It's a topsy-turvy world. CarteachO writes that he is always armed because he sees self-defense as not only a right, but a moral obligation:
I carry a weapon because it is the moral thing to do. It meets with my definition of doing ‘right’. Being prepared to defend myself and loved ones is part of being a responsible person.
Please allow me to explain…
I believe people have a ‘moral obligation’ to take responsibility for themselves, not leaving the task as a burden to others. I know this may not be a popular concept in some circles, but that doesn't change it as my belief. I know we are laden with entire generations of people who honestly think they bear no responsibility for their own safety, wellbeing, and actions.
I engaged this idea in the comment thread, asserting that one only has a moral obligation to defend oneself if one insists upon being defended by others. If a person refuses to defend him/herself, but also declines the defense of others, s/he has not engaged in parasitism and therefore has committed no moral wrong.
If people are truly free, then they are free to make bad decisions as well as good ones; they are free to choose to live and to choose to die. If people cannot opt out of a social contract, they are merely slaves, not free men and women.
Some of the commentors whether or not a pacifist has the right to decline to use force to defend his/her children from violence. This is an interesting question which requires contemplation. It is similar to the question of whether or not a parent may ethically decline medical treatment based upon religious grounds.
HT: Hell In a Handbasket