joefromchicago wrote:Now, was Mr. Bullseye wrong to shoot Mr. Gravity?
On a natural law test -- does Mr. Bullseye shock my conscience? -- the answer is yes. The shock is not as bad as if Mr. Bullseye had shot random, non-suicidal people in the street. But it's clear to me that I cannot comfortably state that Mr. Bullseye's shot is morally unproblematic.
As a utilitarian, on the other hand, I can't identify a problem with the act itself, unless Mr. Bullseye's shot adds pain and suffering to Mr. Gravity's short remainder of his life. There is the shortening of Mr. Gravity's life, but it's merely by seconds, and in any event the remaining life is worthless to Mr. Gravity, as judged by his willingness to commit suicide.
Yet on the third hand I can, still speaking as a utilitarian, see problems with a rule stating "it's okay for Mr. Bullseye to shoot Mr. Gravity in this case". For example, the rule might desensitize marksmen from killing humans in other cases, where there is no utilitarian excuse for the act. Also, the rule might be difficult to enforce -- how does the prosecutor tell if Mr. Gravity was falling before or after Mr. Bullseye shot him?
Maybe I'm just rationalizing the results of my subjective does-it-shock-my-conscience test. But this is how I would resolve the conflict between my natural-lawish view and my utilitarian view.
