would have no problem with this. And they wouldn't parse their thoughts in the split seconds that preceded the act of killing to determine if they were thinking "I have to save the child" or "I have to kill the woman" and judging the moral permissibility on which thought went through their minds or was foremost.
Why is any other interpretation "ivory tower"? Because you say so?
I hold (and, I hold, reasonably so) that most people would see lethal force as a last resort. Contrary to your assertion, in my experience most people are sensible enough to distinguish between the intent to save the child and the intent to kill the woman. They are not so bloodthirs ...[text shortened]... the death of the woman, or feel regret that she still lives (supposing she survives the shot).