[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Oh, I don't mind at all, in fact I rather like doing the same thing myself *grins evilly*.

Now, back to what you were saying. Actually, in the case of the whale hunting the murder is in fact becoming the proactive part when they force a change in venue from courtroom to violence.

A matter of perspective only; can you honestly expect, say, a 30-year old man, not rich but keeping a roof over his head and food on the table for himself and his family, without other prospects for a job, without the knoweledge to fight things out in court, without the money to hire someone with that knoweledge, to go into "battle" in the courts, completely outmatched, when the stakes are, for him, poverty and likely slow death for himself and his family by starvation? Or does it make more sense for him to kill the one pushing the law in indirect defense of his and his family's lives?

Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of the tresspasser, they are being proactive by imposing thier view of "mother earth" on the person who owns the property.

No, the property owner is being proactive by willfully withholding the good and proper use of the land that belongs to no human being / is the collective property of all.

From the property owner's perspective, the property owner is being reactive, and the Earth worshipper is being proactive.

From the tresspasser's perspective, the tresspasser is being reactive and the ground ursurper is being proactive.

And yet, you picked a perspective, and said (paraphrasing here) "this man is in the right, this man is in the wrong, because this man is only preventing his own beliefs from being trampled under another's, while the other is the one trying to do the trampling" (pun recognized, but not intended)

Originally posted by Simeron:

In the case of someone that has murdered someone being hunted down for the murder, you are in fact being reactive because you are reacting to the fact they murdered someone though the arguement could be made that you are in fact being proactive in that you're attempting to stop them from murdering again thus imposing that on them.

Ah, but there is a secondary problem with hunting a murderer: What defines a person and thus a potential target for murder? What constitutes sufficient cause for killing a person? Both of those fall under either ethics or morals. What right have you to force your definitions of the two on another? If an eco-fanatic kills whalers because they are murderers (the "Whales are people too" perspective), should the fanatic be hunted for murder, or not? If a 1800 slave owner kills a slave because the slave tried to escape, should the slave owner be hunted for murder, or not? Does this change if the slave owner does not consider the slave a person, but property?

Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of the factory owner that is slowly poisoning the wells I have to disagree with the point you made that he is not imposing his ethics, or lack thereof, on the well owners as he is in fact doing just that by poisoning the wells. The method of poisoning does not matter so how he is choosing to do it doesn't matter be it through factory waste or dumping poison directly into the water table, which you could argue he is doing in the first place.

It could be so argued - and yet, it could also be argued that he is only dumping on property he owns - he believes he has the good and proper right to do as he wills with his own property. He is not necessarily aware he is doing any harm to others (as was the case with many of the earliest such cases). Besides, people should always take sensible percautions - you wouldn't blame a construction-site owner for the death of a pedestrian who ignored the "no tresspassing" fence and signs then got hit by falling debris on the construction site - not passing "no tresspassing" signs is a sensible percaution. It's also sensible to purify the water one drinks before drinking it - after all, many sources of water are contaminated by natural actions (e.g., animal wastse encouraging bacteria harmful to people) - would you hold nature accountable for that form of well poisoning? It all depends on the angle one looks at things from - how do you decide whose angle takes precidence? In so doing, you are forcing a portion of your beliefs on others. By what right do you do so?

Originally posted by Simeron:
In the case of avenging the family honor, the murderer is being reactive indeed but being proactive in seeking out the one insulting the family honor and murdering them though, again, the arguement could be made they are justified just as someone would be seeking out the murderer in the first place.

Again, depending on perspective, he's doing either - the insulter is proactively attacking the insultee's honor, from the insultee's perspective, and thus the insultee is being reactive; the insultee is being proactive in searching out and killing the insulter over an "imagined slight" (from the insulter's perspective) and so the insulter is a completely innocent party. By what criteria should the two opposing perspectives be evaluated? By what right can such criteria be dictated?

Originally posted by Simeron:

But, the original premise was the current situation in the middle east which is clearly where some people are imposing thier personal views of Islam upon others and taking it to the extreme of punishing (including murdering) people in the name of the religion. (not faith of Muslim).

The examples are merely tools to illustrate a point where it is easier to illustrate - in many, many cases (possibly all) who is the proactive one is entierly a point of view. Even in the case of the extremeists killing for their faith have a perspective from which what they do is right.

Personally, I'm an absolutist - such extremists are murderers, and should be tried and executed. Of course, such extremeists are absolutists too, and two absolutists who disagree will always do so. No help for it. Neither side is willing to yield. War (of some form - not all wars involve shooting people) is essentially inevitable. Pity. Avenging mere insults with killing is horridly outdated; the insultee is a murderer, and needs to be tried on that basis. The property owner in the tresspassing case is using excessive force - he has a right to his property, but barring national-security level military installations or some such, he has no right to kill to prevent someone from walking there. Whales aren't people - the whalers are. It's possible to learn a new trade. Et cetera. I'm an absolutist - I don't need a debateable reason for my judgements. Everything lies on unproveable assumptions anyway, might as well assume everything. Sometimes this results in war. Sometimes war is necessary. No help for it.

Originally posted by Simeron:


As a wise person once said, for almost every rule there will be some exception, even this one.

Yet, in picking which cases need exceptions, you are forcing one set of ethics on one or more parties (in an arbitrary manner, even) - in that manner, the position is self-contradictory. Absolutism is only self-contradictory if there are "rules" in the same set that contradict each other, or themselves - and even that is not an issue if you tack on priorities.