I got into an argument with Jacob Fishbeck about morality, and just how subjective it is . He took a hardline stance that if some one violates your rights then you have all authority to protect them even if that means you have to kill them . I told him that because death is irreversible a violent reaction to a violation of rights is only just when life itself is threatened. He said that his private property is an extension of his life(because its a result of his labor and time) so he has every right to protect it to the same degree. I said your property rights even if violated arent reason enough to justify a killing because a life is far more valuable than any material thing . A life cant be replaced ,but items can. He then told me that I was Immoral . Preserving human life trumps private property rights. I dont think thats an Immoral position at all. Am I wrong? By that same degree Wal-mart would be just for shooting shoplifters , if they felt it was the best way to discourage shoplifting and protecting their private property(corporations are people too) .
Posted on: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:02:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015