So you would murder a pacifist who you feel indirectly caused the death of someone else he never met, on the off chance they may once again fail to murder someone in a manner that you would approve of again at some hypothetical point in the future? That does not even seem to approach an ethically sound point of view.
1) In my considered and deliberate opinion (Which is, in no wise, some form of Absolute Truth) I don't feel Morgan "Indirectly Caused" that death. As I stated before, I consider 99-100% Accurate Foreknowledge of a Sociopathic Serial Killer's ongoing Modus Operandi, coupled with absolute control of the fates of said Sociopathic Serial Killers to be a DIRECT CAUSE of loss of innocent human lives. While you may of course disagree with my position, let's at least be clear that I'm not so homicidal I would take a human life because an INDIRECT AND UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE of one of their choices lead to an extremely negative outcome. That's irrational, and immoral. The key determining factor here for me is the near-100% accuracy of Morgan's foreknowledge of the Wolves intended and ongoing murder spree, coupled with his ability to end said murder spree at no tangible risk to himself or others.
2) Morgan is very vehement, and highly communicative concerning his "All Human Life is Precious" moral position. I do not define what another man straight up informs me will be his continued and future limit on the level of violence he is willing to employ against even the most evil and depraved of human-shaped monsters to be an "Off Chance" of what that man will do. Rather I would define that as the almost-certainty of his intended future life-choices. Near certainty doesn't equal "Off Chance", which implies (at best) a 50-50% chance of something happening, and (at worst) a substantially worse-than-even % chance of what that man will do.
3) As of the present moment, Team Rick has encountered 1) The Governor and his two Hyper Hard-Core Homicidal Lackeys, 2) Randall's Group, 3) The Claimers, and 4) The Terminians...and very very soon they'll be meeting 5) The Wolves. That's FIVE GROUPS of homicidal psychopaths and/or sociopaths, with a few cannibals thrown in for good measure, in LESS THAN THREE YEARS! So it is FACT to say that approximately 20-30% of the live human beings Team Rick have encountered are murderous predators of one stripe or another. With such a high % of the population of still-living humans being murderous predators, it is NOT some sort of low-probability hypothetical to say that Team Rick will in future encounter more murderous predators.
4) Preventing self-avowed SERIAL KILLERS from taking the lives of people who are as innocent as it is possible to be and still continue surviving the apocalypse by KILLING said SERIAL KILLERS is not something I define as "Murder." Anymore than shooting a rabid dog until it dies to prevent its otherwise imminent attack on a defenseless child is "Murdering" said dog. Killing, yes. Murder? No. The term murder by its nature contains the concept of the MORALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE use of lethal force against another human being.
Now, I will be the very first one to concede that some of my points are, partly or wholly, subjective with regards to the moral code of the one whose defining and applying these terms. Ie: Your definition of what constitutes murder may differ wildly from my definition. A system of STANDARDIZED laws, as part of a legal system replete with numerous efforts to maintain impartiality in those tasked with deciding Guilt or Acquittal exists as part of a civilized society due precisely to individual moral codes being by nature highly subjective. If said civilization collapses, flawed as it might be, those subjective moral codes will be all that remains to separate us from monsters like the Terminians.
Finally, we return to the basic conundrum I was asking about. While I can easily grasp that others might have wildly different individual moral codes than my own, I fail to comprehend how my moral code seems so "Unsound" to others. I apply it consistently, which includes holding myself to the same standard I use to judge the actions of others. It isn't self-contradicting in any aspect, and it's readily comprehensible (Conceptually I mean, in that others can understand what I mean by my definitions. Not that they necessarily agree.) Lastly, my position is at least as viable as a shared social contract utilized by a group which includes me as many other permutations of subjective moral codes could be for other groups.
Again, I concede that my views are arguably quite subjective. Yet the concept of culpability shared between the active perpetrator and the passive enabler of said perpetrator is the basis of the legal conceptualization of a criminal conspiracy. If one's chosen act is a factual necessity for even the POSSIBILITY of the criminal act to exist, moral culpability can attach. Yes, we're all agents possessed of free will. Yes, that means the one who CHOOSES to commit an evil act will always bear responsibility for said evil act. But if I know you intend to commit an evil act, that you WILL IN FACT commit said evil act if not physically prevented from doing so, and I have the opportunity to safely and effortlessly stop you yet choose not to, I BELIEVE I would share in the responsibility. Put more simply: Yes, you have the free will to choose to murder someone, but I also have free will and I can choose to stop you, or choose not to stop you. There is an OBJECTIVE "Onus to Act" when it comes to use of our free will in such a situation.
"The only thing necessary for Evil's triumph is for Good men to do nothing."
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
Bookmarks