Quote: We're talking about the act, not the person. Also, you're making a lot of assumptions that can't be proven on an individual basis.
I'll try and follw you in circles, but forgive me if i get lost. We are not talking about just the act if we're discussing varying motives. Motives rest with the individual not with the act. And yes when discussing the pragmatic view I am making assuptions. This is done in the law all the time. People are sentenced based on "likelyhood to reoffend". No one knows for sure wether the perp will reoffend so they make educated assumptions. I think it's a good assumption that someone who kills for prophet or pleasure is more likely to reoffend than someone who kills in self defense.
Quote: In your scenarios is killing the attacker the only other option? Some would argue that it never is.
Never? hmm.
Quote: But let's say it is the one and only option. Pragmatically, it's all in the numbers. Whichever solution results in fewer lives lost is the better. Unless you look at it with true objectivity. Then it doesn't really matter at all.
Based on that formula if there was a gang of four men who were going to kill three of your closest family members and htpothetically these men were so hell bent on killing your family that the only option was to kill them all it would be better to allow them to follow through because three deaths is better than four.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
