People vs. Property an ethical dilemma

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's a specious distinction - unless you want to get into the evolutionary benefit of putting relative values on human life.

So, there is no such thing as "should" to you? "How should I act in this circumstance" is a meaningless question? If so I don't really know why you're in this thread.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I'd say, demanding (or even expecting) rational and reasoned reactions from people faced with unprovoked threat of their property destruction is by itself completely unreasonable. Someone willing to destroy someone else's property takes a chance and deserves whatever reaction happens at that very moment. I have total sympathy for those who lined up the streets to defend their stores and homes from looters and rioters.

Yeah but what if the looters were your dad and the armed militia were protecting a TJ Maxx that he was going to grab an affordable shirt from?

Pop two in the chest or nah?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

I would not equate the life of a terrorist to the life of an innocent. Therefore the terrorist's life is worth less property to save than the life of an innocent as well. If this is a trolley that's either going to hit a house or a person, surely it matters that the person isn't tied to the tracks but created the whole trolley problem in the first place by wilfully standing in the way.

That assumes that the terrorist chose to be a terrorist as opposed to being born into a specific set of circumstances that would have led most or even all people to become terrorists. Essentially you could be condemning a person solely because they lost a dice roll.

If the Universe is deterministic valuing property over person would be fairly evil.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, there is no such thing as "should" to you? "How should I act in this circumstance" is a meaningless question? If so I don't really know why you're in this thread.

I don't think it's meaningless. I just don't think it represents a dilemma.

Each individual person will have their own threshold at which the value of their property will eclipse the value they perceive in the life that is held in the balance. Unless the situation represents an unlikely theoretical where the perceived values is identical, I don't think most people will perceive an unresolvable dilemma.

They are going to feel bad either way, and so the person will make a decision which they believe will minimize their future pain. But dilemma? Not really.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by GGG

That assumes that the terrorist chose to be a terrorist as opposed to being born into a specific set of circumstances that would have led most or even all people to become terrorists. Essentially you could be condemning a person solely because they lost a dice roll.

If the Universe is deterministic valuing property over person would be fairly evil.

Nope. Nature vs nurture is irrelevant in this case. What is is the only certainty.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

That assumes that the terrorist chose to be a terrorist as opposed to being born into a specific set of circumstances that would have led most or even all people to become terrorists. Essentially you could be condemning a person solely because they lost a dice roll.

If the Universe is deterministic valuing property over person would be fairly evil.

If the Universe is deterministic, then the sniper and homeowner would also have no choice and therefore would get the same absolution from morality that the terrorist receives.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm not directly addressing the OP's point - I'm disagreeing that there is a dilemma present.

Things we know:

1. People do not value other people's lives equally. I believe this is self evident. (We would not save a stranger instead of our child.)

2. People do not value lives above property. They value some lives above property, depending on their relationship. This is almost a universal truth, with very few exceptions. We know this because almost every individual on the planet does not use their excess financial capacity to maximize the wellbeing of strangers.

So the scenario that the OP defines isn't a dilemma at all. It is simply a single data point in the marketplace. The "decider" in this case, is assessing the value (to the decider) of the human life in question and making a decision.

Some posters here have suggested that human life has a universal and sacrosanct value. This is not an absolute truth, although it is a reflection of how that poster values the life in question here. (My theory is that his view is simply a reflection of the increased value we put on life if we are in close proximity). Humanity has made it quite clear that the value of human life is not absolute, it is relative.

Thanks for the follow up.

I think this is a great description of how lives are valued in day-to-day life. I guess the next question would be whether the bomber's action could be justified on a similar basis. Maybe a scenario where the bomber is going to get an immense amount of joy from blowing up the house. It's not his house, but it is his joy. If the value that matters varies from person to person even in the same context, the house would not matter from the bomber's perspective.

My take is that there is some moral value in the house and the bomber's life. I really can't say that that fact decides whether the homeowner ought to yell "don't shoot" for me, but I think it at least points toward moral value separate from the particular views of either the homeowner or the bomber in the scenario.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the Universe is deterministic, then the sniper and homeowner would also have no choice and therefore would get the same absolution from morality that the terrorist receives.

Well played,

Let’s move to the real world where certainly your upbringing shapes your actions. Given there is a chance for rehabilitation isn’t that worth more than property at a minimum.

And even trying to make a distinction between innocent and terrorist is problematic as it’s essentially subject to all the problems that Bo Levi mentions.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

...
Let’s move to the real world where certainly your upbringing shapes your actions. Given there is a chance for rehabilitation isn’t that worth more than property at a minimum...

History teaches us that those who have zero respect for other's property and willing to take it away or destroy it, also have zero respect for other people's life and will not stop at taking it away or destroying it, if in power. In all times and in all political systems this has been proven true.

So, again, anyone willing to throw a grenade at someone else's home deserves the harshest reaction with no sympathy, understanding or compassion, regardless of your upbringing. And whatever that reaction is, it cannot be framed within limits of reasonable and unreasonable towards the attacker.

Society must apply rules and standards of appropriate reaction to violence onto law enforcement and military personnel; absolutely. But it cannot expect these same rules and standards imposed on its citizens at large faced with reacting to an immediate threat to their lives and livelihood.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

History teaches us that those who have zero respect for other's property and willing to take it away or destroy it, also have zero respect for other people's life and will not stop at taking it away or destroying it, if in power. In all times and in all political systems this has been proven true.

It certainly isn’t true in all times and all systems.

Are you suggesting that the liberal government wants to start killing o people because they have zero respect for our tax dollars.

Or

Want to start killing gun owners because they have zero respect for guns

Or
The person who gives you a door ding in a parking lot will eventually have no problems killing you

It is not axiomatic that having no respect for property leads to no respect for life.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

It certainly isn’t true in all times and all systems.

Are you suggesting that the liberal government wants to start killing o people because they have zero respect for our tax dollars.

Or

Want to start killing gun owners because they have zero respect for guns

Or
The person who gives you a door ding in a parking lot will eventually have no problems killing you...

From accidentally leaving a ding on a car door to throwing a grenade at your house - that' a bit of stretch. A tiny one.

All governments take your money in taxes to do something with it. Liberals taking a little more than conservatives; they're both centrist parties after all. NDP taking more than liberals. Socialists taking more than NDP and then communists take all of it whenever they feel like it. That's the common thread. Again, a tiny stretch from throwing a grenade at your house.

The gun example does deserve attention though. Taking guns away is taking someone's property, which can be used to defend someone's property or to harm someone innocent. This is a dilemma, for sure. But it belongs to pro-gun/anti-gun threads, not here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

From accidentally leaving a ding on a car door to throwing a grenade at your house - that' a bit of stretch. A tiny one.

All governments take your money in taxes to do something with it. Liberals taking a little more than conservatives; they're both centrist parties after all. NDP taking more than liberals. Socialists taking more than NDP and then communists take all of it whenever they feel like it. That's the common thread. Again, a tiny stretch from throwing a grenade at your house.

The gun example does deserve attention though. Taking guns away is taking someone's property, which can be used to defend someone's property or to harm someone innocent. This is a dilemma, for sure. But it belongs to pro-gun/anti-gun threads, not here.

Your statement was that someone who doesn’t respect property has zero respect for people’s life and it has been proven in all times and cases throughout history. This obviously isn’t the case.

So the assumption that the bomber deserves to die to protect your house because of if he doesn’t respect your house he doesn’t respect human life is not founded.

[CaptainYooh]

This is borderline tautology. The original premise was predicated on someone ready to throw a grenade at your house (and obviously not giving a f... about your property or you in it) and you having a weapon to stop them. Why diminish the severity of this action to something trivial?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is borderline tautology. The original premise was predicated on someone ready to throw a grenade at your house (and obviously not giving a f... about your property or you in it) and you having a weapon to stop them. Why diminish the severity of this action to something trivial?

Wasn’t the original premise nobody inside the house? The only damage was property.

[CaptainYooh]

The homeowner knows it. The bomber doesn't and still is ready to bomb.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The homeowner knows it. The bomber doesn't and still is ready to bomb.

Technically nobody knows it, but how do you know the bomb is real and not a a grenade-shaped cigarette lighter?

[CaptainYooh]

How do you know it isn't? This is the point. You can put on your philosopher's hat, light a pipe and theorize about hypothetical things in hypothetical terms. But you cannot expect a rational reaction from a homeowner in this situation.

[FlamesAddiction]

These thought experiments are interesting because they highlight the legal and moral ambiguity for what can be defined as self-defense. It reminds me of the Plank of Carneades.


On a basic instinctual level, self-defense is whatever promotes self-preservation under a threat from an external actor. Property can be directly related to someone's self-preservation. Shelter is a basic necessity of life and if you take that from someone, you may be affecting their survival and their ability to pass on their genes. So while it might not present on imminent threat, it's difficult to reason with someone when natural instincts are triggered.

As a civilized society, we strive to be above natural law, and for good reason. Is it a legal self-defense to take a life over property, probably not usually. But is it murder? I would say not always.

Our society even promotes this idea in the event of war when killing is permitted to protect a way of life and how we provide for those necessities. If one country takes resources (or property) from another, we allow that killing isn't murder to get that property back.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Too much focus on the psycho with the bomb. Who's this psycho going about the neighborhood sniping people?



I'd yell "Don't shoot" and then duck and cover.



But since I live in Vancouver, I don't have a house, so it's all academic.



And my landlord's problem.

This is a very underrated post.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is borderline tautology. The original premise was predicated on someone ready to throw a grenade at your house (and obviously not giving a f... about your property or you in it) and you having a weapon to stop them. Why diminish the severity of this action to something trivial?

That was the whole point of the exercise. At what point is it okay to kill someone to protect property.