If I, guiding myself through extortion, agreed to do wrong to others for "my needs," then I would become the same as the extortionist, and continue the cycle of aggression. Putting others also, who have nothing to do, in similar situations.
Is that justified? As a thief stole me years ago, I am "enabled" to rob other people?
Don't think I'm talking about judges and courts, if I were talking about the state, then again we should admit that most people in the world are free, because they have freedom guaranteed by law, or that everyone is democratic, simply because based on the law, only a handful of countries declare themselves non-democratic.
Of course we are all human, and we make mistakes, and we would probably do immoral action because of extortion, I will not even discuss that. But the case you are raising is truly exceptional, and it does not really represent the issue we are dealing with, because it would be misleading to classify an act out of extortion in the same way as an act out of necessity.
It's a matter of life and death. Necessity, doing what you have to do to ensure your survival or your loved ones. You're under duress, you're under threat, you are not EVER going to become the same as the extortionist.
This doesn't follow at all. You claimed that only if you're unconscious when you're acting immoral does that excuse it, following and building from your previous claim that only complete absolute, total savagery excuses what is otherwise immoral, wrong or downright evil. I rebutted your claims, pointed out that law recognizes readily that necessity overrules law or in other words is an exception to the rule or justifies it, things which you claimed were unconscionable, inconceivable, and I then pointed out that if they consider it necessary then does it matter, that you have no right as to decree otherwise, that it's only your opinion, that you weren't there and to make that understood you were afforded an example of why such an exception can occur and it wasn't the only hypothetical offered besides the threat from others but also the threat from the elements and the need to have good shoes, and now, you're asserting that by following the orders of the ones who are threatening the life of your loved one you're becoming the same as the kidnappers and after the rhetorical question of following such orders you think that necessity is the same as doing something out of spite amounting to stranger revenge or better some weird victim entitlement to victimize strangers as they had been victimized. Necessity, that's what we are talking about. It's not really up for debate, it's not a matter of opinion, or right and wrong. There are no OPTIONS, you have no choice, and if you think you have a choice over your toes freezing or over doing whatever it takes to ensure the safety and wellbeing of your loved ones or think that 12 people are going to debate the level of savagery or the necessity of keeping your toes or your loved ones safe then please explain exactly why that is so and how, right after you break down how you think that following orders of kidnappers is the same as kidnapping.
You can speak of crimes but not of law? You know that law defines what crimes are. Whats more, I brought in maxims of law and spoke of jurors, not of state or freedom guaranteed by law or the democratic vs non democratic countries, and what rules maxims of law is Dignity, The Chiefest; Necessity; Natural Law, Grantor Of Dominion Law. Unless you have a problem with the underlying premises then we don't need to talk about anything else but what necessity is and what it isn't.
Theres no distinction between an act out of necessity and an act because of coercion or extortion. The same for remarking that they have shoes vs they have good shoes, it's clearly a mater of necessity to GET some good fucking shoes sometimes. Is that "extraordinary"? Will the person who robbed or beat up someone in order to keep his toes from falling off not KNOW that it's wrong to do that but why would that MATTER because it's way more imperative that he saves his toes, the same for someone stealing to keep a roof over their head and not die of exposure much the same as you would in a cardboard box. Theres no need for someone to know, or not to know if something they are about to do is wrong if they otherwise weren't in that situation, all that matters is if they think it is necessary, not if you think it is and what you think is only going to be opinion, a value judgment but you think that it matters even though the only distinction you can make is between two terrible things: lose your toes or hurt someone. I would consider you incredibly savage if you would rather lose your toes, much much much much more than I would consider someone who murdered someone else for their shoes!
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit