T0M writes:
> Hal wrote:
> >To carry a lethal weapon, as others have pointed out, means adjusting
> >your thought processes to the point where you are prepared to exercise
> >lethal force.
>
> I don't see the necessity of that relation. One might be quite willing to
> carry a lethal weapon and yet be quite unwilling to use it. By far the
> majority of defensive uses of firearms involve mere brandishing them. It
> suffices to give the impression that you can and will use deadly force.
I agree that carrying a weapon without intent to use it (such as carrying
an unloaded weapon) does not raise the moral issues I was concerned about.
If you have no intention of taking another life in response to robbery or
rape then you are not in danger of depersonalizing criminals. There are
some practical dangers in brandishing a weapon without being prepared
to use it, but I suspect that Tom is right, and most of the time this
would be an effective strategy.
> >In the long run, isn't it possible that this psychological adjustment will
> >be damaging to your relationships with other people? Aren't killers (and
> >potential killers) going to be a little more cold-blooded, a little more
> >impersonal and hard-hearted?
>
> To the contrary, I would argue that a person unwilling to conceive of using
> deadly force in defense of self and loved ones lacks both self-regard and a
> callous attitude toward the very people who most deserve protection. Imagine
> a father who says, "Oh, my, no! I would not shoot someone even if it were
> the only way to stop them from raping my wife and killing my children! That
> would be so, so . . . cruel!" I think we would rightly regard that fellow as
> not just a coward but as morally culpable for failing to shoulder his
> responsibilities. Would he nonetheless seem admirably warm-blooded,
> personal, and soft-hearted to Hal? If so, I aver that one can take such
> traits, however virtuous in moderation, to unvirtuous extremes.
I would not view such a person with condemnation. There are those,
Quakers and such, who have taken a vow of non-violence and would not
apply lethal force even against such provocation as Tom describes.
These are peaceful people and I would hesitate to call them unvirtuous
because they will not kill.
It's important to keep in mind that the chances of actually facing
such a situation are minute in the extreme. Most of the cases I was
describing were the far more common (but still rare) situations of
ordinary violence.
Unfortunately, given the uncertainties arising in a crisis, it seems
unlikely that you can wait to pull your gun until you have determined
that a violent situation is about to escalate to a lethal level, where
your children are about to be killed (it's questionable whether killing
would be justified in order to prevent rape). This means that you have
to threaten to kill at an earlier point in the interaction. And most
other commentators seem to agree that you should take threaten to kill
only if you are convinced that killing would be justified.
On this basis I think the real issue is not whether one would kill in
response to the worst possible lethal threat imaginable, but whether one
is prepared to take a life in response to a lower level of violent attack.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:49 MDT