I do not wish to engage in a political debate, especially about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the US constitution and generate thousands of comments of people arguing back and forwards. I will say that I do not have an issue with guns nor taking appropriate measures to protect my family when necessary. Please allow me as a conservative Aussie (yes, we had our guns taken and survived despite the projected perception of some American journalism), married to an American gal from the deep south, and having lived under different governments in Asia, take a different angle on the current situation.
Premise 1 - As a society, America has many firearms. My introduction made this clear.
Premise 2 - As a society, America is in moral decline. This could be argued by some but without going into great detail, I think it is clear that America as a society is in moral decay compared to the generations from 100 years ago. To be clear, my basis for morality is not relative but absolute. For any post modern opposer to this assumption, make sure your argument against morality is not self-defeating before making a judgement on my assumption here.
Premise 3 - As a society moves towards moral decline (becomes more immoral), it's ability to make moral judgements diminishes. This is self explanatory.
Conclusion - Therefore, America is an armed nation slowly losing it's ability to make moral judgements.
In a moral society, where people are making good moral decisions, guns are not an issue and should not really be needed for protective purposes other than by those in authority. In an immoral society, where people are incapable of making good moral choices, guns can become a real issue. This does not give the governments the right to disarm a nation so as citizens, what should our role be once we understand the truth of the matter at hand? Is purchasing more firearms the answer? In a society truth is relative and moral judgement is in decline how can an armed home owner be expected to make a good moral decision in the heat of the moment. Every man will justify his decision and claim it was moral. That does not make it moral though if you adhere to an absolute morality. With a gun in his hands, the armed home owner becomes judge, jury and executioner and possibly an immoral, unjust one as that.
Before you tell yourself that you are not immoral, think through the laws of society (written and unwritten) and how many, even if only slightly, that you have broken. To simplify it generally, just think of the 10 commandments as a rough guide and think of what you may have violated, both in action and thought. Maybe our hearts are not as moral as we think they are.
Is it morally acceptable to kill someone who enters your home with an intent to harm you (but not kill you) and steal some of your items? Let me ask the question from another perspective as a parent. If you child was found guilty in the court of law by a jury for grievous bodily harm to an innocent person and the judge sentenced him to death, would you think it was a fair and just punishment? I would think not! He needs to be punished no doubt but any just judge would give him a fair and morally justifiable punishment. Yes, we need to defend our families but at what cost to the wider community and moral fabric of society?
Guns are a side argument that are keeping us from dealing with the real issue ay hand. America's biggest threat at the moment are not terrorists, or outside religions but rather the internal moral decay. Until this issue is recognised and called out for what it really is, guns will only bring about a faster conclusion. Moral relativism or moral absolutism? One will bring an end to empires, families and individuals while the other will give us the steadfast security and boundaries that will mostly likely foster a community that will love and care for one another under a Moral Lawgiver who created us.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteI agree mate that most, if not all people, wouldn't have the ability to discern in the heat of the moment what was ethically right or wrong. That is why I am asking the question now, outside of the emotion and adrenaline of the moment, so a reasonable discussion can be had.
If someone was pointing a gun at me or my family, I would take that as a direct threat on my life and shoot back no doubt. I do not see that as morally wrong. What if the are not pointing a gun at you or in fact do not have a gun? Is it morally right to shoot them, potentially killing them? Does the simple act of trespassing , burglary or even physical harm (with something other than a gun) morally justify shooting someone, often with the intent to kill.
As I argued earlier, if a judge passed judgement on your hypothetical child to be killed for burglary with a weapon other than a gun, would we see if as just or fair? My fear is that in the heat of the moment, most people are going to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. Most people are incapable of acting like police officers to stay calm and make an assessment on the entire threat. Just because someone enters your house with bad intend (not to kill you though) does not give us the right to put their lives in mortal danger by shooting them right (unless they are pointing a gun at you)?
What I was trying to get to in my argument was if heavily arming a society in moral decline was a wise thing to do.
I know this is an extremely sensitive topic so I flesh out this argument very carefully. I also understand that an objective discussion on this is going to be very difficult. Still, I think that it needs to happen.
Thanks for your comment mate.
First, what society is not in moral decline? None that exists or has ever existed. The only difference between a "heavily armed society in moral decline" and one that is not is the weapon by which you die. The Chinese have no firearms, the weapons of choice there are knives and axes, often used by maniacs on school children.
DeleteAlso, hypothetical situations are good for "over coffee" discussions, but have little to do with the real world.
Lastly, a gun in the hands of the perpetrator is not the only weapon of choice. A woman in Georgia,along with her two children, was attacked about two weeks ago in her own home by a home invader who broke down the door in the day with a crowbar. She shot him five times using a pistol her husband gave her and taught her to use. I would have done the same. No hypothetical situation there.
Bill,
DeleteI appreciate your willingness to discuss this so please forgive me if I dig too deep and cause some level of offense. It is not intended.
There are plenty of societies that are in moral incline. We see this first hand where we are as people turn from animistic or pagan worldviews and submit to the authority of a transcendent moral law-giver. Their morals change dramatically as does their value of life. Moral decline leads to a decrease in life value. In a society in moral decline, people are willing to take the life of another much more quickly and are less likely to think of the consequences. Add an abundance of guns to that equation and it is a very dangerous situation. Firearms make taking a life much easier and quicker than something such as a knife or axe so you mention.
The hypothetical is more to help think of scenarios from a different perspective. As long as we only focus on the impact on me in ethics, it becomes self focused and inaccurate. To gain a more balanced moral perspective we need to look at the situation from the other angles as well. It helps us also to remove an element of emotion to gain a clearer perspective. I understand that in the middle of a home invasion, you can never remove the emotion so that is why we need to talk about it outside of the situation.
I really feel bad for the lady in Georgia who had the intruder. It is a horrible situation no doubt. Although I have many questions, I do not know the situation so I do not wish to comment on it and perceive to cast judgement.
There have been instances at home in Australia where people have fled their house because of an invader. There was no threat on their lives though because it was some kid high on drugs trying to steal a DVD player for his next fix. If that happened was to happen in the US, there is a higher chance the kid would be shot as climbed through the window. I agree that the threat of your own live may require you t`ke the life of another. How many home invaders actually want to kill you though? If you ran out the back door, most probably would not bother you. It sucks I know but is it right to shoot and kill someone to 'warn' others not to come to your place and try the same? To me, this reduces the value of life.
Where does this slippery slope end? First an intruder, than a disgruntled neighbor? We see people over here lose their lives for next to nothing.
Like I said at the outset, my issue is not with the guns but the people behind them becoming incapable of using them morally responsibly. Would you agree? Is there an ethics test attached to the testing for gun licensure?
Ray,
DeleteCan I also add that I am not trying to preach morality here to Americans. Please do not think that. I am only wanting to discuss the application and practical outworking of the conclusion I made in my argument.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/556377_549801955039544_426675521_n.jpg
DeleteAs I said, I have no problem is a person owns a gun for the purposes of the 2nd amendment. That is not what my argument is about though.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. Again I want you to know that I intend in no way for these comments to offend. It is a highly emotive topic I know and that is why I believe it worth discussing in an objective manner.
I want to just point out firstly that the clip posted on your link is nothing more than American media using my home country to promote their own agendas through inaccurate journalism. There are statistics that show exactly the opposite of what these people claim. I wouldn't put much value on that clip as far as truth is concerned. It is no different to a propaganda report put out by the left.
My argument through is not about gun laws. I do not want to open that can of worms as I said earlier. My argument is whether America as an armed nation slowly losing it's ability to make moral judgements is a good thing. My answer to that is no. Many guns in the hands of a society losing it's ability to make good moral judgement can sure only lead to disaster right? I am not saying all Americans make poor moral judgements but as a nation (as like other western nations), America is in moral decline.
Much of the argument from gun owners seems to revolve around the fact that bad people have guns. This is very true. The underlying argument through is that the authority in charge (be it government, police, etc) cannot be trusted to do their job and the community must take the law into their own hands. Is it right to assume this mistrust and vigilante mindset? If this mindset is adopted by the entire community, it could only lead to chaos right with each man delivering his version of justice based on his own morals. This is surely a very slippery slope.
I love the enthusiasm people have for their guns and defending their rights to have them. What would be even greater though would be to see people use this willingness to actually die, to fight for the rights of unborn babies, the undermining of morality in society or giving people around the world the opportunity to hear of the hope of Christ among other things.
I am not in anyway challenging the US constitution. I understand the rights to bare arms for the purpose of an oppressive government and I think it is a good thing. I just worry that all these people with guns are using them for intents and purposes other than the second amendment. As a note, I have lived in numerous societies that have taken the lower moral path so I have seen what is capable of happening.
If relativism is the truth of society, who says what is right and wrong in terms of using an efficient, quick, easy and powerful weapon that is a gun? Once authority is undermined, it becomes every man for himself and the guy with the biggest gun becomes boss. The irony is then that he has become the tyrant.
Guns will not change the moral landscape of a nation! That is what the focus is on at the moment. We need to shift our focus to re-establishing the moral fabric of a once great nation.
Thanks for allowing me to join you in this discussion. I do really appreciate it. America might not be my home but I do care for it because it is*the home of my wife and part of the legacy of my children.
Can I ask how someone would argue that owning a gun is a moral right?
ReplyDeleteHitler once said that if you want to control the people, you must first disarm them, and that is what he did before murdering millions. I wish we had a constitution like the Americans with a second amendment guaranteeing people the right to bare arms, not just for hunting but for self defence and to prevent a tyranical government from enslaving the populace (The US government is currently trying to disarm the people in violition of the Constitution). In the last 20 years serious crime and murder by firearms has reduced by 49% in America due to an armed populace. If you disarm the law abiding members of the community, do you think that criminals will also hand in their guns? Not on your life, they will become more violent because that they know that there is no gun in the house when they come to perpretrate their crime. World governments are responsible for some 290 million deaths during the last century, and that is not counting war dead. People can't rely on the police attending to defend them. If they do, then they will be dead before the police arrive. God's word says that if a person doesn't defend his family then he is worse than the infidel. I know I have been talking on two lines, but I believe this to be the truth. So... how's that for a short rant? :)
ReplyDeleteAnon,
DeleteHi and thanks for your comments. I do not have an issue with people having a gun for the purpose of collectively defending themselves against a tyrannical government. I also believe in defending my family using appropriate measures.
There seems to be a common notion that every time someone breaks into a house, it is with the intent to kill the owners. I wonder if this is statistically true. Do you also believe that shooting a trespasser at close range (not knowing his intent or if he is carrying weapons), with the likelihood of killing them, is morally acceptable?
My argument here is not owning guns but whether or not the users are capable of making morally correct judgements in the heat of the moment. From what I hear, if anyone attempts to set foot on my property, it is my right ... or duty, to 'blow them away' no questions asked. No one in their right mind would accept the death penalty for trespassing in a court of law yet this seems to be what some people are promoting in the US right now. Is this morally acceptable?
Inside my house by force without my approval earns two shots tot he torso and one to the head!
DeleteI know this is an emotionally charged topic but I am genuinely trying to look at this from a reasonable and moral stand point. I appreciate your enthusiasm to protect your family but at what cost to the wider community? Is killing someone for simply trespassing really a reasonable, moral and just form of punishment? Would you accept that if handed down by the court of law to a hypothetical wayward child of yours? Surely not! From what I can gather, the punishment for trespassing handed down by the court of law is generally around 12 months in jail. Surely a human life is worth more than 12 month in jail. If you disagree, how would you argue to defend your position from a moral stand point?
DeleteThis is my concern, that in the middle of a difficult situation, most people will undertake an action based on emotion rather than reason or logic. These actions are much easier carried out with a excess of guns. The danger is that this reaction is less likely to lead to a morally acceptable outcome, especially as morality in a society becomes further undermined.
I had not read your blog before posting a reply. I know it is silly, but I do have an opinion, notwithstanding your blog. A couple of comments on you post. 1.If someone is breaking into my/your home, how do I/you know what his intentions are, particularly in the dead of night, with your wife and children in bed?
ReplyDelete2. Yes decadence is a problem in the USA, but the bigger problem is the 'foreign interest owned' government. They are destroying the US constitution and turning the US into a police state. (just look at some of the alternate media) Main stream media is controlled and only reports what they are told. When did you last hear a story of Christians murdered by Islamists in the MSM. And no matter which party is in power, they are only puppets, wings of the same bird, owned by more sinister power which wants to destroy the US.
Anon,
DeleteTo answer your questions ...
1. You do not know their intentions but does that give you the right to take their life? Promoting increased possessions of firearms through fear will only fuel the fire to community in moral decline. It is a temporary solution, not a long term answer. The issue is the lack of focus on the long term solution of restoring a moral fabric. Doing one without the other is just prolonging the inevitable. That is what I want to avoid!
2. The Supreme Court in the US has been undermining the Constitution since the 1960's by passing laws based on their own personal interpretations of the Constitution rather than what the original authors intended. Again you might be right in this assessment but rather than play the blame game, let us focus on reinstating the moral fabric of society. Relativism is the real enemy here, not the government.
Kitwalker05,
ReplyDeleteI will address your conclusion, which you stated to be : "Therefore, America is an armed nation slowly losing its ability to make moral judgements."
Surely though, America as a nation has no ability to make moral judgements.
America, as a nation, is ontologically morally neutral, just as guns are ontologically morally neutral.
However, it is individual Americans who, individually as persons, not collectively as a citizenry, are ordained with the ability to ascertain right from wrong, and so have the ability to make moral judgements.
Gun ownership by itself is neither right nor wrong. Perhaps though you are attempting to argue that gun ownership permits or enables the intent which lies behind such attitudes as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, to have such terrible and devastating results.
Wrath - I am angry so I shoot someone
Greed - I want more than I can afford, so I rob a bank with a gun
Pride - I show off my wealth by owning expensive guns
Lust - I desire my neighbours wife, so I shoot my neighbour
Envy - I want what belongs to another, so I rob their house
Gluttony - I use a gun to steal more food than I need.
The question then becomes "Should the Government remove the ability of individuals to make the moral assessment as to whether it is right or wrong to own a gun?"
This question must be answered in the affirmative if some individuals have the intent to own gun for morally suspect purposes, as not all persons are going to make morally correct choices, even if they should.
However, this itself would only be justified if the Government could guarantee that that by removing the ability of the person to make a moral choice for themselves if no negative outcomes would occur, (effectively, that all guns have been seized, and there is zero possibility of anyone person having a gun for a good or negative moral purpose). Clearly this is unrealistic and idealistic.
Therefore, the question that I asked "Should the Government remove the ability of individuals to make the moral assessment as to whether it is right or wrong to own a gun?" - can only be answered in the negative, which then leads to a much more pertinent question, and one which goes to the heart of the original conclusion proposed by Kitwalker05.
The conclusion "Therefore, America is an armed nation slowly losing its ability to make moral judgements." becomes the question "Are American persons who own or have access to guns losing their ability to make moral judgements". It is a question that only each individual American person can answer for themselves, and it is this question that Americans concerned about the intent of morally suspect individuals (such as an unjust attacker) should design collective responses (via the Government and groups like the NRA) which educate and protect all Americans.
For if individual Americans are losing their ability to make moral choices, they are not losing this ability because of guns, but they may be losing their ability to make good moral choices with guns due to cultural, economic, educational and historical reasons. This then reverts to the question: "Given that some individual Americans are going to make poor moral choices with guns, should other individual Americans be able to protect themselves from the material (bodily/physical) consequences of these poor moral choices of others, even if this includes on their part, gun ownership?"
Many here would argue, I suspect "yes", but, as previously stated, this is not a final "yes", for surely, this "yes" is a step along the road of being able to design collective responses (via the Government and perhaps the NRA) which educate and protect all Americans.
Kind regards,
Ben Oligrevie
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your welcomed contribution and staying on the question at hand. I do appreciate your input and additional clarity you help bring.
In my reference to the nation of America, I was referring to the individuals that make up the wider community of the USA. Thank you for clarifying that.
I do not necessarily agree that I would have worded the questions indicating that the government should take away people's ability to own guns. A possible solution for my argument could be based more on the people to take responsibility here and self assess at a stage before the moral decline completely hinders a reasonable outcome. Yes, own a gun that could be used to uphold the 2nd. Does it really need to be loaded and in your underwear draw ready to shoot at any given second though?
I do wonder what some of the intentions of gun ownership are and how they will play out once the slippery slope of moral decay becomes more evident. Even now, what is to stop someone with an anger problem shooting a motorist in road rage because they have a gun in their glove compartment? The 2nd has nothing to do with this. Having an abundance of firearms on hand only creates a temptation to quickly and easily nullify a problem through the elimination of a life. We are seeing this happen more frequently it seems.
I like your question, "Are American persons who own or have access to guns losing their ability to make moral judgements" and the idea of a collective response through appropriate authorities with the relevant education. I wonder if there are ethical questions in the examination to help a gun owner think through scenarios before they might be placed in a position of pressure. The responsibility of owning and using a firearm is huge given the consequences capable.
I believe if Americans act now to put as much effort into fighting relativism and rebuilding the moral fabric of society as they do for their rights to own guns, it would be a step in the right direction (still feel free to fight for the guns). The additional step of taking responsibility to come up with a collective communal response to gun control on their terms instead of the governments will only be positive.
It seems to me that continuing in the current vain of flooding the country with more firearms as morality disappears is to ignore the real problems at hand and continue on the road to self destruction.
There's a short verse at the beginning of Exodus 22 that I think has application to your question. Here it is:
ReplyDelete"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
Thus, regardless of whether we think that it is "morally acceptable to kill someone who enters your home with an intent to harm you (but not kill you) and steal some of your items," it is obvious that God has no problem with it; and if God finds a given action to be morally acceptable, who are we to say differently?
wsforten,
DeleteSo you believe you can justify killing a robber under Levitical law? Is that read at face value or after an accurate exegesis of the passage? I will look into it myself and see what it says. If you hold to that argument, I assume you would not have a problem if your only son (a) was shot and killed while breaking into a house to steal a few bucks, or (b) was arrested for robbery and the judge sentenced him to death for the crime. Is this right?
I agree that if God says something is moral, it is moral because He is good and perfect and sets the moral benchmark we call the natural law. What I am questioning is your assumption that God says it is morally acceptable to kill a robber based on your interpretation of the passage you quote.
Thanks for interacting in this very sensitive argument.