Reply #95: what's absurd and immoral, and not just to me [View All]

[iverglas]

but to the civilized world in general, is that "intentional deadly force" is allowed in any case, anywhere.

The force that may be authorized, in a society that recognizes the right to life, is the force that is necessary to stop an act that individuals are allowed to act in order to stop.

It may be that the use of such force results in death. It may be that it would have been impossible to avert that result and at the same time avert the serious injury or death of one's self or someone else. But in all cases, the intent must have been to avert that result, not to kill.

It's just one of those really simple, fundamental rules of human society. You don't kill people. If you do, you present your excuse for it, and if it's a recognized excuse -- if it meets the criteria for self-defence, for example -- you don't get convicted or punished.

It applies universally. You don't kill anyone. Because no one's opinion as to the worthiness or unworthiness to live of anyone else is of the slightest importance, and no one is entitled or allowed to act on that opinion. Period.

How obvious is the need for that principle?

Kentucky allows its residents to kill people burning barns. Who's next?