jonreading

Absolutely. I think this is also the focus Keith is trying to maintain. The larger context of how society determines whether killing is socially acceptable is a larger scope of discussion. We need to accept the fact that there are situational responses where killing is a valid response and socially acceptable.

We also need to personally prepare to committ to necessary action and accept personal responsibility for that action. I think another false statement we see in this discussion lies in the fact that most people don't want the personal responsibility of the decision to end another's life. We'd rather pass the buck and that's hard to do because the horror of killing is not just who is to blame...

As an example, I [humorously] argue that the best way to reduce meat consumption in the US is to require consumers to either slaughter their own meat, or participate in the the slaughter process. This is the underlying theme behind many slaughterhouse documentaries - and it is successful. People don't want to think about walking onto a farm and picking out a sheep rubbing on their leg...

Likewise, the general population does not possess the personal committment to carry out and accept responsibility for that kind of action. In fact (I can't say it enough), The Gift of Fear points out that most people submit to social pressure and rely upon the notion that violence is socially acceptable as their shield of protection. When an individual chooses to ignore that social contraint these people are left without defense.

We have a reponsibility to protect ourselves, and a responsibility to uphold the social norms of society. We need to rely on more than just our hope everyone also upholds the social norms. I tell my self-defense people..."you can either apologize to a stranger for being rude, or that stranger can apologize to your family at the sentencing."