In my mind, killing is quite a large topic. For others I can understand how it's as simple as "don't" and in my daily life that is most definitely the case. On the deeper issue however, I'm still undecided. To that end, what follows is my own reasoning through it with the hopes of coming to a conclusion of sorts. So let's begin with some basic boundaries on what we're talking about.
To start with I may as well declare that I am a supporter of assisted suicide. That probably complicates every further moral question straight away but I think this is a cut-and-dry solution to a serious problem. If somebody is in pain or nearing the end of their life and wants to "skip to the end", I feel that it's only right that this should be their choice. They didn't choose to come into the world so they might as well get a say on leaving the place. Plus there's nobody out there getting off on faking their own need for euthanasia; or at least if they are and they're successful, they can only really do it the one time. Should it ever exist, such an epidemic would be a demonstration of immediate self-correction.
For the most part (in fact all but excluding this very part right here) animals are excluded from the discussion (discussion with myself, indeed). I would disapprove heavily of the killing of any animal larger than a cockroach unless a veterinary expert had deemed it necessary. I'm not entirely sure why my mind draws the line there but if you're taking cockroaches to a vet then I have to discount you from this too. But generally animals are innocent and do not have the mental capability for deception, corruption and misdeeds, thereby get a free pass - again, unless it is the only choice due to it being irreparably ill or a psychopath.
And this is where the "don't kill humans" message gets fuzzy for me. If you have a dodgy toaster that on being requested to make some toast in fact tries to set fire to the kitchen then you hastily discard it. Perhaps if you got an engineer in to look at it then he'd fiddle with a few wires and it would be back making toast without the 'attempted arson' feature. But what if it worked for a while and then broke in the same way? The cost of one toaster isn't worth the risk of your entire family and house up in flames, so on repeated violations the engineer would eventually suggest that it isn't salvageable. A human being who consistently kills or otherwise tries to harm other human beings must be
faulty on a fundamental level. With seven billion of us all hanging about the place we're not exactly on the protected species register; and frankly we can spare a few if they go wonky.
I would guess that this thinking means supporting the idea of a death penalty in our justice system, but I can't think that I really would other than in the most extreme cases. On a conceptual level, killing "feels" wrong (or at the very least I feel that it
should feel wrong) but it's safe to say that nobody crowding round to put a boot into Muammar Gaddafi's corn-fed torso felt that wrongness as they dragged him out of his hiding place. I don't consider that snuffing out the life of a serial child murderer would bring us down to his/her level - they are damaged in the head, we would be mercifully delivering repair in the only form possible. However this should be applied in such few instances that it probably doesn't warrant being part of the legal system at all. Like the loaded weapon by the bedside cabinet it's a protection you afford yourself at a level of risk, given that you're not the only one who can use it.
Violent mobs occur the world over with riots, lynchings and mass brawls able to break out wherever there are humans with even the most incredibly small bones to pick. It could be a good old-fashioned tabloid-fuelled paedophile hunt or simply a wrong glance at a wrong person upgrading into chaos - group mentality can allow its members to be swept up in the moment such that they can gleefully witness horrors of phenomenal magnitude and escape unbroken. There's also the popular family outing that is public stoning, one of the most horrendous ways to die I can even comprehend (and that's taking into consideration that I can't even begin to comprehend it). Again there is an invisible mental line that results in an "us and them" situation, where us feels squeamish about things like throwing rocks at living flesh and dragging bloodied corpses through the street. Them could be right but I'm willing to take my chances with the choice I've made.
I've been known to hit a ten on the annoyance scale and on the road, the most dangerous place we regularly go to, I could easily wish death upon certain people in the seconds after they throw me some stupidity to avoid, but given the trigger and a point-blank range - even whilst still fuming from it - I would not manage to carry it out (almost certainly not). If they suddenly and mysteriously handed back their driving licence I'd be more than happy. I'd also like to think that even when faced with the prospect of mob justice for the most heinous individual imaginable, I would be simply
appalled at what other people were doing to Piers Morgan.
So, I think I've got it. Brace yourself to disagree.
- Murder: bad
- Self-murder: okay, but no using it whenever you feel - it is for the avoidance of painful final moments only.
- Pre-calculated murder of entities demonstrably too evil to contribute a "net positive" to society: probably logical, except with our thoroughly-documented tendency for error and hyperbole let's not bother. By the same token, let's not supply them with steak and pornography either.
