But yes, if I had to play Chooser of the Slain I can do it. In response to another question of ethics in another thread, I replied plainly that my priorities are clear: I'd shoot a stranger who was threatening my friend; I shoot my friend if he threatened my sister; I'd shoot my sister if she threatened my son or myself. My valuation of people is admittedly subjective, I value immediate family most of all, friends second, acquaintances third. The value of a stranger to me depends on a variety of things, including gender and age as well as utility and behavior. I value the life of the innocent over the guilty; as a societal and biological imperative I value children and women of reproductive age more than others. I value a fellow American more than most foreigners, and a friendly foreigner more than a hostile one.
I have no problems with hard choices. I just dislike having my options limited in an unrealistic manner.
It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.I can see where what I said may have offended you and for that I apologize; however, I believe there is some truth to what I am saying. That is, what I am asking is a difficult question to answer. There isn't much precedence to rely on; one must rely on their own hard-set values and then rationalize those in a manner that is socially acceptable. Its complicated.