Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
99.99+%? I'd certainly acknowledge that it's an uncommon occurence, but that percentage doesn't strike me as realistic.
|
I maintain my assertion.
If we assume the population of the world is approximately 6,000,000,000, then my formula would equate to 6,000,000 people being put in that situation during their lifetime.
Six million people.
Do you honestly believe that six
million people have been put in a situation where, if they did not kill someone, another person would die?
I don't.
Quote:
|
These are people for which the possibility of lethal defense is right there in the job description. Such people need to be willing to defend with lethal force in case the situation arises. And that situation is no longer a mere classroom exercise, but instead a real-life possibility.
|
Self defence was not the issue raised. Pre-emptive action was. And I don't believe 6,000,000 soldiers, or policemen and women, have had to kill someone to prevent another death.
Maybe they've had to kill in self-defence. Maybe they killed in war. But not in the circumstances your example implied.
Whilst I'm a pacifist, I do support and accept the need for armed forces. Indeed, I also support armed conflict in certain circumstances (quite a bit more broadly than many may think due to my "reputation" here as a liberal).
Quote:
|
And then those of us that fit into the "99.99+%" still have to address whether we wish to support professions that swear to kill when necessary.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
So actually, I find the hypothetical quite useful. It's an extreme example meant to test whether one would accept more normal instances of killing in others' defense.
|
Well, accepting it and performing it are two different things. The hypothetical question is indeed useful as a I said; in a philosophical way and in the classroom. But it's not a questoin 99.99% of us (or "most of us" if you prefer) need to ask ourselves on a daily or intermittent basis.
Interesting discussion.
Mr Mephisto