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?
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].
If both parties have to own a copy of the permission in order to make the invited party (B) protected from being killed, then they are still at mercy of the inviting party (A), since there would be no way to prove, if B refused to leave or not, after A destroyed their own copy. If it would be A's intention to kill B, I bet they wouldn't record the conversation, right?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.
If both parties have to own a copy of the permission in order to make the invited party (B) protected from being killed, then they are still at mercy of the inviting party (A), since there would be no way to prove, if B refused to leave or not, after A destroyed their own copy. If it would be A's intention to kill B, I bet they wouldn't record the conversation, right?
Also, there's no way to prove that A intentionally murdered B, if they (A) destroy their copy AFTER killing B and before calling cops. And even if B's copy would be sufficient to claim a permitted entrance, A can always destroy B's copy after killing them and can potentially clear all evidence, that any kind of written permission existed in the first place.
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.
hey Liason,
i have seen 'trespassing law' a lot from the homeowners side-
my dad ran people off several times with his shotgun when i was a kid. he DEFINITELY took shots, and once he hit a guy in the arm with stray shot.
and i have run people off from my own apartments, not with a gun as a weapon because i am not into that, but i had deadly force on my mind every time, definitely.
but i think trespassers law is a good thing, it's right that it takes the homeowners side, as a baseline.
hey Liason, why did you say "i'm Rain"? just curious.
my last name is Rain, for what it's worth!
We are assuming that people would use it correctly.
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.
Whyever not?
If you're considering rigths, their abuse is one of the most important topics. I just described an easy way to use your hypothetical proposal for an almost perfect murder.Alright. Let's go over this again. The situation is trying to find if one should have the right to kill trespassers[summarization]. It is not on how it would be abused and all the ways it could be. We are assuming that people would use it correctly. As I said with the curator,
If you're considering rigths, their abuse is one of the most important topics. I just described an easy way to use your hypothetical proposal for an almost perfect murder.
If by "This society would be a bit more ideal" you mean "This society would consist of good boys and girls", then, as Blairvoyant already mentioned, they wouldn't need the right to kill trespassers in the first place, since trespassing would be illegal, and no one would do that - for the same reason they wouldn't abuse the right to kill trespassers.
I have no problem with hypothetical discussion, and I accepted your conditions. It's your call, if this is a society with members able to break a law, or if it's not.
If people didn't abuse laws, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.
Thanks, Rein, but I think you can hardly overlook practical effects, when you're evaluating ethicality of an action (or a right for an action). That's like if you witnessed a hit and run accident and considered the driver to be 'rather rude', bacause you would focus on his behavior alone and ignore the full impact it would have on the pedestrian. You can't just eliminate a part of the one side of the equation, especially if you're erasing the 'wrong parts', and then evaluate, if the whole thing is right or wrong. That's just manipulating the outcome.
Every action has consequences and every right has implications. You can't just chop them off and act like it's a legitimate situation. If someone says "It's okay to walk on a road, when sidewalks are too crowded, because it's faster", then pointing out that "that's where the cars are" is not nitpicking. And if the answer is "there are no cars in that universe", well, then why are there roads? There is no point to build them. If they wouldn't be ever built, how can you evaluate if it's right to walk on them or not?
Universe 1 - People are able to break a law
I already described a problem I have with that in this universe. You would be able to just show a torn paper and tell cops to get that dead hooker out of your bathroom, and I think that the law allowing it would be ethically very wrong.
Universe 2 - People are not able to break a law
And now we're allowing people to defend against trespassers in an ideal world where trespassers don't exist. The law would have no effect whatsoever, and how would you ethically evaluate something, that has no good or bad consequences? You can say it's pointless, but you can't say if it's good or bad (unless of course, you look at it in a broader context, like "it's a bad law to solve the homelessness problem", or something). It's just allowing people to walk on roads that don't exist.
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.
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.
What if the bank actually owns your home and consider you to be trespassing. Do they have the right to kill you?
feel based upon values or logic?
Uh, no. This is personal. Home owner as stated would be 1 person. It isn't even a possibility. If the home was owned by the bank, then they would not be possessing of property rights [the person living there if such were the case]. If the bank owned it, no one would be living there.