- Feb 14, 2015
- Reaction score
Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are. A man finishes work and starts walking home one night. He remembers its payday and goes a different way than normal because there's an ATM a few blocks from his house that way. At the ATM a stranger gets in line behind him. The next thing the man feels is a gun in his back and the stranger whispers that he would withdraw all of his money and follow the stranger into the alley if he valued his life. The man complies. The stranger takes his wallet and shoots the man in the face. Going by the logic presented by liberals, wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed? The man still had a right to his property. He just didn't have a right to his life. With that being the case, wouldn't the murder have been morally neutral? Why wouldn't the mugger have been within his rights to carry it out if that's the case? If he was, then wouldn't punishing him for exercising his right be the actual immoral act? I would really appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and show me a strong case for this without the usual back and forth bullshit.