The British had the power and abused it and you knew that before you typed the first letter of that irrational screed. Now if you're determined to delude your own self, there's little I can do or say.
The irrational part came form your point of 97% of individuals desire an environment with predictable, rational good order in which to run their lives, as if that relates to inherently right, and that moral relativists are the 3% that contribute to what's inherently wrong.
This thread is yet to show ANY action that is inherently wrong, which would then mean 100% are in the moral relativist position, but may think otherwise. I'll be generous and say it's 97% that are in the moral relativist position and that 3% could have access to knowledge of inherent wrong/right actions. I sure hope they come to this thread, and join me.
Self-defense is defending oneself from violation of the other three rights, either by threat or in progress. Self-defense can also be exercised by proxy via the military or police, or by bystanders; but again, only in order to protect life, liberty and property. Where's the moral/legal double standard if it is so limited?
The point about which self-defense can be exercised, and to what degree there is enormous variety in that application. And as simple as stating that premeditated killing (murder) is inherently wrong, but the fact the State may engage in it, it is suddenly justifiable. Or the fact that I can tell myself/anyone that if some one violates my rights, I can go ahead and murder them. For it would be murder, pre-meditated killing to suggest it can be justifiable beforehand.
I find those to be fairly decent arguments and I'm not even bringing in the theological perspective that understands Self, Life, Liberty needs no defense, is never actually threatened. But I decided to put on kid gloves to make the point.
Huh? You've got it backwards. If you kill someone who's trying to murder you, there's no double standard except the perpetrator's, who valued his desires above your life. Someone who tries to violate the rights of another, forfeits his own.
Which would make for relative wrongness. Cause if not getting caught, then not really a forfeiture. Or possible these rights were forfeited long before you entered the picture with your claims of self defense to then say your rights were violated and you alone are determining they have forfeited their right to life. Though possible it comes down to state / local laws (thus relative to that area) as to who forfeited rights and who didn't and State authority will make that determination. Here let's flip a coin.
Someone is coming at you with a knife and just before he cuts your throat you say I forgive you, really?
That's the pretend kind of forgiveness that I alluded to. The application of forgiveness by me, would not be for them, foremost. Probably would include them in an effectual way, but not in a causal way.
The first step for forgiveness is that they ask for it, and the second is repentance. Except for a few wacko pacifists, nobody believes that turn-the-other-cheek crap.
Then they literally understand nothing.
MLK's civil disobedience worked because he knew there was a moral element in our society. Try that with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, ISIS et al, and you'll just have a bunch of dead bodies, or slaves.
Yep, what we have now is so wonderful, peaceful, loving and working out well. That self defense crap is working wonders. Hallelujah!
