The Argument Of Rain

[Liason]

Alright. I'm Rain, let's hit this. I'm going to shoot out my opinion on a certain topic, and when I've exhausted it, I'll shoot out another. It's also perfectly fine to ask my opinion on another topic, and I'll respond, keeping in mind the topic of this subforum, I'm making this an ethical and logistical argument.

In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?

 

[Resonance]

1) Police with a search warrant?
2) What constitutes 'permission'? Can it be revoked?
3) What constitutes 'entering your home'?

 

[Liason]

Alright. I'm Rain, let's hit this. I'm going to shoot out my opinion on a certain topic, and when I've exhausted it, I'll shoot out another. It's also perfectly fine to ask my opinion on another topic, and I'll respond, keeping in mind the topic of this subforum, I'm making this an ethical and logistical argument.

In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?

EDIT-additional clarification

To clarify on permission, we are under the assumption that people in extreme situations seeing smoke from your home, you have not left/entered/had activity in a while are exceptions. The idea is to argue why my opinion is wrong or right on the punishment to trespassers of ill intent. Also, this is me building upon a simple idea in my brain, finding what I feel is right. My views may build, but won't change i e switch.

 

[Liason]

1) Police with a search warrant?
2) What constitutes 'permission'? Can it be revoked?
3) What constitutes 'entering your home'?

1) That is lawful permission from the social contract assuming you live in a republic. Also, this is hypothetical, so the society could or could not have police. It's more so an ethical debate, without regard to specifications of surrounding factors that induce complications to the situation at hand. Not simplifying the situation, but not complicating it is key.

2) It can if it was given by the landowner and revoked. Idealize that permission is written as a legality in such a situation.

3) Entering your home would count as being within the abode, i e entering through door/window. Yard would be more flexible i e the less invasive nature of such an act and higher probability of lack of intent to trespass after and or before doing such.

 

[Resonance]

1) That is lawful permission from the social contract assuming you live in a republic. Also, this is hypothetical, so the society could or could not have police. It's more so an ethical debate, without regard to specifications of surrounding factors that induce complications to the situation at hand. Not simplifying the situation, but not complicating it is key.

Ok. In what other situations would the social contract (ie. someone who is not you) grant permission?

2) It can if it was given by the landowner and revoked. Idealize that permission is written as a legality in such a situation.

Could I invite you into my home, revoke this permission, and legally kill you?

3) Entering your home would count as being within the abode, i e entering through door/window. Yard would be more flexible i e the less invasive nature of such an act and higher probability of lack of intent to trespass after and or before doing such.

What about by proxy? eg. poking a stick through your window, or driving a remote-controlled vehicle into your home.

 

[Zangetshumody]

personally: i would invite everyone i didn't like into my home, kill them indiscriminately, and then tell the police they all barged in unannounced.

 

[Liason]

personally: i would invite everyone i didn't like into my home, kill them indiscriminately, and then tell the police they all barged in unannounced.

Read replies to Blair

Ok. In what other situations would the social contract (ie. someone who is not you) grant permission?

Government/legal situations. Basically, anything written by the government saying that their officials had legal right to enter your home under subpoenaed permission. In such a situation, the idea is that you are not a co-owner. The abode is under one name, but can be shared financially.

Could I invite you into my home, revoke this permission, and legally kill you?

Only if said party refused to leave after you revoke permission, via destroying their written legal permission. In this idea, there would be two legal documents existing of written permission. A bit similar to the law where a woman can be topless[in some states], but cannot enter stores and such etc. Basically you must have documentation to enter a persons private abode. If the person granted permission's copy is destroyed, they must attain another, and if the person giving the permission :destroys/accidentily destroys: the copy then the permission is invalid likewise.

What about by proxy? eg. poking a stick through your window, or driving a remote-controlled vehicle into your home.

In such an effect, who would poke a stick through someone's window? Anyways, no, such is not entering their home. We are speaking in terms of bodily entrance.

 

[Oaky]

In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?

What if it was a baby that accidentally crawled in your house? I understand your opinion on it however it wouldnt always work. I would not be able to kill someone who trespassed my home if the person was someone who saved my life before. Because I would owe that person my life.
There are a number of cases where I would say it wouldn't necessarily be alright.

 

[Liason]

What if it was a baby that accidentally crawled in your house?

Hypothetically, it is a locked door society.

I understand your opinion on it however it wouldn'*t always work. I would not be able to kill someone who trespassed my home if the person was someone who saved my life before. Because I would owe that person my life.
There are a number of cases where I would say it wouldn't necessarily be alright.

You wouldn't /have/ to kill the person. There is no requirement to, but you have the legal right to. Not legal obligation.

 

[Oaky]

Hypothetically, it is a locked door society. You wouldn't /have/ to kill the person. There is no requirement to, but you have the legal right to. Not legal obligation.

Well you see, it's quite hard to figure this one out on what we have to right to do or not. Because you see, my values and my logical side are fighting in my mind right now on what should be the case. One side says no on certain aspects where the other side agrees with you whole opinion on the matter.

 

[Liason]

Well you see, it's quite hard to figure this one out on what we have to right to do or not. Because you see, my values and my logical side are fighting in my mind right now on what should be the case. One side says no on certain aspects where the other side agrees with you whole opinion on the matter.

Isn't that what makes this sort of thing so fun?

 

[Oaky]

Isn't that what makes this sort of thing so fun?

Quite.

 

[Liason]

Quite.

My logical views are much higher than my emotional views, thusly, they can easily condemn and shut them out. Although balance is often needed for most situations, I am not easily able to integrate my Feeling functions to my Te+Ni thought process.

 

[The Curator]

In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?

To some extent, I agree on the basis of a person has the right to their own home and their own personal space, their domain as we do now in the States to some degree. I feel that the right to one's personal space is one of the fundamental rights of a person, we all need our space be it in the physical world in the form of a home or a room or in the mental in-materialistic plane, within our minds. I seem to be going off topic.

However, we must still take into account what has been mentioned that some people may take the right of being able to just off somebody in their home because they are uninvited, there are SO many variables that can go into it. One resident of a house has someone over, another resident of the home arrives there, sees someone they don't know and well I don't have to elaborate on what could happen. Albeit those incidents could be rare and few and far in between, the likelihood of them happening is enough to make me question it. Also the wonderful media would BLOW it completely out of proportion when and if it did happen and make people think that it happens all the time and is a terrible atrocious law and sway their opinion because it would "make good tv".

In my opinion, there needs to be some restrictions on the amount of power a person has in their own domain to protect the lives of others and of the person themselves. The least amount of Government involvement for the most benefit possible.

 

[Rein]

In the US, some states have what are affectionately referred to as "Make My Day" ordinances. If I recall correctly, if you suspect that you, your property, or someone in your care is in imminent danger of being harmed or stolen - including tresspassers who stubbornly refuse to leave - you have the right to kill. In the real world, there's no requirement for a written agreement, as such would be rather impractical in everyday circumstances. Verbal permission to enter or assumed permission (leading someone into your home) is sufficient to grant safe passage, if you will.

That being said, here's my opinion. Every person has the right to decide what happens to him- or herself and his or her property, unless that right is deferred to another through social contract, written or verbal, and not by some means revoked. Essentially, i agree with the above summary of laws. The reaction should be proportional to the threat, but it's sometimes hard to say what the threat really is. If someone can justify their fears, they can end the threat by any means within their power - defensive manslaughter notwistanding.

Naturally, if you trust someone or see them as a non-threat, you won't kill them. You wouldn't have a valid justification and you'd have many other responses more proportionate to the situation. A right to kill, as Rain said, is not an obligation to kill. No one is commanding you to stab your wheelchair-bound grandmother in the eye if she wanders into your apartment looking for you. The right to do that should never be granted to anyone, even if you hate your grandmother and suspect that she'll annoy you... you still have the more proportional option of simply wheeling her out and locking the door.

Basically, this right is ethically valid and correct, in my opinion, if it is used with care. It is not an excuse to lure your enemies into a trap and murder them. Murder is not a right. Defense is.

 

[Aristeo]

Alright. I'm Rain, let's hit this. I'm going to shoot out my opinion on a certain topic, and when I've exhausted it, I'll shoot out another. It's also perfectly fine to ask my opinion on another topic, and I'll respond, keeping in mind the topic of this subforum, I'm making this an ethical and logistical argument.

In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?

First of all, I don't know what you mean by "should be able to kill them". I'm going to assume you're either referring to "should it be ethical?" or "should it be legal?" I'll respond to both.

First, morality. It's hard to argue based on morality, because no matter how good your logic or your reasoning is, people are going to have different core beliefs. My core moral belief is a secular humanist stance -- the well-being and the happiness of people are the ends that morality serves. In this instance, I do not believe you have justified your stance that it is necessary to take someone's life solely based on unauthorized entry. Breaking into someone's home, while an infringement on the victim's rights to safety and property, is not a capital crime in and of itself. In my opinion, when someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to detain the criminal using the minimum enforcement necessary to execute the detainment. Yes, minimum enforcement may require lethal force. However, using any more force than what is required is a breach of the core ethics of humanism, and therefore, once you cross that line, you are breaching morality. You are no longer protecting yourself, you are carrying out an execution.

Now, the legal side. If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed, the burden of proof should be on the side of the killed to prove that excessive force was used. If excessive force was used, then that's voluntary manslaughter, possibly murder.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

No. This is a bad idea.

 

[Rein]

No. This is a bad idea.

Could we have you expand on that? We're interested in your opinion, but we'd like to understand it.

 

[Liason]

However, we must still take into account what has been mentioned that some people may take the right of being able to just off somebody in their home because they are uninvited, there are SO many variables that can go into it. One resident of a house has someone over, another resident of the home arrives there, sees someone they don't know and well I don't have to elaborate on what could happen. Albeit those incidents could be rare and few and far in between, the likelihood of them happening is enough to make me question it.

Once again, if you read a previous response, it is entirely hypothetical. This society would be a bit more ideal and rather not based upon any country's current societal foundation. Broader in order to enhance applicability to hypothetical implementation. Small picture, broad operation.

Also the wonderful media would BLOW it completely out of proportion when and if it did happen and make people think that it happens all the time and is a terrible atrocious law and sway their opinion because it would "make good tv".

The media isn't a factor in such. It isn't to be considered the reaction of the public, but the true ethical choice that should be made legal.

In my opinion, there needs to be some restrictions on the amount of power a person has in their own domain to protect the lives of others and of the person themselves. The least amount of Government involvement for the most benefit possible.

Anti-federalist you!

 

[Liason]

Could we have you expand on that? We're interested in your opinion, but we'd like to understand it.

I second this motion. Here here!