― gareth, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Richard Tunnicliffe, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― scott, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
In that case, don't let her off the hook. In fact, directly tell her that if she has no alternatives then implicitly she wants to do nothing. If that pisses her off, good -- it'll make her think more about what *can* be done, and it need not be militaristic.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I beleive that every human being has the freedom and right to live in any way in which they choose so long as their way of life does not impinge on any other human's rights and freedoms to do the same.
from this you can derive society.
Therefore if you kill somebody you remove there right and freedom to live in the manner of their choosing.
Therefore I abhor killing.
This was reinforced on september the 11th when I saw individual people leap to their deaths and the moment when many more lost their lives.
noone should be killed. Even if the perpetrators of 11/9/01 are caught they should not face the death penalty.
this is where I start and this is clear in my mind, however this is where things start to break down. Under my first principle the taleban disgust me because they strip people of the basic right to the freedom to determine their lives. However military action disgusts me for the same reasons.
I have no answers. The only answer is the ideal of democracy. Democracy is a utopian ideal that cannot be achieved by humans. No one on this earth has their full basic freedom, under my first principle.
Don't be fooled by my first principle, along with the right comes the responsibilty to maintain the rights of all others.
Killing is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is.
― Ed, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mike Hanle y, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Are you saying that any action which causes the death of innocent people is wrong, regardless of a) intent, and b) the innocent people, perhaps a great many more of them, who may be saved as a consequence.
A) Every time you get behind the wheel of a car there's a chance you may kill an innocent person. You could say the chances of doing so are far less than with a bombing raid and that's true of each individual journey, but we don't only make a single journey and it's a fact that millions have had their rights, their freedom, their lives wiped out because of auto accidents. Does this mean we should not drive?
B) Hypothetically, if a fanatical regime were planning to set off a nuclear weapon, but by obliterating the command centres of this regime (and in the process all the innocent people who happened to be nearby) such an outcome could be averted, would it be wrong to act? - I don't think such a scenario is so far removed from what's happening at present.
― scott, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Kerry, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ed, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)