[rocqua]

Perhaps sometimes, people need to do things that, whilst we would do the same in their position, we still want to condemn as wrong. Not because we disagree with their action, but because we need to signal to the outside world that actions like it are wrong. The circumstances that made such an action acceptable to our minds privately are too nuanced, too easy to stretch to publicly say they made it okay.

As a consolation, in these kinds of cases, taking action and dealing with condemnation is still better than not taking action. Of course, it is not right that people have to choose between two wrongs (living with the situation, or taking action and being condemned for it).

But life isn't fair. That isn't a statement of 'pushing the world into a fair state is infeasible to the point of imposiblity'. Instead, it is a statement that 'there is no state of the world that could be described as fair.

Moreover, the effect of such 'unfair condemnation' is tempered by people like you. I suppose that an actual working society needs both voices. Certainly, the signaling effect does not require that the condemnation be universal, just that it is substantial.

[Faark]

Totally agree with this sentiment. Especially in situations of deadly but hardly justified self defense.

Sure, if you feel threaten you should use your gun. But you're feeling being would have a significant cost for society and you should have to bear your part of it.

[chrisdhoover]

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you the queen?

[rocqua]

We - members of society.

The sentence started with perhaps. Hence, this was a supposition about how society should be.