(19 January 2012, 11:45)Skean Dhude Wrote: We step over a moral line when we take anything at all. You have no idea if the person needs it and is away or they are dead. We have decided we are going to do it. Let's just be up front about it. In my view though if someone is there and needs it then I will need to consider my desperation. Can we partner up, can we, my family, life without it. That will be the true test of morals.
I feel this is the utilitarian suffering argument. If killing one person could save 100 lives, would that make the one account of murder right, or would it still be wrong?
I think you're right though. It does come down to the level of desperation. If I had kids, I would be in a completely different mindset to how I currently am. I am envious of those with kids, the joy they bring. I asked a friend when was the last time he did something truly exciting. He came back to me the next day and said when he saw his children open their presents on Christmas Day. In that moment I realised that my shark diving, snow boarding, rock climbing, skiing, skateboarding, mma, and all the rest, were completely different. What he has more more than a rush. So I can only assume the kind of ferver a man protecting his children would have.
A friend used to say there is no human alive more dangerous than a parent protecting their child. I know that is untrue, a man with a gun is going to be a lot scarier than a woman with a handbag. But it would take more damage to stop the woman that it would to stop the man, in all likelyhood. It is that motivation of protection that would make me reconsider looting a family with children.
Can any parents on here give kind of idea what they would do to protect and feed their children?