Killing when you are not fighting for defensive victory
Once upon a time, there was a silly party game called "Scruples." A player would draw a card, posing a moral or ethical dilemma in order to amuse party-goers. You attempt to weasel around supposedly sticky wickets. The idea was nothing new, or at least if there was anything new to it, it was the trivializing structure of certain specific and mostly trivial questions. Yet moral philosophy is only important in the interstices, when one principle or goal conflicts with another. If you believe that you hold a rule to be absolute, I search for a circumstance, however extreme, in which you would violate it. The threshold for killing is high, for what should be obvious reasons, yet for most people that does not mean that it is an inviolable rule. Whether that is the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, killing in self-defense, or even some absurd variation of the trolley problem, unless you are the weirdest of the weird, a Jainist, or somet...