At 1/29/06 04:46 AM, -Ellie- wrote:
Obviously the penalty for the former is more severe, but I still think I did the right thing. Besides, I didn't randomly attack someone for no reason. It wasn't self defence either, but it was in the defence of an animal's life. Christ, you're talking like I beat the shit out of the guy.
What would you have done in my situation?
I already told you what I would've done in your thread, and that would include NOT kicking the person because I worse crime doesn't cover up a lesser one.
You're hearts are in the right places, but like most people who consider themselves moral, they usually commit the worst moral decisions. I'd bring examples, but that warrants a whole new topic. In any case, you should've considered two things: one being the well-being of everyone affected by your decision, in this case, the kitten and the kid. Sure, the kitten lived, but you found out its suffering anyway. Not only that, the child is now going to the hospital, and possibly needs stitches, which means he'll probably have an ugly scar on his face by now. His family is going to have to pay for the hospital bill if this happened in the United States, and nobody knows their financial standing. The kid will be fine if they're rich, with the exception of a permanent scar, but if they're poor, you just fucked up the entire family's lives. Of course, you had a split second to make a decision, but you still let face values affect you. Between the health of an animal and a man, it's a no-brainer.
The second thing you should've put into account is "what if everyone made your kind of decision?" If you really think that was such a good decision to follow through, enough for you to act upon it, then you must wish that everybody thought like you did. What if everybody believes that sometimes a larger crime is needed to right a lesser wrong? Then you're dwelling in the realms of terrorism, which again warrants another thread.