I feel that I can say with confidence that no. Many if not most people don’t make that leap.
featherlou, silenus has a point - outside of the family or tribe humans did not normally ascribe human virtues to outsiders. Consider the origin of the word “barbarian,” which comes to us from Ancient Greece as a general term for anyone who didn’t speak Greek as a native tongue. This attitude lives on in racism today, and religious persecutions, too. Some of the most violent cultures in history (The Mongols, in particular.) were excellent administrators of their empires, doing much to foster internal peace and diversity. At the cost of near-genocide during the acquisition of said empire.
The Book of Genesis is another excellent example: In the same book that discusses the abhorrance that the Lord views Cain’s sin, there’s gloating about convincing a whole ‘nation’ to convert to the worship of the Lord, and then attacking the incapacited warriors while they’re recovering from circumcision.
One of the reasons that I think that the efforts of the US and other International groups during the Somilian famine and revolution were so hampered was because the Somalis, themselves, had no allegience to a group beyond the tribe, and so when the formal government collapsed each tribe began fighting with the others to protect those people who were human to them. This is the same sort of thinking behind the Rwandan genocide, and the genocide in the Sudan, now.
However, while it’s fair to say that extending one’s definition of humanity to be more than one’s family or tribe is a rare trait in history, it is a trait that is assumed to be common within the First World: Which is where most of the people who post on this board come from.
So, even accepting silenus’s correction about the relative value of human life for most of history, I do agree that your questions are valid for your audience.
Quicker than it took me to write this reply.
Yep. Got it in one. 
Even in the so-called First World, reverance for human life is not an absolute by any stretch of the imagination. If it was, we wouldn’t have anything like the murder and suicide rates we do. And even here, very, very few extend the same sort of value to others that they do to their family group, clan, nation, etc. It drops exponentially as you get farther away. Look at the news. What constitutes a disaster? Locally - 2 dead. Statewide - 15 dead. Nationwide - hundreds dead. Internationally, but still First World - thousands dead. Other than First World - who cares how many are dead in Darfur?
So we see that reverance for human life is rare, historically-speaking. Then, you add in, as you did, the 100% certainty of your own demise, and you get the responses you got. Self-preservation is the strongest motivation there is. Did you actually expect people to just roll over? Especially when your scenario states that there is 100% probability of someone dying. To quote the Dwarfish war cry in Terry Pratchett’s Dickworld novels: “Today is a good day for somebody else to die!”
Ah, the monkeysphere. Good point.
This isn’t my OP - I’ve just sort of taken it over (sorry, continuity eror - just say the word, and we’ll move this debate outta here).
I didn’t (and don’t) expect people to roll over and be killed, but I was honestly surprised by the apparently cavalier attitudes towards killing posted here. You and Otaku make excellent points about where that might be coming from.
Oops. You’re right. Just say the word, c e, and we’ll take it elsewhere. Or not.
I shouldn’t have to defend myself - I’m not the one making assertions about other people’s personalities and capabilities. However - As I’ve said, I’ve had weapons in my face before. I did what was necessary to survive, and I don’t regret it at all. And that was before I spent the better part 15 years in uniform, with duties that included counter-sniper and shipboard engagement tactics, including defense of special weapons. That is more than you really need, or have a right, to know, but I’m feeling generous today. The onus is really on you to prove your assertion. So far, you’ve failed, and you will continue to fail, until such time (God forbid!) that any of the posters in this thread find themselves in the position of the OP, or one closely resembling it.
Well, let’s see - You questioned the assertions of people, people you don’t know personally, about how their own minds work, without any direct evidence, only generalizations to draw upon. You suggested that that a number of people responding to the OP were giving indications of mental illness. When corrected, you reasserted that position, questioning again my own self-understanding. IOW, you’re taking the position that you don’t think that I know how my own mind works, without any knowledge of who I am or where I’m coming from. Yup, that’s condescending behavior alright. I think I’ve been reasonably gentle with you, so far, but you’re inching out on a limb, there.
In response to the OP’s question, I would, without hesitation, despite valuing human life strongly. (I am, generally, in principle, opposed to euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment)
So why the contradiction? I think this board, and you, featherlou, deserve as honest an answer as I can formulate. How can I make a statement like this so certainly? Well, as to certainty, I will confess to being as certain as I can, without having been placed in the actual situation. I know from personal experience, having been in high stress situations a few times (>100 skydives, 1 malfunction on jump 23, CPR on my dying Dad) that how you react can be a bit of an unexpected suprise when the feces hit the air recirculation impeller. (For the record, I acted quickly and correctly on the parachute malf, including the tree landing, but remembered the correct CPR protocol only after getting angry at the EMT for gently bumping me aside; but that’s another story.)
5 years ago, I would have said just basic survival instinct, but would have been somewhat less certain. Since then, I’ve become a father, and I was suprised at how fundementally, how radically this has changed my outlook on many things, and my values. Despite my largish frame, I’m pretty much a physical coward, always afraid to get in fights in school, etc. When I was taking my son home from the hospital, I was suprised to discover how protective and paranoid I was. My "daddy defence radar"was newly online, and not yet fully calibrated. I was assessing everyone in the hospital lobby for baby-knappping risk potential, and ready to enter mortal combat at the drop of a hat. I can really empathise with mother bears, and mother dogs with new litters, now. Fortunately for my stress levels, I have toned down quite a bit from that day almost 3 years ago; but the new paradigm is still there: like I said to my Mom recently, taking care of myself now also means taking care of my son 20 years from now, as well as tomorrow. I take fewer risks on the road, and am taking steps to improve my cardio-vascular health. Sacrifices that would have been painful 5 years ago are now quite manageable with far less anguish.
As much as I am able to say this, I think I would cheefully incur grave injury to defend my son. And defending myself is now defending my son’s dad, who is far more important that just little old me. I know it sounds cheesy, and like the plot of countless mindless Hollywood B-movie explodo-flicks, but it’s now a fundamental part of who I am.
I’m still a lousy fighter: I’ve no martial arts training, and am not in great physical shape. (Althought there are plans in place to address those shortcomings) But I can still gouge out eyes and bite through carotid arteries if necessary, and at 20 feet I can shoot out the gold center of a twoonie while reciting the “to be or not to be” soliloquy from Hamlet with my 45, which should be enough for any threatening bad-guy who comes into our house. (For you shooters, yeah, I know about adrenaline & shooting vs. just on the range; I still expect to be able to put 3-5 in the upper COM, though. Like someone said eloquently above: Front sight, boom.)
When I was a wee-lad, we played war with toy guns, and the loser lied down on the ground and counted to 50, then got up again. Getting older, becoming a Dad, I have come to value life far more. I know whomever I may kill may also have a Dad, a Mom, a younger sister, etc. The movie “Unforgiven” was a big watershed for me; quoting Clint Eastwood:
I think I would regret taking a human life. I’m as sure as I can be I would not hesitate. I know I would not regret defending myself or my son, or my son’s Dad. Would I have PTSD, nightmares, etc.? I don’t think so, but I don’t know for sure.
My intention was to phrase my request for information about your background as a polite request, not a demand.
I understand you to say that you have been trained to kill someone if necessary, but you actually have never killed anyone. My assertion stands that nobody knows what it is like to kill someone until you actually do it, regardless of training. I don’t see what’s condescending about that - I’m not saying you aren’t well-trained, and I’m not saying you wouldn’t follow through on what you are trained to do; only that you don’t know until you do it.
You may also notice up-thread the discussion between Otaku, silenus, and jsgoddess and me where I noted that I had been arguing from a flawed premise, ie that most other people feel the same way about their fellow humans as I do. I still don’t like what I see in this thread (it seems like a callous disregard for other human life to me), but I understand better where other people are coming from.
As for your “gentleness”, this is still in IMHO, where “gentleness” is required. I have every right to have an opinion on this subject, just like you do.
Fair enough.
Killed? No. Done serious damage in self defense? Yes - More than once. Been placed in fear of my life, and reacted decisively? Yes. And all that, before I was given formal training. There’s zero doubt in my mind, and I’ve got personal history to add weight.
No one requires you like it. In the best of all worlds, no one would ever have to think of it. OTOH, I live in this world, and place great value upon my own life, and even more value on the lives of my loved ones. I don’t like it much either, but even the thought of the alternative, which is to surrender my fate, or the fate of my loved ones, to the whims of another - a criminal other - makes me ill. So, I’ve done, and continue to do, my homework on the subject.
Sure you do. However, a little more awareness in how you posted that opinion would have been useful. At least in this forum.
Yes.
In a heartbeat.
And I would sleep like a baby afterward.
Well, I only once ever had a loaded weapon in my hands and a potential target in my direct line of sight. I had to decide then if I was going to fire on an unarmed civilian, on the orders of my commander.
He gave the order to lock and load, and I did.
He advised the crowd that “If you step across the road, you will be shot.”
He waited, and the crowd dispersed.
Now, that was a whole lot less clearly self-defense than the OP, and I believe that I would have shot. I was thinking about the nuclear weapons behind me, that these idiots didn’t even know were there. I was thinking that they were just too stupid to be allowed to get any closer to becoming really dangerous, instead of just dangerously stupid. Fortunately, they were not quite stupid enough to try crossing the road. So, we watched them dither about, and then leave, over the sights of loaded weapons. I was incredibly calm. Resolute doesn’t even begin to describe it.
I almost wet my pants, that night, after we were told to unload magazines, and clear our chambers. I was angry, frightened, and weak with reaction. I suspect that in the OP scenario I would shoot, twice to the body, and move quickly to the other side of the room, away from the door. I would be very quiet, and listen for any movement. (It’s really dark in my room, by the way, and I know a guy coming in from the lights out in the street can’t see squat in my room.) Then I would call 911, and loudly tell the cop I had just shot at least one intruder.
Later, I would be very angry at the dead guy. I would also feel sorry for him. I would feel guilt, and I would reject the guilt intellectually. I would try to learn to forgive myself, and would probably always have strong feelings about it.
I might be wrong. I might freeze until it was too late to do anything. If I had had just a few seconds more, I might have talked my way out of killing him. I am much better at talking than shooting, although I can hit seven out of seven head shots at the extreme range available in my room. (Besides, in Hypothetical City, I would have my laser sights, and could put a red dot on the bridge of his nose, as an initial talking point.)
I don’t want to kill even this inept sociopath. He wanted this, not me, and he left me far too few options. I am old, fat, and clumsy. He has a knife, and I really don’t want to get stabbed. I don’t even want to get non fatally stabbed. If I knew for certain I would survive getting stabbed by this low life, I would shoot twice for the center of his body, and then move to the other side of the room. Hell, he might survive two to the chest. Probably not, though.
Tris
One to the cranium, two to center mass, make sure he was alone, roll him up in a rug and bury him under the pool.
damned fingers are too fast for my own good.
No, seriously. I would shoot in a second. Not to wound, but to kill. The person unfortunate enough to choose my house in which to, um, break, would take his or her last breath there, on my living room carpet, next to the computer armoire. Of that much I am certain. Then I’d sue his family to recover the clean up cost.
This, even in jest, is a Very Bad Idea. It will leave you wide open to all manner of criminal charges.
In self defense, you shoot until the threat stops, and no more than that. Then you assure yourself that that everyone you treasure is alive and well, and get the authorities there, pronto.
Any other course action leaves you in a no-win situation. Bad enough that you had to use deadly force, but attempting to hide that fact will put you on the wrong side of the law.
Besides, there are laws about that sort of thing. Garbage belongs in the dumpster, not under the pool!
Of course I know that. Tranquilis just being facetious. I just despise the idea of the reams and reams of paperwork that follow a shooting, that’s all.
I think the common aphorism is “better be tried by twelve than carried by six”.
And featherlou, you see now the problem is in assuming certain baselines as universal. Say, for instance, the meaning of the word “guilt” – to some of us, it is not just any sense of being upset at something you would rather have not done, but specifically the sense of believing you have done something you yourself believed to be wrong (whether that was true or not) out of your own fault. Or, the whole concept of the “sanctity of life”, which you seem to hold to a stricter standard than most of us, but for most of humanity has meant and still means the sanctity of some lives. (Although it does sound pedantic at times to bring it up, the original text of the biblical commandment is not “thou shalt not kill”, in general, but “thou shalt not murder”, which fits well with the violent society described in that particular Book. So the common tag “YMMV” has always applied.) The way I see it, sure I value life… but in the OP scenario one life will be lost no matter what, so I have a survival imperative to value MY life more, in the absence of extenuating circumstances.