I think it is great that a philosophical question about the value of another's life in relation to minor physical threat towards yourself has produced a resounding consensus -
C. He doesn't want a piece of THIS!
Egos aside, in the example you know the two outcomes. If you chose to kill him knowing you are not in mortal danger, it is murder. You are willing to use unequal force to spare your wallet and bruises. It is interesting that Christians defend their right to kick ass:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” - Sermon on the Mount
That is between you and your bible, I know there a lot of interpretations but this one seems pretty straight forward for you all. In terms of the social responsibility, the disregard for human life is a much bigger concern than a mugging. Remember Bernard Goetz?
From Court TV
Quote:
Cabey's case was simple: Goetz was a racist who overreacted when he needlessly shot the four black youths. After wounding Cabey, Goetz walked up to the bleeding youth and delivered the paralyzing gunshot, announcing, "You don't look too bad, here's another."
Goetz's defense was just as simple: He fired in self-defense when approached by four muggers who tried to shake him down for $5.
|
I know some people think of Bernard Goetz as a hero, I disagree. If we don't insist on the high value of life consistently, people like Goetz will feel entitled to sit in judgment of anyone they want.