corroonb wrote:
One can stop mass murder without killing. I believe the police do this all the time without killing the mass-murderer. Correct?
By threatening said killer with killing? How is that morally superior to actually killing him? Sometimes it can be done, sometimes it can't, that's the nature of the business.
As to you personally, whatever you may think intellectually, self preservation is a hardwired instinct, except in extraordinary circumstances it's not so easily overridden. Both of my maternal grandparents suffered long and drawn out terminal illness, and each of them also said repeatedly that they'd rather die then go through a long and drawn out death. Both of them fought tooth and nail to the last agonizing breath breath through every bit of pain and indignity that could be thrown at them. Anecdotal, I know, but convincing if you've been through it. I've just learned that no one really knows how they'll react to the presence of death until it's truly upon them, everything up to that point is just talk.
As far as defending one's life goes, you don't have to value your life more highly than the lives of others in order to do that. It's simply a matter of expedient method, force on force works fairly well, so that's the method I practice. Quite frankly, your view of all lives being equal and force never being justified are really naive, noble in intent perhaps, but naive none the less.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez