Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Humanbeing]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

[Pattern-chaser]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

[Samana Johann]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

If one understands that actions are one's own, one understands that not doing any harm is actually the only real self-defense, good householder. Bad actions wouldn't make one long happy...

What ever else on would defense by bad ways, this will break apart anyway, couldn't be taken as own, yet the results of actions follow.

[Samana Johann]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

[Pattern-chaser]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

[Sculptor1]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

Tennessee just passed a law enabling all school teachers to open carry guns.

So the answer to your question seems to vary from place to place.

[LuckyR]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

"Should"? The reality is, it's whatever you can convince 12 people who can't get out of jury duty.

In my opinion it's whatever it takes to make the threat or attack stop. So if you pull pepper spray and the perp stops and moves away, you shouldn't hit the trigger.

[Samana Johann]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

So two eyes for the possibility of losing one... as if there is any different in thinking... as if protection could ever harm. Offensive can harm.

[Samana Johann]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

Tennessee just passed a law enabling all school teachers to open carry guns.

So the answer to your question seems to vary from place to place.

What a sample... way of life like animals. And as if mind has a place on it's own.

[Sculptor1]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

Tennessee just passed a law enabling all school teachers to open carry guns.

So the answer to your question seems to vary from place to place.

What a sample... way of life like animals. And as if mind has a place on it's own.

And do YOU think your response means anything?

[Samana Johann]

Should a right to self defense against body and property extend to causing grevious hurt or death ? Since in such cases a person cannot be reasonably expected to know the intentions of the offender or the proportionality of their own response. Is it permissible to use any and all force to resist ?

One of the arguments in favour of this is that the offender loses their rights the moment they attack or threaten bodily harm. And one truly doesn't have rights if they can't protect themselves from infringement against private harm

Tennessee just passed a law enabling all school teachers to open carry guns.

So the answer to your question seems to vary from place to place.

What a sample... way of life like animals. And as if mind has a place on it's own.

And do YOU think your response means anything?

As for why telling even it seems pointless: Sick People

[Sculptor1]

Tennessee just passed a law enabling all school teachers to open carry guns.

So the answer to your question seems to vary from place to place.

What a sample... way of life like animals. And as if mind has a place on it's own.

And do YOU think your response means anything?

As for why telling even it seems pointless: Sick People

Yes, I get that you are sick. But I was just wondering if you had any specific meaning to convey in the phrase.."What a sample... way of life like animals. And as if mind has a place on it's own."

[Pattern-chaser]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

So two eyes for the possibility of losing one... as if there is any different in thinking... as if protection could ever harm. Offensive can harm.

I'm sorry, but your words don't seem to have anything to do with mine; and they don't make sense to me. Perhaps you might try to express yourself more simply, rather than attempting a poetic, stream-of-consciousness, approach in a language that is not your own?

[Samana Johann]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

So two eyes for the possibility of losing one... as if there is any different in thinking... as if protection could ever harm. Offensive can harm.

I'm sorry, but your words don't seem to have anything to do with mine; and they don't make sense to me. Perhaps you might try to express yourself more simply, rather than attempting a poetic, stream-of-consciousness, approach in a language that is not your own?

Obviously the matter of virtue and ethic is so far appart and utopian for yours, that it would take many lifetimes for yours. It's all just shared for those with some relation, those sick who could be healed, good householder.

It's impossible to speak on virtue with someone who can find such within oneself and such would just get annoyed and angry.

[Pattern-chaser]

The usual answer to this question is that actions taken in 'self-defence' should be in proportion with the attack.

And eye for an eye, ear for an ear... not even animals are that foolish and seek a way out.

No, an "eye for an eye" describes *vengeance*, not self-defence. The former is violent retribution; the latter is protective.

So two eyes for the possibility of losing one... as if there is any different in thinking... as if protection could ever harm. Offensive can harm.

I'm sorry, but your words don't seem to have anything to do with mine; and they don't make sense to me. Perhaps you might try to express yourself more simply, rather than attempting a poetic, stream-of-consciousness, approach in a language that is not your own?

Obviously the matter of virtue and ethic is so far appart and utopian for yours, that it would take many lifetimes for yours. It's all just shared for those with some relation, those sick who could be healed, good householder.

It's impossible to speak on virtue with someone who can find such within oneself and such would just get annoyed and angry.

Your response is dismissive, and wrapped in incompletely-described gobbledygook. I regret that I cannot respond in the way the topic would seem to deserve.