Re: Joe Horn?
Also Alex, I think your way of looking at it is probably correct in truly objective terms. My way is only "fair" as long as we live in (and I guess, accept) an imperfect society. As we progress, and become more prosperous and more secure, I'd say violations that are objectively equivalent become interpreted as bigger burdens. So it becomes more reasonable to apply severe consequence and it thus approaches the point where you can apply lethal defense/retaliation at the slightest violation (as you're talking about).
So I guess what I said above only applies subjectively to how we view fairness based on what we are as a society today. I have no problem with justice being subjective, but I'm not really sure exactly why. I guess believing that it's not necessarily OK to kill someone who is violating your property is basically an acceptance of bias. Maybe that makes me weak. But it also just seems right, since I guess it isn't "fair" to gravely punish one piece of the puzzle (the person violating your property) when society itself is very flawed, and thus encourages flaws.
|