On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Why should we not? > Why should we not what? > Should we instead make our selfs guilty of the same behaviour that > seems universal reprehensabile? Should we then sink to that level > ourselves? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. > My original point was that life is cheap. We don't kill because it's right or wrong. We kill for expediency. > The point is to maintian that moral superiority. If a man steals from > me, can I then steal from him? Wouldn't that make me also a theif? > Personally I don't claim any kind of superiority - moral or otherwise. If somebody steals from me I'll try to steal back my property and possibly anything else that happens to be lying around. I may even give the guy a punch in the nose on the way out the door. If you want to call me a thief for it go ahead. > revenge killings as we know only lead to further revenge killings. We > have here in the UK a growing youth gang problem, with kids killing > other kids for slights imagined or otherwise, and then in turn the > other gang of kids killing members of the ther other gang. Is that > right, it is the correct behaviour? > This just leads into the whole argument - is war right or wrong. Is it wrong for a street gang to retaliate when it's territory is breached by a rival gang? If no then why is it right for nations to do the same thing? > Killing a killer makes no logical sense. > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. It removes a threat from society. It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that killer. It provides a deterrent against other killings.
