I think that in most jurisdictions, it wouldn’t be legal to take someone’s gun and then shoot them with it. Once they’d been disarmed, they may no longer pose a threat. However, if you pulled out your own gun and shot them, this would be self defense, as they were still a threat when you attacked.
Morally, I think many religions claim they’re objective and say that killing is wrong. However, they often carve out exceptions.
My own subjective morality in this case would agree that this is immoral, as the robber has been disarmed. However, its impossible to be sure they’re really no longer a threat.
The amount of money in his wallet is irrelevant to the underlying moral question.
The question being: Is property inherently more valuable than a human life?
The question is are you justified to use deadly force, if somebody threatens you with a deadly weapon.
I think that in most jurisdictions, it wouldn’t be legal to take someone’s gun and then shoot them with it. Once they’d been disarmed, they may no longer pose a threat. However, if you pulled out your own gun and shot them, this would be self defense, as they were still a threat when you attacked.
Morally, I think many religions claim they’re objective and say that killing is wrong. However, they often carve out exceptions.
My own subjective morality in this case would agree that this is immoral, as the robber has been disarmed. However, its impossible to be sure they’re really no longer a threat.
However however however.
No, nothing has any inherent value, we are the ones who assign value.
That’s an easy one.
But it really does highlight the moral in question better when it’s a small amount.
Can’t tell if leftist or libertarian