The ethics of reacting to a mass attack like V-tech

[Count of Montesano]

I've already started a thread in the mudpit about how some conservative pundits are berating the Virginia Tech students, especially the men, for not sacrificing their lives to stop the gunmen. The argument goes - everybody should have rushed him and though he'd likely killed the first 2-3 counterattackers Cho would have been overwhelmed and stopped from killing 33 more people.

So I thought I would start a thread on the ethics of how someone should react to a mass murderer or terrorist.

Some questions:

1. Should sacrificing yourself to stop a situation similar to V-Tech be every citizen's duty? I'm sure the Romans would have said so, but I'm not sure that's always the case in modern society.

2. Is it moral/ethical to seek safety when the gunman is still on the loose?

3. What are the ethics of taking a situation into your own hands knowing that things might turn out worse if you do?

(e.g., there are two terrorists and you catch one unawares. The other terrorist begins to kill hostages on the other side of the building. Unbeknownst to you, the SWAT team was about to use flash bangs that would have rendered both terrorists senseless)

4. In today's equal and liberated society, should men still be expected to provide all the defense in this situation? Or should women be encouraged to take self defense and join in if they get a chance? Obviously, the average woman can't stop somebody the size of the Rock or a terrorist trained in hand-to-hand. But I know plenty of women who could probably have taken Cho.

[Kythras]

The idea of conservatices criticising students, who were probably scared absolutely ****ing ******** (felt it was appropriate), because they didn't think to attack a man armed with two handguns makes me so angry - I'd like to see them take on a man armed the same ****ing way. (Sorry for the cursing, but it really does make me mad.

1. No, it is not anyone's duty, it is up to everyone to make their own decisions, and making a culture that encourages people to do things like that is, in my opinion, far too similar to conscription. Then again, I would like to think that if someone I cared about was in danger, I could do something like that, but I would never say it was anyone's duty.

2. Of course it is, it's instinct, all the morals, ethics, creeds, codes in teh world have a difficult time getting over basic human instinct. It may not me moral or ethical, but it sure as hell isn't immoral or unethical - it's just human.

3. Just like 1, that's up to every person to decide, but given the opportunity, I would always leave it to the proffessionals, and I'd hope everyone else would do the same.

4. Of course not... hypothetically. I like to think of myself as one of the most liberal and tolerant people I know and I have to say, that if I heard of a woman taking on a terrorist I would be much more suprised than if I heard a man doing it (a couple of decades of feminism will have a lot of trouble erasing millenia of bigotted gender roles, that have worked their way into the human psyche). Women should be encouraged to take exactly the same actions as men under circumstances like that...

Just my 2 siserci...