Ends Never Justify Means?

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
And part of the slippery slope not often achnowledged is that there can be much greater, albeit unintended, consequences from a small wrong act. You go to steal the car to save the 1000 and in your getaway unwittingliy strike a pedestrian in the street and kill him. That wasn't your intent, but it was a result of a chain of actions that began with your theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any part of this that isn't made completely worthless by the fact that unintended dire consequences could easily stem from a 'small right act' as well? It seems like such a childish rebuttal that I feel like I must be missing something from the original argument, but I don't really think I am.

[ QUOTE ]
But Varlos went further, and so do you and others here, in trying to distinguish between the relative values of the lives of different persons so that you can justify taking their lives according to when in YOUR judgement they don't have as much value as your own life or that of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what makes self-defense killing acceptable? I mean, in MY judgement, my life has more value than that of the random person who would attack me with the intent to kill. That doesn't say much. I don't know if I can vouch for God agreeing with me. And what if, when I wrestle the gun away from my attacker, I fire at him, miss, and unintentionally shoot David before he can steal that car, causing 1000 people to die unless they steal candy bars?

And please don't say that I shouldn't have shot in the first place, because the attacker wasn't posing a threat anymore. Pretend he had another gun.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And part of the slippery slope not often achnowledged is that there can be much greater, albeit unintended, consequences from a small wrong act. You go to steal the car to save the 1000 and in your getaway unwittingliy strike a pedestrian in the street and kill him. That wasn't your intent, but it was a result of a chain of actions that began with your theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any part of this that isn't made completely worthless by the fact that unintended dire consequences could easily stem from a 'small right act' as well? It seems like such a childish rebuttal that I feel like I must be missing something from the original argument, but I don't really think I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of the legal differences between murder and other forms of killing that are unintentional like negligent homocide and manslaughter (you get in a fist fight and accidently kill your opponent). Most people, as does our legal system, recognizes that to be in the wrong to begin with gives one more culpability for even unintended greater consequences of smaller wrong acts. Or you rob a bank not actually intending to use violence even if you meet resistance and your partner acts otherwise and kills a teller in which case you as well will get charged with murder.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Varlos went further, and so do you and others here, in trying to distinguish between the relative values of the lives of different persons so that you can justify taking their lives according to when in YOUR judgement they don't have as much value as your own life or that of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what makes self-defense killing acceptable? I mean, in MY judgement, my life has more value than that of the random person who would attack me with the intent to kill. That doesn't say much. I don't know if I can vouch for God agreeing with me. And what if, when I wrestle the gun away from my attacker, I fire at him, miss, and unintentionally shoot David before he can steal that car, causing 1000 people to die unless they steal candy bars?

And please don't say that I shouldn't have shot in the first place, because the attacker wasn't posing a threat anymore. Pretend he had another gun.

[/ QUOTE ]


I should have been more precise. Insert the adjective "innocent" in front of the words "lives" and "life" in my posts. If you want to argue however that there shouldn't be such a distinction and thus one should always take a totally pacifist position then that is fine by me as logically you must also disapprove of abortion for any reason unless you dishonestly/unscientifically attempt to redefine the definition of human life.