[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:14:56 -0400
What is peculiar to me is the continuum of 'right and wrong'
1) If you THINK there is a possibility of someone killing your wife next
week, you can't take any real action unless he actually threatens to do so.
Even then, if he really wants to do it, he can violate a 'restraining order'.
2) If that same guy breaks into your house next week and has a gun to your
wife's head, you CAN kill him because you "were protecting her"
3) TWO SECONDS after he kills her, you could PROBABLY get away with
shooting him (you weren't thinking straight and thought there was still hope)
4) Two minutes after he kills her, you MIGHT get away with killing the guy
while he begs for his life (it's a crime of passion, probably get a slap on
the wrist manslaughter charge)
5) Two hours after, you get a gun, run after him and shoot him in the back
-- premeditated MURDER.
So... we apparently can ONLY use preventative maintenance. Retribution is
NOT an option -- unless of course perpetrated by the court system.
It's funny how in the large scheme of things, preventative wars are almost
never accepted, but striking back is almost universally accepted.
Micro/Macrocosm is funny that way.
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
