Moral Obligation to Take Action

Status
Not open for further replies.
pfch1977 said:
Is it really my obligation to take action? Certainly I might agree with this if my actions did not put me at risk. However, I am not sure that is true when I might become injuried, disabled, or killed. In fact, even if I personally feel compelled to act, I feel as though I have to weigh the potential disasterous consequences and its impact on my family.
Click to expand...

I, too, have been vigorously wrestling with this very issue for some time now. It has been the subject of long debate between my wife (also a CCWer) and me.

I, too, feel as though I have to weigh the potential disastrous consequences and its impact on my family.

pfch1977 said:
Personally, I am a proponent of carrying for the defense of yourself and your family. Any other use should be carefully weighed. In my mind, if it does not involve me or my family, I need compelling reasons to act. The default is not to take actions unless I must.
Click to expand...

The defense of my family and myself is exactly why I started carrying every day. The defense of the family and themself is exactly why my wife, son, and daughter started carrying every day. All of us would demand compelling reasons to act with lethality. This is not for the faint-hearted.

pfch1977 said:
If they are unwilling to carry a way to defend themselves, why should I feel obligated to defend them?
Click to expand...

You probably aren't obligated to defend the unwilling. Your obligation is to the criminal. Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher Edmund Burke is said to have written the words, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." If we see Evil and do nothing, do we then assist Evil in its triumph? If you noticed that a thug was going to push a little girl into oncoming traffic wouldn't you try to stop it from happening? If you saw a terrorist leave a bag on the subway wouldn't you do something to prevent lots of bloodshed? If a junkie handed a 6-year-old a bag of dope wouldn't you stop the transaction?

Sure, the bed-wetters and gun-control nazis want to strip away our rights of self-defense, and perverse karma would dictate to let them die unprotected. And a single sheepdog cannot always save the entire flock. But I suggest that the object of your concern should not be just the innocent but just as much the guilty. Imagine the nightmares if the criminal you allow to escape today is the same one that kills your loved one, child, or spouse next year.

Not that long ago I thought as you did. But today I have decided it is my obligation, as a member of civilization, to help stop the uncivilized from conquering the civilized.

Just my 2¢
 
Shamalama said:
Not that long ago I thought as you did. But today I have decided it is my obligation, as a member of civilization, to help stop the uncivilized from conquering the civilized.
Click to expand...

In the final analysis, this is the crux of the debate. You are on the "yes, we should" side. And, yes, I also don't want the bad guys to win.

However, let's be sincere and practical.

Most times when I am out, I am eating dinner with my wife or at Borders. In the summer months, I'm out riding and most likely relaxed. I'm in condition yellow, but it's a very dull shade of yellow.

Without warning, an innocent woman screams out, "I'm being attacked and raped!"

From a cold, standing start, we are to believe that I am capable of getting up, wiping my chin and saying to my wife, "Excuse me, dear, I have to go kill somebody."

Then with a cold, dead-calm, I rip the perp off the lady and Mozambique him into hell.

I have to tell you, Shamalama, I've done some thoughtless things in my life. However, when I take an honest audit of my strengths and weaknesses, I don't know if this is possible.

For me, the sides of the debate then become, "Yes, we should," and "No, we should not," and "Can we, at all."
 
David Armstrong, you said that in a previous post "Benny, if it is my mother please just move back and munch on some potato chips until the BG is gone".
Click to expand...
That was not a suggestion to the public at large, Benny, that was a request directed at you in particular. Quite a difference!
 
If we see Evil and do nothing, do we then assist Evil in its triumph?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps not. What if you do something but that in turn furthers greater evil? And of course there is the common mistake that failing to intervene is doing nothing. It is not. If I am a good witness and get the BG put away under the law, Evil has not triumphed. That is the real issue, IMO. It is not a bivariate option, IMO. It is more than "do nothing" versus "shoot the BG." There are potentially lots of things to do between those options.
 
Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship make the answer to this question very simple for me, at least.

"Do not stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed." - Leviticus 19:16

"Where is it taught that it is obligatory to save someone who is being pursued by another with the intent to murder? The Torah teaches 'Do not stand by idly when your brother's life is endangered.'" - Talmud, Sanhedrin 73A.
 
Mvpel, I believe the arguement here is whether intervention increases your neighbors chances of having their blood shed.

There is a special place for someone who has a means to help a neighbor about to die and does nothing..............pretty hot there.
 
Last edited:
Hey, the neighbors could have come to gun school with me. They could have attended karate classes like my family does. They could have come shooting with me when invited. Since that hasn't happened, I don't feel inclined to assume all the risk for their safety when they haven't managed to pull their own weight.

There are significant familial obligations that are placed way ahead of obligations of neighbors who aren't activily involved in preparing for their own defense.
 
I posted this once before. If I come to ill by saving my neighbor, will folks from TFL support my family in their current life style? That's altruism also.
 
Only if your actions save the day and only if your inaction would have resulted in their death.

Personally I don't like playing the odds when death is on the line........especially when its my death on the line. I would prefer to fight.
 
So Threegun, are you saying that you would contribute to my family's expenses for an inderminant time? You would contribute a set amount, legally binding except for emergencies, until they pass away?

Altruism on gun lists usually involves shooting someone and little else.
 
Glenn, I was responding to Boris Bush.

To answer your question however, no I wouldn't take up a collection or donate on a regular basis to one. You can however make the decision to be safe and not help a victim. You can also purchase life insurance to protect your family financially should you die for any number of reasons.
 
Then, I return to my initial analysis - that in many of these moral obligation threads - there is a subtext that we find the use of violence in an altruistic or pro-social scenario compelling and attractive. We think that someone should sacrifice their family's well being for the victim.

However, other altruistic acts that aren't based on violence, aren't attractive. Interesting from the viewpoint of the theories of why people act altruistically. If the goal is to help, then why isn't helping in nonviolent situations equally attractive?
 
Bottom line, Glenn, is that you can always, without exception, find a reasonable, rational reason for doing absolutely nothing to help out a fellow human being--whether it even entails any risk to you or not.

I live a comfortable lifestyle. Earned every penny of it. Grew up struggling and poor, which made me all the hungrier.

But I also grew up in a poor neighborhood in which we--whites, blacks, Mexicans, whatever--all looked out for each other. We were "those people" who lived on the wrong side of town. The people the banks wouldn't give a loan to for a used car--you had to go to a "tote-the-note" ripoff used car dealer. You couldn't get credit at the local grocery store, etc etc.

So we all helped each other and looked out for each other.

It was a lesson well learned in unselfishness.

Everything I've gained, earned and procurred financially--from our home to our airplane, guns, boat, bank accounts, etc--is not worth the shame I would feel looking in the mirror and knowing that I let someone get harmed, raped or killed simply because I didn't want to risk some sheister attorney or overzealous prosecutor "ruining" me.

The minute I did nothing and a life was lost as a result, I became a ruined man. And all the "way I live now" excuses, reasons and rational will not wash away the shame and disgrace I would feel.

Jeff
 
It is easy to say that one can face being a ruined man. The point some folks are making and in the theories of prosocial behavior, is it so easy to make your family a ruined family?

Who are you responsible for? Do you alter their lives? And, again, I don't see those who want to act altruistically and violent, saying unconditionally that they would act altruistically to support the family of the dead hero to save them from ruin?

Could you look in the mirror and let that happen? Now, Jeff - maybe you would step up to help a family - you seem like that sort of guy - but would others and society?

That has to be the part of the equation and is - when people decide to act.

Let's pass good samaritan laws that would support the dead hero's family. A simple tax on ammo - say a quarter a box probably would support the prosocial gun users quite well. I would be OK with that.
 
The cost of doing nothing is your neighbors blood being shed.
Click to expand...
But it is just as likely that doing something (starting a gunfight) will result in your neighbors blood being shed, perhaps even more so, than doing nothing.

The minute I did nothing and a life was lost as a result, I became a ruined man.
Click to expand...
But what if the life was lost as a result of you doing something, a life that would not have been harmed without your intervention? That is the point so many keep ignoring. Assumiing we are still talking robbery, the chance of getting killed is .002. That is probably quite a bit lower than the chance of getting shot in an actual shootout.
 
armed robbery

I'm all for intervening if you have the means to do so, but this is really kind of a silly debate. What are the chances that an armed citizen is going to be in a store at the exact time an armed robbery is taking place, not very good unfortunatley. I believe these criminals know that to, if more people would start carrying guns the fewer crimes would take place. Think about it, if a guy was about to commit armed robbery and he knew there would be a good chance of he himself getting killed he would probably think twice. More armed citizens fewer crimes it's simple as that.
 
It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Only if one is being simplistic. Few wolves are actually wolves, most sheep are not sheep all the time, and a huge number of sheepdogs are actually sheep who have an inflated sense of their own ability or have some great imaginations.
 
In my state, lethal force is expressly authorized for three things, other than self defense or defense of one's home and curtilage.

1. To prevent the imminent use of deadly force upon a third party in the commission of a crime such as armed robbery. In other words, the BG is about to actually shoot the clerk or is shooting at helpless people running around.

2. To stop an act of sexual assault or kidnapping.

3. To stop an act of arson.
Click to expand...

What state is "your state"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top