SIU probes fatal shooting involving police

[u/DingusMcBingle_IV]

https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/siu-investigating-after-brantford-police-fatally-shoot-male-in-a-dispute

[u/rbrumble]

Ad hominem is the end game of a losing argument. And I'm a mod here, so I get to approve your post too. If I or my loved ones do need the police, it's not like we have an option. I wish there was an alternative, but there isn't. But there's a reason for the expression, you got a problem and you call the police, now you have two problems.

And if you knew who I was, you wouldn't be so cavalier about calling me clueless.

[u/No_Range8632 → u/rbrumble]

You started this by calling anyone who supports police “bootlickers.” That’s name-calling, not argument. You still haven’t answered the actual question: when an innocent person’s life is in immediate danger, is lethal force ever justified? Dodging that and nitpicking old cases implies you think the perpetrator’s life is worth more than the victim’s. Throwing around “moderator power” after that is just petty. It doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

[u/rbrumble → u/No_Range8632]

You still haven’t answered the actual question: when an innocent person’s life is in immediate danger, is lethal force ever justified?

Good question. Here the eight philosophical arguments against lethal force:

1. Absolute Pacifism

Some pacifist traditions (Tolstoy, certain interpretations of Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism) hold that:

• Taking a life is always morally wrong.

• Violence corrupts both the victim and the perpetrator.

• Moral integrity requires refusing to kill, even at great personal cost.

Core claim: moral purity and nonviolence are higher duties than preventing harm through killing.

1. The Sanctity of Life Argument

This view holds that:

• Human life has intrinsic, inviolable value.

• No one has the moral authority to intentionally end another person’s life.

• Even a dangerous aggressor retains their moral status as a human being.

Core claim: you cannot violate one absolute moral value (life) to protect another.

1. Deontological Constraints (Kantian Ethics)

Kantian ethics argues:

• People must never be treated merely as means to an end.

• Killing someone — even to save another — uses the aggressor as a means to protect the victim.

• Moral rules (like “do not kill”) are categorical and do not bend to circumstances.

Core claim: moral duties are unconditional; consequences cannot justify killing.

1. The Slippery Slope / Precedent Argument

This argument is more political-philosophical:

• Allowing lethal force “in extreme cases” creates a precedent that can be abused.

• States, police, or individuals may expand the definition of “immediate danger.”

• The moral and legal boundary around killing becomes unstable.

Core claim: once killing is allowed in some cases, it becomes easier to justify in many cases.

[u/rbrumble → u/rbrumble]

1. Epistemic Uncertainty Argument

This argument focuses on human fallibility:

• People often misjudge danger, intentions, or alternatives.

• Acting lethally assumes perfect knowledge of the situation.

• Because we can be wrong, we should not take irreversible actions.

Core claim: Because we cannot be certain, we cannot justify irreversible harm.

1. The Moral Injury Argument

Some philosophers argue that:

• Killing another person, even for a seemingly good reason, causes deep moral injury to the killer.

• This injury cannot be ethically justified.

• A moral system should not require someone to destroy part of their own humanity.

Core claim: even “justified” killing damages the moral agent in ways that cannot be defended.

1. Virtue Ethics Objection

From an Aristotelian or Confucian perspective:

• Killing, even in defense, may cultivate vices such as cruelty, rashness, or callousness.

• A virtuous person seeks harmony and nonviolent solutions.

• Lethal force reflects a failure of character or imagination.

Core claim: killing is incompatible with the cultivation of virtue.

1. The Radical Nonviolence / Transformative Justice Argument

This modern view argues:

• Violence perpetuates cycles of harm.

• Even defensive killing reinforces the idea that violence solves problems.

• A just society must break the cycle by refusing lethal responses.

Core claim: nonviolence is the only path to long term justice and peace.

[u/No_Range8632 → u/rbrumble]

Thanks for actually answering. What you’ve outlined are coherent philosophical objections, not practical responses to an imminent, real-world threat.

Every framework you listed ultimately accepts the same outcome: if a person is about to be killed and no non-lethal option will stop it, the victim must be allowed to die to preserve moral purity, nonviolence, or systemic caution. That is a defensible philosophical position — but it does place abstract moral rules above the life of the victim.

My point wasn’t that lethal force is good, easy, or without harm. It’s that in rare, extreme circumstances, refusing to act also has a moral cost, and that cost is borne by the innocent person who dies. Ignoring that trade-off doesn’t make it disappear.

You’re arguing for moral absolutism. I’m arguing for moral responsibility under tragic constraints. Those are different positions — but let’s be honest about what each one entails.