Should trapping/starving an invader on your private property be considered unethical?

[Deleted]

I mean, since we have the legal right to shoot someone if they trespass on our property why not delve into that further?
Could this be considered moral in any possible way?

-Let me give you an example:

John decided to rob some defenceless old man living peacefully in some rich rural area or something.
The old man has a bear trap. Where does this lead exactly?
Well, let's assume for a moment that we have John, with no weapon or anything with which he could use to set himself free after stepping in the bear trap.

Above that, let's say the old man would consider not calling the police. Would it be unethical to starve John?
He's a criminal after all.
What about the circumstances, wouldn't they justify the poor old man's actions?

I think they would, but that wasn't my question.
For me, at least, if shooting should be allowed, so should be other ways to protect yourself and bring justice to the world. ( By any means whatsoever.)
What do you think?

[XDurionX]

In civilized societies, breaking and entering is not punishable by death without trial. You are allowed to hold somebody guilty of a crime until authorities arrive. This is neither "protection" nor "justice". And it doesn't matter whether you're old and poor or young, fit and rich. As long as somebody is no threat to you, you mustn't harm them.

[Darththeo]

You lose the right to self defense in that case. Once you know you are safe, if you continue to harm the other person, you become the criminal. So no, you do not have the right to catch and starve someone.

[Deleted]

You lose the right to self defense in that case. Once you know you are safe, if you continue to harm the other person, you become the criminal. So no, you do not have the right to catch and starve someone.

What if they resist?

[Darththeo]

What if they resist?

No /topic ... never. You don't have the right to starve someone to death.

[Aeula]

Seems pretty ethical to me.

[Vorkreist]

Catch and starve? Sounds like you have some repressed mental issues op.

[Deleted]

No /topic ... never. You don't have the right to starve someone to death.

But would you consider it?
What if the victim was a mass murderer, child-rapist or anything of the like?
I don't think starving someone is any more brutal than gassing or using the electric chair for executions.

That should serve as a sign for "Don't step on my property.". It has nothing to do with being civilised but rather what should be the limits of what you're allowed to do on your property. Even if some acts are rather extreme compared to others.

[Reivur]

I think trapping John is perfectly ethical. I will say its a very strange manner of doing it, but its ethical because John put himself in that situation by doing a bad deed. However if the old man kept the incident quiet without contacting the police I would find to be unethical. At that point he's engaging in vigilantism, at minimum. And that's me being polite at best.

To take your example further— if the Old Man somehow lured John into said trap akin to entrapment, while I wouldn't find pity for John for taking the bait, I would still find the Old man to be unethical because that's premeditation.

[XDurionX]

But would you consider it?
What if the victim was a mass murderer, child-rapist or anything of the like?
I don't think starving someone is any more brutal than gassing or using the electric chair for executions.

That should serve as a sign for "Don't step on my property.". It has nothing to do with being civilised but rather what should be the limits of what you're allowed to do on your property. Even if some acts are rather extreme compared to others.

Owning stuff doesn't make you judge, jury and executioner. What primitive world view is this?

[Stormdash]

It's illegal to set traps for trespassers in most places, perhaps all, in the United States. And having someone in a trap and intentional starving them or allowing the to die of exposure would fall well outside any self-defense doctrine we recognize, including the Castle Doctrine (which only sets a rebuttable presumption in favor of self-defense; someone weak and starving on day two in a bear trap overcomes that presumption easily and obviously).

[lonely zergling]

I hope you are on some sort of watchlist already. This is scary.

[Deleted]

since we have the legal right to shoot someone if they trespass on our property

In civilised countries you don't. Even in uncivilised countries that right is limited.

If you caught a criminal, you should call police. If you don't call police and instead hold that person hostage, you become criminal and should be treated as such.

[Deleted]

I think trapping John is perfectly ethical. I will say its a very strange manner of doing it, but its ethical because John put himself in that situation by doing a bad deed. However if the old man kept the incident quiet without contacting the police I would find to be unethical. At that point he's engaging in vigilantism, at minimum. And that's me being polite at best.

To take your example further— if the Old Man somehow lured John into said trap akin to entrapment, while I wouldn't find pity for John for taking the bait, I would still find the Old man to be unethical because that's premeditation.

Fair enough, but if it isn't premeditation and let's say, for example, John gets trapped inside a wall?
The old man isn't calling the police, John starves. Still wrong?

Owning stuff doesn't make you judge, jury and executioner. What primitive world view is this?

Just a different way of looking at an issue, that's all.

I hope you are on some sort of watchlist already. This is scary.

It's a hypothetical, relax.
I'm merely exercising my freedom of speech, not advocating for anything.

[Great Destiny Man]

What if the victim was a mass murderer, child-rapist or anything of the like?

Do we suddenly expect criminals to wear a badge saying "I'm a child rapist, ask me anything!"? There is absolutely no know way of knowing this if the guy just literally broken into your house.

Not that it matters, because engaging in torture makes you a criminal yourself.

[Deleted]

I don't think starving someone is any more brutal than gassing or using the electric chair for executions.

Really? You see no difference in brutality between those execution methods? You need professional help. Really. Call a therapist.

[protip]

I think pretty much anyone who is thinking straight will agree that this is completely insane. Even if you're going to murder someone, starving them would be incredibly cruel, and just to be clear, that's what this hypothetical situation would be - murder.

[Machismo]

But would you consider it?
What if the victim was a mass murderer, child-rapist or anything of the like?
I don't think starving someone is any more brutal than gassing or using the electric chair for executions.

That should serve as a sign for "Don't step on my property.". It has nothing to do with being civilised but rather what should be the limits of what you're allowed to do on your property. Even if some acts are rather extreme compared to others.

You are attempting to move goalposts to justify your sadism. It's not about self defense, it's about supporting murder.

[Deleted]

You have only the right to protect yourself, not excercise whatever twisted idea you have of justice. Once a threat is neutralized, you are no longer acting in self defense. It's very simple really.

[Deleted]

What if we take murder out of it then?
If John is starved enough that he passed out instead of dying but in the end, he reaches a hospital, would that make it kind of right?
You know, the type of situation, lesson learned, no harm done.