In the words of Holly Near

"Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?"

Nothing gives anyone the right to take away anothers life. You might say it's to preserve honour Telan, but I don't see that honour exists in Western civilization anymore. It was eradicated years ago, at least in the way that most people view honour.

Perhaps in the culture but not in the people. I know many men who still hold true the ideals of honour. It becomes not right but neccessary to eradicate contraveners of the law to prevent future transgressions of order.

Are you willing to kill one person to save a hundred, the answer is every time yes. If you cannot make that kind of decision than one has no place in command, enforcement, or authority. Sometimes killing is neccesary. Not all the times, but sometimes. Regretable, but neccessary.

That is a matter of opinion,

I don't think it is. I think it's a very real truth. Unfortunately, the times we (as a society) have taken life for no reason whatsoever blinds us to the fact that sometimes it is the only option.

No one here was alive to see World War II. But it is widely agreed to be the most (if not the only) NECCESSARY war of the 21st Century.

And yet it cost lives - millions of them. But you know what? It was neccessary?

Sad? Yes. Unfortunate? Yes. A terrible waste? YES.

But neccessary, nonetheless.

I'm a peacenick, always have been, probably always will be. I hate, HATE war. But sometimes, yes, it's neccessary.

Sometimes its neccessary to take a life - be it to save another or 1000 others.

That said, I think the idea of "honour" is ridiculous. "Honour" is a concept man invented for himself to feel better about himself, and give him some reason to do something stupid (like, for example, pistols at dawn). You'll notice that rarely will we talk about honour unless someone has attacked it.

Back on topic:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Broussard.mov

I feel so hated

No one here was alive to see World War II. But it is widely agreed to be the most (if not the only) NECCESSARY war of the 21st Century.

However, i'm of the view that even in such a time of war like that, I'd rather die myself than end that of others, as selfish as it may be construed.

The instinct of self preservation ends when I have to live by the life of another.

I'm not worth it, whatever the situation.

That's just my belief.

I understand what you're saying though.

Morals are the benefit of sentience - but so is a sense of Justice and Righteousness. There are times when death is the only punishment warranted a crime if for no other reason so that whatever beings command from beyond can more quickly enact their own reciprocity.

Xion - if you were told you had to either kill a man holding a stadium hostage with an exp[losive device or he would kill 20,000 spectators, would you hoestly feel yourself above the task and let 20,000 people die? I doubt it - -or at least I hope not.

I can honestly say that I can't answer that.

What if the guy was holding a dead man switch? What then?

That is a situation we have debated in the LE community -not least at out department. In such a situation you shoot to wound as to incapacitate him, rescue the hostages, and give him immediate first aide while also remvoing the threat of him activating said weapon in either life or death.

My point is unfortunatel but true - there are times when death becomes the neccessary answer in the preservation of life. We are not eager to make that choice but if we hesitate in making it or act selfishly in the decision we could cost others' their lives. I feel this way - better one man in hell for acting than a thousand for his lack thereof.