The sayer of it gets to claim some moral high ground, as if they and they alone care about human life, while any who disagree with them are monsters who won't inconvenience themselves in the least to save anyone.
Let's examine this with hypothetical exchange between myself and a gun banner. Er, "gun control proponent":
Gun Banner: "If we had just some sensible regulations of guns, we could save the lives of our precious children! If it just saved one life, it would be worth it!"
Me: "We already have sensible regulations of guns, like ID, and registration and waiting periods and size and type and caliber and such."
Gun Banner: "We need more then! If it saved just one life, it would be worth it!"
Me: "I disagree. Life is precious, but if all it takes for us to be compelled to do something is to cite that one life might be saved, then we'd all be deprived of any real living. For instance, we would have to give up all two and more story houses and buildings - to save at least one life in the 1,307 lives lost in the year 2000. And presumably more since."
Gun Banner: "I guess I value life more than you. I don't mind some restrictions and regulations to save lives. I'm glad we have building codes about stairs and such, to make people safer."
Me: "Ahh, you did that thing where you pretended not to read what I wrote so as to not have to address it. I am sure that the regulations we have on building stairs do save lives - yet 1,307 still died in stair related accidents in 2000, and presumably at least a thousand more per year since. That's 18,000 deaths that could have been prevented, had we simply banned stairs. You said 'if it saved a life, it would be worth it', so to prevent his holocaust, would not outlawing all two story houses be worth it?"
Gun Banner: "You're being extreme! I can honestly desire to save more lives, and not wish to go that far!"
Me: "Ahh, now then you know how I feel. I honestly desire to save lives, and accept some limits and regulations such that we already have. But I do not wish to add more. You on the other hand are up for adding more - but in other issues would wish to stand fast with what rules we have, adding no more. Our difference then is only in degree."
Gun Banner: "That's not true!"
Me: "Sure it is. When the rule proposed was too much for you - too inconvenient - you were willing to trot out the 'lets not take it to extremes' modifier. But when I - or any gun right's advocate - wants to have a cap on regulations, this many and no more, then you are accusing them of loving life less than you."
Gun Banner: "But I do love life more! I'd do anything to save a life, and yeah, if the law was proposed, I would advocate that we all live in one story homes!"
Me: "It's easy to say you'd say that, when you know that no such law will ever be proposed. But let us examine how great your love of life really is. How many children in Africa and Central America have you adopted, so that their lives are saved by your 72 cents per day sponsorship?"
Gun Banner: "You're trying to personalize this! Where I donate to is my business!"
Me: "Not when your thesis is that your love of life is unlimited and others are morally inferior to you. Then I have the right to ask - are you truly doing everything to save every life you can? Schindler wished he had sold his car - to save the lives of ten more Jews. Have you sold your car - to save the lives of 10 more African children? Have you sold your computer to feed one more? All your luxury items? Do you live in the cheapest efficiency you can find, just to send yet more overseas to save yet more lives? Or is living life a value, not just saving lives?"
Gun Banner: "*&$^%@!" *flounces*
Me: *victory dance*
No comments:
Post a Comment