The Value of a Human Life

[TPaine7]

What’s the value of your life? The value of mine? Are we of equal value? What about the guy living under the bridge or the runaway strung out on dope and forced to peddle her wares on the corner?

Jefferson, brilliant hypocrite that he was, penned the immortal words that form America’s answer—“all men are created equal.” I may not be as smart as you, or as tall or as good looking, but I am your peer. We have “the same privileges, status, or rights”; we are “equal before the law” (dictionary.com). Jefferson was right, or at least his words were.

Personally, I take things further. I value all sentient life, not just the lives of human beings. I found the recent story of a woman killing animals for the sexual gratification of her viewers horrifyingly obscene—far worse than any consensual act between adults. I believe that depictions of such events, even cartoons, should be banned just like child pornography, the Supreme Court notwithstanding. Not that children and animals are equal, and not that sexual exploitation of animals is as bad a thing as the violation of children, but that animal abuse is also wrong.

I believe in the rights of the sentient—that which can suffer is entitled to protection from unnecessary pain. In other words, entities capable of suffering have the right not to be subjected to gratuitous, unnecessary suffering. They have this right by virtue of the fact that they can suffer. That too is self evident in my book.

And yet, while holding the idealistic, “bleeding heart” ideas expressed above, I still believe that not all men (read “human beings”) are equal. At this moment, there are human beings whose lives are worth less than yours and mine. They are also—of necessity—worth less than the lives of the people under the bridge or the lives of the crack whores on the corner.

No, I didn’t just contradict myself. The fact that all of us are created with “the same privileges, status, or rights” doesn’t mean that we remain so. There actually are people whose lives are worth less than those of other humans by any morally sound measure. Much less.

If all of us are created equal, let us call that worth “H”—1 human value. Your life is worth H and my life is worth H. Your child’s life is worth H.

Assuming that you are a decent human being—which incidentally has nothing whatsoever to do with your “privileges, status or rights”—you will value my life highly. You would go out of your way to preserve my life or prevent my unnecessary suffering.

But I could change your valuation of my life. If I attacked your child, if I posed a mortal threat, you would—assuming again that you are a decent person—do whatever you could to stop me. If necessary you would kill me. And you would be correct. IN THE MOMENT OF MY DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT, you would value your child’s life more than mine. (I know, I know, you do that anyway. Keep reading.)

How much more would your child’s life be worth than mine? Let’s think it through. What if there were two of me? After you killed the first one, the second one was still hell-bent on deadly assault. Once again you would—assuming that you are a decent person—do whatever you could to stop me. If necessary you would kill me. And you would be correct. Again.

The answer is the same for 3, and 4, and 5 and… 1 trillion of me. In fact, there is no number of my lives—IN THE MOMENT OF MY DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT—that are worth the life of your single, solitary innocent child. An infinite number of my lives are not worth 1 H.

Ok, but your child is special, you say. It doesn’t matter. Substitute the neighbor’s kid. Or the old lady who lives down the street. Or someone you never met. Substitute that guy at work you can’t stand. Or the crack whore. The math should work out the same. I only used your child because it made the initial example stronger.

By engaging in an unjustified deadly assault against another human being, I HAVE REDUCED MY VALUE TO ESSENTIALLY ZERO FOR THE DURATION OF THE THREAT. The moment I break off my assault, I regain my worth. Then you should call an ambulance to help me. If you can safely do so, you may even choose to administer medical assistance (after seeing to the victim, of course).

This is just my humble opinion, mind you. But I think everything I’ve said is morally and logically justified. I also think that many who favor self-defense rights and the RKBA intuitively agree with what I’ve said.

Logic and morality support this conclusion, not hardheartedness or emotionalism. Yes, there is emotion—you were emotional about your kid, weren’t you? But the issue isn’t whether there is emotion, the issue is whether there is naked, irrational emotion. The issue is whether a decent person can follow the logic and apply both sides of it to himself.

If a decent person who thinks like this sees a man stabbing a woman, he doesn’t concern himself with the man’s safety. He doesn’t try to shoot the knife out of the guy’s hand or try to wound his stabbing shoulder. His only concerns are the lives of the woman, the lives of any bystanders and his own life. The assailant’s life is worth less than 1 H, infinitely less. It does not even merit consideration IN THE MOMENT OF THE DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

You yourself agree with the action, if you will but accept the valuation. If you had Bill Gate’s and Warren Buffet’s combined fortunes, would you bet them at Vegas hoping to win a penny? Betting any innocent person’s life against a felon’s IN THE MOMENT OF THE FELON’S DEADLY CRIMINAL ASSAULT is worse.

Infinitely worse.

[PavePusher]

1. That... was astoundingly awesome.

I want to have your children.

[TPaine7]

2. Thanks for the compliment...

(biologically impossible as it is and I'm spoken for anyway).

I'll take a moment to blush...

:blush:

Ok, thanks again. I was beginning to think no one had any thoughts on the OP, pro or con. I appreciate the feedback after all the effort that went into the post.

[jazzhound]

3. "This is just my humble opinion, mind you...........

But I think everything I’ve said is morally and logically justified. I also think that many who favor self-defense rights and the RKBA intuitively agree with what I’ve said."

Count this member who favors self-defense rights and the RKBA as one who agrees with what you've (so eloquently) said!!!


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Biker13]

4. Bravo.

Well said!

[Euromutt]

5. I'm trying to come up with constructive criticism, but I'm just not managing it

I think your essay here expresses very well an opinion I think I've held for quite some time, but never bothered to put into words. I certainly hope anyone who's agnostic on the topic of lethal force in self-defense, or indeed flatly opposed to it, will give your argument due consideration.

[Callisto32]

7. Indeed.

This is the kind of post that I wish would get all kinds of attention and discussion.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the least likely to do so.

Off-the-handle drive-by's seem much better at that....


*Sigh*

[Callisto32]

6. Exellent post.

I once wrote something similar in to a program that had a discussion about the inherent value of human life. One person indicated that he believed that all guns should be removed from society, because all human life is equally valuable and none should be taken.

This was my response, slightly edited to make it "not a letter" and a bit more general.

It has been suggested that all human life is of equal value.

Rather, I think all humans are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that their life is valuable. When a person decides that he is going to harm someone, he rebuts that presumption. In my view, a person who would choose to make his living through harming others proves that he is inherently less valuable to society than one who makes his living honestly, through voluntary interactions with others. This reduction in value reaches its pinnacle during the times the person is actively engaged in harming another person.

This is not to say that his life is of no value, but only that it is not as valuable as the lives of the people that he is seeking to harm. As such, if our duty to protect those being harmed calls for the ending of the life of the attacker, it is the regrettable consequence of the regrettable choice of the attacker. When a person chooses to attack another, he runs the risk of getting hurt or killed himself. Removing that risk would only make the "job" of the predatory element easier, something we certainly should not do.

While I, thankfully, don't know from first-hand experience, I think I would feel far less guilty if I intentionally killed a person who was actively engaged in harming another than if my actions led to the death of an "innocent," whether intentionally or accidentally.

I realize that this view presumes that the person attacking is basically rational, and has chosen the violent path while aware of the risks. I certainly understand that allowances need to be made for the incompetent or damaged members of society, and if these people are violent it is better to remove them from society through isolation and care, rather than death. However, it is often not possible to tell if a man is crazy when he is actively engaged in a violent attack and taking the time to assess this possibility could foreseeably lead greater harm to the victim.

Also, lest I be labeled a man with a blood-thirst, I wholeheartedly agree that less-lethal methods have a legitimate place, and that if we find ourselves in a position where we must defend ourselves or others, we ought to use the method that causes the least amount of harm to the attacker while decisively ending the situation. I wish we lived in a world where intentionally taking the life of a human being was never necessary, and my firearms would be relegated to the sporting uses that I enjoy so much.

[TPaine7]

9. I agree with you that less lethal means should be used if equally (or more) effective.

"... if we find ourselves in a position where we must defend ourselves or others, we ought to use the method that causes the least amount of harm to the attacker while decisively ending the situation."

Exactly. In the OP's scenarios, my life is infinitely less valuable than my intended victims only when attempting to spare my life entails additional risk to the victim. Perhaps I should have made that more explicit in the OP.

As true as that is, however, if a defensive tactic that has a high likelihood of killing me entails less risk to my intended innocent victim than a less lethal means, then that deadly tactic is the correct course of action. You should not bet my innocent victim's life in order to enhance my chances of survival.

My life is worth less than my intended victim's, infinitely less.

[Callisto32]

14. Agreed.

It is a judgment call I am glad that I have never had to make. I hope it stays that way.

[Glassunion]

8. K&R. I have nothing to add. Very, very well written.

[rrneck]

10. Good stuff.

It's difficult to argue with necessity. Lots to think about here. If I can I'd love to look at it more closely. Thanks for posting.

[jazzhound]

11. One of the reasons I choose to be armed relates to the incalculable value

of human life.

I imagine that there are people who have no problem with firearms per se, but see the time and monetary investment in becoming proficient daunting to the point where they choose not to own a firearm.

As I am the person to whom responsibility would fall in protecting my family in the event of a criminal act or social disruption, I see the time and money I've put into developing firearm proficiency -- to the extent that I can claim it -- to be an extremely small price to pay. The idea that a Katrina-like event could occur in southern California has been underlined by all of the small earthquakes we've experienced lately.

I'm obviously not alone in thinking that taking ever legal measure to protect my loved ones (which would also include friends) is the only option available to me. Failure to do so, for me and me alone,would feel like an abdication of responsibility. (I'm sure I'm now an open target for some members of the pro-"control" movement as posing "falsely noble".) When my Dad developed dementia, I never saw placing him (immediately) in a care facility as an option, and took care of him to the best of my ability. Eventually a senior care facility became the only option as his condition dictated. Likewise, crossing my fingers and hoping I'll never need a firearm to protect the ones I love.......or expecting law enforcement to handle that for me is not an option.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Consider what would happen if a massive power failure hit Southern California.

Since Arizona is threatening to pull the plug on Los Angeles, that may be a possibility for your area. You are completely correct to be prepared to defend your family and self in the event of collapse of civil order.

BTW - I know how you feel about having to place a parent into a nursing home. My mother is in one. She will be 90 on May, 30th. I strongly resisted the idea, but we were able to find an excellent facility and she is much happier there, and their professional care is way better than the best we could do at home.

[jazzhound]

13. Good point re. AZ vs LA ----- and another consideration here is the

California water wars. After my obligation to my Mom has passed I can easily see myself in Oregon. Certainly by retirement age if I make it that far.

[iverglas]

15. what colour is orange: true or false?

What fun, to drop in and find the forum still hosting the high school debating club. I mean, forgive me, but I wouldn't have expected to get a passing mark in any high school class for that crap. As far as undergrad philosophy courses (having taken enough to have a major, myself): FAIL.

"This is just my humble opinion, mind you"

Yeah. No shit.

I wonder how the law -- i.e. a society of people -- should treat my opinions of whose life is worth my not killing them.

Hmm, gosh. I guess the same way as it should treat yours: as being worth precisely zero.

That is: nobody cares what you think about the value of anybody's life.

Oh, your "friends" here and wherever may. But, like, that doesn't count. Really. It doesn't.


Self-defence laws have precisely zero to do with the "value" of anyone. One might have expected that you'd have figured out some of those basics by now.


And even posing the question of the "value of a human life" ... makes one's eyes bleed, it does. Word salad with punctuation.

My answer is ... hockey.


Remember that "inalienable" stuff? If it cannot be alienated, then what earthly meaning would a "value" for it have?

The value of one of my houses is about $330,000. If I can find a buyer, etc. etc.

If I am prohibited from selling my house, then the value of it is pretty much nil, eh?

If we were all prohibited from selling our houses, we could all walk around saying "my house is worth a million dollars"; "oh yeah? well my house is worth a billion dollars"; "oh yeah? well my house is worth seventy brazillion dollars".

Which pretty much sums up what you've been saying. As best one can sum up word salad, anyhow.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Good to see you back here. Dealing with assorted imitators, pretenders, and wannabees...

has been...tedious. Better the gin-u-wine article.

[TPaine7]

17. Yawn

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Try to be kind, TPaine7

It must be a difficult thing to come back to DU and find yourself in league with Daley Jong Il and the Marriott Corporation...

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. I almost forgot Wall Street billionaire Michael Bloomberg....

Strange bunch to be sharing an agenda with a self-proclaimed lefty Canadian feminist...

[Callisto32]

20. Glad to see...

you're still smarter, better educated, more rational, and prettier than the rest of us.

Your attempts at intellectual self-aggrandizement are still old and tired.

Here is word salad with punctuation:

The bear fought the giant, crab-like salad, with great celerity. I can't preen my mustard.

[iverglas]

21. oh dear

A "diciple" (cf. PavePusher for that) of TPaine7. I have to say, though, your word salad actually makes a little sense.

[PavePusher]

22. Crap. A guy screws ONE goat, and they never remember his bridges again... n/t

[east texas lib]

26. You cared enough to diss the OP...

Or did you demonstrate how much you don't care by doing that? One can only wonder why you've spent years attempting to negate, discredit and destroy posters and opinions that "don't matter to you".
There is a huge gap in your credibilty because of this. Not that it matters any, though.;-)

[proteus_lives]

27. Ahh, Iverglas.

A fresh breeze from the North.

I see she took time from her great deeds to educate us further.

How lucky we are.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Color of orange? That would depend upon who is defining it.. N/T

[burrfoot]

19. I like it. Well done! n/t

[rrneck]

24. Is it even possible

to assign a value to a human life? If not, it isn't from a lack of trying.

To discuss value as it applies to a life is to place the issue in the context of economics, which brings forth the concept of supply and demand. When supply is abundant, the value of a commodity falls. Conversely, when supply is scarce, its value increases.

Human beings, as a collection of experiences and responses to those experiences, are individually unique. If a person dies, all of those experiences and the potential responses to those experiences are lost. Forever. The loss of a single individual is the loss of something unique in all the world. What is the value of something that is unique in all of space and time? It's irreplaceable. It's priceless.

We can see our understanding of the value of human life in the contrast between cultures where "life is cheap" and where people enjoy the advantages of a bill of rights. In despotic, totalitarian regimes people are subjected to the dehumanizing effects of having their individuality taken away from them in favor of an ideology designed to support a small group of people. It is a relationship based on illegitimate power from a lack of reciprocity between the members of that society. It's barbaric and uncivilized. On the other hand, when an individual's right to exercise a measure of autonomy over his or her actions and bear responsibility for those actions is affirmed the culture that makes that autonomy possible is considered civilized along with its members.

The examples in the OP are variation on the Trolly Problem. The distinctions mentioned regarding the relationship of the victim to the defender or the contributions to society or their lack on the part of the attacker are not an attempt to value life itself, but its value to others. We value our own lives more than anything else, and to value the life of another as much as our own is a testament to the value of that person's life to us. That value is determined by the depth of the relationship between two people. It is a measure of experience and a promise of reciprocity. In the case of an anonymous individual, the valuation is also not on his or her life itself, but the promise of his or her relationship to society. It is an evaluation of what contribution he or she might give balanced against what he or she might take from others. Thus, we have courts to judge the quality of that relationship in the place of personal experience.

So if each life is priceless why does society give us a pass if we have to defend ourselves with deadly force? I think it's a function of time. There are no even starts in life. We all have advantages and impediments that will help or hinder us in ways that are foreseen and unforeseen. The only way we will discover what we do with the gifts we have under the circumstances of our lives is to use them as best we can and see what happens. To take a life is to rob an individual of the opportunity to discover how they will do and to rob society of whatever contribution they may make.

The OP refers accurately to the singularity of the "duration of the threat". In that small space of time, the initiator of violence has stepped beyond the boundaries of civilized behavior and into the narrow space where civilization cannot follow. There is no time to adjudicate, arbitrate, or respond with civilly delegated equal force. There is only time to stop, and only for a moment. After that moment has passed civilized behavior has to resume again, if it's possible. The tragedy is that in initiating violence, he drags others into that black hole with him.

[TPaine7]

25. Thanks for the thoughtful answer

First let me say that I wouldn't try to assign a value to a human life in the sense of a dollar figure or the like. I don't believe human life can be quantified that way; there is no quantity of dollars or of physical goods that I would trade for my life. Logically, then, I cannot equate anyone else's life with a quantity of goods or a dollar figure either.

My OP only deals with relative values. If I am threatening the life of an innocent person, and if you have only one sure means to stop me--a method that will pose a mortal threat to me--you are forced to weigh two lives. In other words, you are forced to assign values, relative values. Doing nothing risks my innocent victims life; saving my innocent victim's life risks mine. In that context, the life of my innocent victim is always weightier than my life. In fact, it is weightier than an infinite number of my lives.

My OP had to do with your internal value assessment in the moment of my mortal threat, but you raise an interesting related point about society's stance.

The examples in the OP are variation on the Trolly Problem. The distinctions mentioned regarding the relationship of the victim to the defender or the contributions to society or their lack on the part of the attacker are not an attempt to value life itself, but its value to others. We value our own lives more than anything else, and to value the life of another as much as our own is a testament to the value of that person's life to us. That value is determined by the depth of the relationship between two people. It is a measure of experience and a promise of reciprocity. In the case of an anonymous individual, the valuation is also not on his or her life itself, but the promise of his or her relationship to society. It is an evaluation of what contribution he or she might give balanced against what he or she might take from others. Thus, we have courts to judge the quality of that relationship in the place of personal experience.

I disagree. My OP is making a purely moral point--it has nothing whatsoever to do with expected contributions to society. If I were Einstein in the process of killing a severely retarded deaf mute, I would deserve no more consideration than any other murderer. There may be rare exceptions, but as a general rule we should not decide who lives or dies based on past or future contributions to society.

So if each life is priceless why does society give us a pass if we have to defend ourselves with deadly force? I think it's a function of time.

It is a function of time. If it were possible to manipulate time and prevent my harming my victim before calm deliberations and non-lethal, certain methods of stopping me could be brought to bear, the weighing I spoke of above would never take place. The question of which life you would assign greater value in the moment of my deadly assault would be moot.

To take a life is to rob an individual of the opportunity to discover how they will do and to rob society of whatever contribution they may make.

I agree in the case of a murder. If I murder someone, I do rob them and society. But if I am in the process of murdering someone and you kill me out of necessity--the necessity of saving innocent life--you have not robbed me. I have robbed myself. You were merely the (unwilling) instrument.

Sorry it took so long for me to respond.

[rrneck]

30. I came perilously close

to arguing from a position of Utilitarianism there, so I'm happy to agree with you about the inappropriate nature of valuing a human life with economics. Unfortunately, personal injury awards attempt to do exactly that. And they always seem to be crass futile efforts indeed. It's because that's the paltry best the law can offer after a tragedy.

To adhere exclusively only to the letter of the law is to conform to the most basic and unthinking form of morality. It is a morality that eschews all consideration of right and wrong beyond an acquiescence to the codification of popular consent. It seems to me that a more principled, and riskier, form of morality is achieved from personal consideration of the issues at hand and an assumption of responsibility for the consequences of one's own understanding of right and wrong. That kind of morality is difficult and time consuming because it requires experiences that can only be obtained through interaction with others through the course of living with them and assuming responsibility for our choices.

It seems to me that since morality requires a choice, I don't see how the necessity of deadly force can be considered a moral act. If no choice is possible, how can an act be considered moral? So unprovoked aggression would surely be an immoral thing to do, but to respond in kind is not necessarily an opposite, or moral, answer.

Like you say, when all of the tools at our disposal for intervention in the face of aggression are denied us we must act out of necessity with the barest sliver of experience for support. Our only hope for an equitable remedy can only be had through the course of time, and that's the one thing we are denied.

Unfortunately, after the bullets stop time marches on and we are left with the consequences of our actions. In the case of an aggressor who is known to us we would be compelled, in the interest of any meaningful form of morality, to assume responsibility for not intervening sooner. If the aggressor is a stranger, we are equally compelled to examine our society for failing to do the same.

And sometimes we're just fucked no matter what we do.

**This is a very good thread. Isn't it interesting that the only people who are willing to courtesly and intellgently discuss the issue of right behavior are the knuckle dragging gun toting rednecks? Fancy that.

[TPaine7]

31. There's always a choice.

...I'm happy to agree with you about the inappropriate nature of valuing a human life with economics.

Very good, I'm glad of it myself.

To adhere exclusively only to the letter of the law is to conform to the most basic and unthinking form of morality. It is a morality that eschews all consideration of right and wrong beyond an acquiescence to the codification of popular consent. It seems to me that a more principled, and riskier, form of morality is achieved from personal consideration of the issues at hand and an assumption of responsibility for the consequences of one's own understanding of right and wrong. That kind of morality is difficult and time consuming because it requires experiences that can only be obtained through interaction with others through the course of living with them and assuming responsibility for our choices.

Agreed. In fact, the law itself accounts, to at least some degree, for the fact that it is inferior to its purpose--serving justice and humanity. The law allows for violating itself in the interest of a higher purpose. If an out of control tractor-trailer is barreling down the hill behind you and there are no cars in sight, you may clearly run the red light to save your life. No (sane) judge or jury will find against you. The law is inferior to human life and core human values. (There is a legal term for the fact that the law can be broken with legal impunity in certain circumstances, but it escapes me.)

It seems to me that since morality requires a choice, I don't see how the necessity of deadly force can be considered a moral act. If no choice is possible, how can an act be considered moral?...

I see a choice. Faced with my mortal threat to my intended victim and your awareness that you have the ability to choose between our lives, you are forced to choose. You can choose to do nothing--out of callous disregard, cowardice, twisted moral "purity" or a selfish refusal to take any physical or legal risks--or you can chose to protect my intended victim. I used the word "necessity" only to indicate that given the choice to save her life, you have no choice but to risk mine.

There was even a choice when I was confronted with a runaway truck in the scenario above; I chose to live. Given my choice, running the light was a necessity. But I could have chosen to die; people chose to die every day.

...unprovoked aggression would surely be an immoral thing to do, but to respond in kind is not necessarily an opposite, or moral, answer.

Absolutely. But I would argue that to the extent that a defense against unprovoked aggression does not use unnecessary force and is not self-aggrandizing or ego driven, it is moral.

Unfortunately, after the bullets stop time marches on and we are left with the consequences of our actions. In the case of an aggressor who is known to us we would be compelled, in the interest of any meaningful form of morality, to assume responsibility for not intervening sooner. If the aggressor is a stranger, we are equally compelled to examine our society for failing to do the same.

And sometimes we're just fucked no matter what we do.

Agreed, unfortunately.

This is a very good thread. Isn't it interesting that the only people who are willing to courtesly and intellgently discuss the issue of right behavior are the knuckle dragging gun toting rednecks? Fancy that.

Our intellectual and moral superiors tend to react to fair and intelligent questions with abuse and even threats (see, for instance, Hizzzoner Mayor Richard Daley). I noticed that too. Funny how The Enlightened Ones seem to lack both manners and reasoning ability. Very strange, that.

[Indy Lurker]

28. I respectfully disagree

As you quoted, “all men are created equal,” and that value should not vary with our actions.

The problem lies in the actions of the criminal, not the value of the criminal or victim.

As a society we have decided, that it is acceptable to stop a criminal in the process of committing a crime. This can vary from simply holding a shoplifter until police arrive, up to shooting a criminal who is threating a life.

The criminals actions determine what level of force may be used in response to their crimes.

In terms of guns and self defense, it is critical.

It is also a point of contention.

When is your life actually in danger?

When someone starts shooting at you?

When someone armed with a knife charges at you?

When someone armed with a 2x4 charges at you?

When someone unarmed, but twice your size yells “Your Dead!” and charges at you?

When someone enters your home illegally and by force?


If we had Star Trek phasers with a stun setting that worked reliably on multiple targets, there would be no debate, but unfortunately, the only reliable way of stopping a human that is endangering a life is to shoot a hole in them that causes rapid blood loss and unconsciousness. Regrettably this can also cause to death.

The criminals life always has value, but in situations where a choice must be made between potential harm to a victim, and potential harm to their attacker, we must always choose to defend the victim.

[TPaine7]

29. I think we're closer than we appear

...in situations where a choice must be made between potential harm to a victim, and potential harm to their attacker, we must always choose to defend the victim.

Could be fairly rendered:

...in situations where a choice must be made between potential harm to a victim, and potential harm to their attacker, we must always prefer the safety or life of the potential victim.

As rrneck touched upon, scarcity and valuations in circumstances of scarcity are the domain of economics. (Economics is the study of human decisionmaking, especially of choosing between scarce benefits and the evaluation of opportunity costs, not all of which involve money.)

To say that you will ALWAYS choose one option over another, is no different than saying that you value one option above the other, as far as I can see.

Essentially, while I believe I understand your hesitation to say that in the moment of my deadly assault of an innocent person my life is worth less than hers, what you have said is identical--functionally and morally. You have said that you will always chose her safety (and by implication,her life) over mine--in the moment of my deadly assault.

[jazzhound]

33. kick NT

[jazzhound]

34. kick NT

[jazzhound]

35. kick NT