This is a question that gets asked all the time in America, whether it be in our judicial system, the media, or some of the more challenging aspects of daily life. The general rule of thumb is that it's justifiable to harm someone else to prevent them from harming you. But there are all kinds of potential variations. For example, is it right to harm someone else if you think they might attack you in the future? As a sort of preemptive strike? What about if they're attempting to hurt you financially? Or if they're trying to ruin your good name?
What if their actions are a threat to your mental and emotional stability?
When is fighting back, taking action, cutting ties, transferred from the realm of responsible self-protection to that of retaliation or vigilantism? Is the definitive meaning of an act dictated by its circumstances or its intent?
Is it wrong or right to feel guilty when you have successfully dodged danger through action, rather than evasion?
When are you legitimately threatened? When you feel it? Or is there criteria, a rubric by which you can measure your life's current level of safety?
Is hindsight 20/20 at all times? If so, shouldn't we be working to cultivate foresight? If so, when does conditioned paranoia set in?
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
basically... everyone should just do what i do and not think about it. life stays balanced and simple that way. i know i know... im a genius.
ReplyDelete