Quote from: deeplink on March 28, 2013, 04:09:01 PM

Quote from: mobodick on March 28, 2013, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: deeplink on March 28, 2013, 01:26:08 PM

Quote from: mobodick on March 28, 2013, 12:36:40 PM

Quote from: deeplink on March 28, 2013, 10:39:19 AM

Murder unless in self-defence is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

So, how would you classify a mother that killed a person that she perceived as threatning the life of her baby?
What are the basic morals that apply here?

I made a mistake. What I meant to say was: Murder unless in defense of life and property is wrong.

I see no moral objection against the mother killing a person that is threatening the life of her baby.

So how about taking the life of someone who tries to take your phone?
Would it be murder if you killed me because i took a match out of your matchbox or not?
And if not, how big should the property be before you are moraly justified to take someones life over it?
And who is going to evaluate it? And what if the person trying to take your property is threatened with his life to do so? Will you give him a chance to explain his situation and if so how will you make the corpse talk?

I don't know all the answers to that.

Society will have to figure that out with Dispute resolution organizations.

Suuure, just realize that armies are Dispute Resolution Organizations specializing in resource managment.
And i'll tell you another thing. Any Dispute Resolution Organization will need to be an army when dealing with resources like energy water and food on a global scale.
The fact alone that you propose multiple of these organizations is in itself problematic because who or what will resolve the diputes between them?