What I Learned from Executing Two Men

Re:What I Learned from Executing Two Men by emodendroket on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:12AM (#12531139)

There is no incompatibility at all. If life is hallowed, it follows that the only situation in which killing would be justified would be to prevent another killing.

If anything, war makes a much more challenging case for this view, unless you accept a position of total pacifism

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What I Learned from Executing Two Men by dsacco on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:23AM (#12531209)

Please define "hallowed" for me. As I explained, I believe the only definition of "hallowed" with any consequence to the debate is "must always be preserved."

If that is the definition we're working with, it precludes "justifiable" exceptions, because there are no exceptions allowed. You'd need to equate passively allowing someone to kill another life with actively killing to preserve a life, which is another entire debate before we can begin to take that as a premise.

If that is not the definition, then why should we bother saying something like "life is hallowed"? What could it mean that would have any consequence for, or add any further meaning to the debate? "Life is meaningful."? "Life is to be respected."?

This is the complexity inherent to engaging in dialectics, and in my opinion words like "hallowed" should simply be avoided unless they're rigorously defined by all parties.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What I Learned from Executing Two Men by emodendroket on Monday September 19, 2016 @09:27AM (#12531240)

"Should never be taken except to preserve another life" seems both consequential and fitting.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What I Learned from Executing Two Men by dsacco on Monday September 19, 2016 @10:10AM (#12531557)

Fair enough, I suppose that does fit.

[ Parent | on HN ]