Imagine that you are confronted by a dangerous robber brandishing a gun at you and your family. Do you have a moral obligation to retreat from this mortal threat? In other words, if you can run away from evil, are you morally obligated to do so? (to ensure that “nobody gets hurt” in the confrontation?) Most Leftists insist, “Absolutely.” In fact, they would implore that you have a moral obligation to do everything in your power to avoid conflict – to remain “peaceful” at all times.
Now, let’s say you exercise your sovereign right to stand your ground, not to retreat under duress, to protect yourself and your property from peril. Do you then have a moral obligation to remain passive unless, and until, the robber physically harms you? Almost every good Leftist will insist, “Yes. You absolutely cannot preemptively use force upon someone who has not injured you [yet], who has actually done nothing wrong to you.” Because, up until the point where the criminal plugs you with a bullet, the robber has done absolutely no demonstrable harm to you. (why, he may have no “intention” of pulling the trigger of the gun which is aimed at your family)
And, in fact, according to modern Leftist orthodoxy, unless you surrender, you actually create the risk of enraging the robber, making him “mad at you” – thus, threatening him by flaunting your own strength by not fleeing (or cowering). Therefore, because you failed to remove yourself from the situation, if he decides to assault you, you’ve actually invited the trouble, and hence, deserve the punishment you get!
Right? Where’s the fatal flaw here in the Leftist’s line of moral ‘reasoning’? (the robber probably had a traumatic childhood, is most likely “under-privileged”, and has undoubtedly been denied “access to healthcare” by someone – and simply needs more hugs..)