Home
Loading
  Contact Us    
The Right to Live, The Right to Kill

Absurd and dangerous ethical confusion in the campaign.

by Barnabas
October 27, 2004

Bookmark and Share


"Endorsements: ... National Right to Life, National Rifle Association" 
–Voters’ Guide, St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 24, 2004

It doesn’t matter who the candidate in the above reference is; I'll use him as a stand-in for all candidates and noisy evangelicals who, righteously and often, have juxtaposed the right to life and the NRA. They seem not to care why some of the other evangelicals, me included, are laughing at them.  They think they are being persecuted for righteousness’ sake.  

Absurdity is in my bag, and one inevitable consequence of public absurdity is public ridicule; but I won't  run  with that side of it. Let the satirists deal with the absurdity, and I’ll do my best with the ethics.

Politics is not ethical, in the sense that ethics is the study of behavior as to its rightness and wrongness. I suppose politicians are moral, as defined by their willingness to pronounce Moral Positions. Without ethical study, however, they do not notice when their positions contradict each other or otherwise  make no sense. Hence, both the Right to Life people and the Right to Kill people endorse the same candidate. If ethics mattered, the Right to Kill people would be the deadly enemy of the Right to Life people, but not the other way around.  If the Right to Life people live up to their name they cannot  be the deadly enemy of anybody.

In another place and time, not as Barnabas, I argued that the right to life is not absolute. This was the norm for evangelical ethics back in the '80's, according to the statement of the National Association of Evangelicals at that time.  

It’s a common-sense, biblical position. When the right to life is not treated as absolute, those who despise the value of their lives by indulging in reckless, foolish behavior forfeit their "right to life" thereby. They may be treated mercifully if they survive their foolishness, but mercy is a gift, not a right. 

Further, when the right to life is not treated as absolute we accept "first come, first served" as the rule when resources are limited, even though it may mean death to those who come last. In a disaster we go further by accepting triage as a responsible, though tragic, rule in emergency disasters: first treating those in danger of dying if they go untreated,  before giving attention to who will die no matter what is done for them. If the right to life were absolute, such practicality would stand aside; random selection would be the only fair way to decide the order of treatment.  

The NRA disagrees with an absolute  Right to Life because it asserts that the second amendment protects, under certain conditions, the right to kill.

The NRA  interpretation is very broad. As I understand it, one guy with an automatic pistol next to his pillow falls within the definition of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - the justification given in the amendment for the right to keep and bear arms.

This is a novel interpretation. Wyatt Earp seemed to know nothing of it.  In his biography,  he described how, as a lawman, he enforced a line in the precincts of his town - as I recall, Dodge City - beyond which no one but lawmen were allowed to carry firearms. Gunsmoke would have been a  boring show if the fictional Marshall Dillon had imitated his historical counterpart.  It's also a certainty that the historical Wyatt Earp would never have been hired as a spokesman for the NRA.  

 An armed adversary who threatens or attacks an armed opponent forfeits, by this action, his "right to life."  I have no problem with that. I have always believed that criminals who flaunt deadly weapons during felonious assaults put their lives on the line. But I can say that because  I do not believe that the right to life is absolute for anybody – not when resources are limited, not when triage is in play, not in a war zone, and not when abortion is medically indicated in the judgment of both physicians and patients. 

The ethical confusion is not in the NRA position, taken by itself, nor in the Right to Life position, taken by itself, but the crazy way both positions are asserted, with straight faces,  by the same persons.  

There are sound reasons for being against abortion, as I am except in medical necessity, but the right to life is not one of them. (I will accept the argument of "no medical necessity" only from obstetricians, when their preponderant argument is that medical necessity never applies to abortion.)

There are sound reasons for citizens to own weapons, but the right to kill is not one of them. Killing in self-defense or other justifiable homicide may be a tragic necessity, as  determined by a court of law, but it is not a constitutional right. An armed citizen acting on his or her own responsibility is hardly a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state. Common sense asserts that  the state has the obligation to regulate weaponry among   its citizens, just as it regulates our use of automobiles. I am neither a pacifist nor a libertarian.  

As this campaign winds down, I will be glad for the rest from slogans that are disguised as moral pronouncements, and from the pious assumption of the past several months that being a Christian, in itself, makes anybody an expert on ethics.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. —Omar Khayyam

Comments (1)


Post a Comment

James Leroy Wilson from The Swamp writes:
October 31, 2004
Barnabas wrote:

The NRA interpretation is very broad. As I understand it, one guy with an automatic pistol next to his pillow falls within the definition of a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - the justification given in the amendment for the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA's rhetoric may sound extreme, but it is as dishonest as the Republican pledge to get rid of the IRS every Presidential election season. (Guys, you had two years to do it!) The reality is that the NRA says it is against new laws, but supports politicians who pledge to enforce the thousands of federal gun laws already on the books.

As one who understands the right to self-defense as the very definition of the right to life in nature and in civil society, (rights are exercised by individuals, not granted by governments) I have many problems with Barnabas's allegations of absurdity here.

But the salient point is that the NRA is a hopelessly compromised and corrupt institution that uses scare tactics on honest freedom-lovers to fill its coffers. Whether there are more gun laws or not means nothing to those who run the organization.

Just like many organizations on the left, the NRA is a manipulative fund-raising scam that never accomplishes anything.

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*


Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Location:


Comments:*
Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.



Verification:
Please type the letters you see above.

  Printer-Friendly

Bookmark and Share


EMAIL ALERTS
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
The Right to Live, The Right to Kill
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by Barnabas
Barnabas Says Goodbye
Moving on, not moving out.
by Barnabas, 1/19/05
Seats on the Fifty-Yard Line
Yet another American value.
by Barnabas, 1/12/05
Ethical Endgame
When children become sexual slaves.
by Barnabas, 12/15/04
Eighteen Years on Death Row
We have redefined 'speedy trial' and 'cruel and unusual.'
by Barnabas, 12/8/04
Hard on Drugs, Soft in the Head
Legalizing marijuana.
by Barnabas, 12/1/04
Wesley and Wal-Mart
Destructive competition as a stinky enterprise.
by Barnabas, 11/24/04
The Mandate to Govern
Third party time.
by Barnabas, 11/17/04
» Complete List (137)


Recently Published
View Article Salvator Mundi
Not the painting but the Person
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/7/17
When the Newsman Becomes News
Lamenting yet another fallen hero
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/1/17
Let's Hear It for Moms and Pops
Celebrating Small Business Saturday in a very personal way
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/22/17
An Earthquake in La La Land
Examining what's been exposed in the rubble
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/17/17
Where is God?
Reflecting on the tragedy in a little Texas town
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/10/17
An All Saints Day Tribute
Remembering those who left us
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/3/17
A Mighty Fortress was His God
Remembering the legacy of Martin Luther 500 years later
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/27/17

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.


RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?

Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2017 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top