Killing someone before they kill you serves a direct purpose -- it stops them from killing you. I think a better analogy here would be killing someone in a way that doesn't stop them from killing you, with a time bomb or poison or something, as some kind of "from hell's heart" gesture. Which, while I fully understand the emotion behind it, I don't think can quite be justified morally.
I dunno. While I'm uncomfortable with it, I get that there could be valid institutional reasons for killing. But the idea of institutionalized sexual assault or torture is a clear, absolute moral wrong. I guess because killing can (in unfortunate circumstances) serve a simple, utilitarian purpose, while the others are inherently punitive in nature. They're revenge motivated.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I dunno. While I'm uncomfortable with it, I get that there could be valid institutional reasons for killing. But the idea of institutionalized sexual assault or torture is a clear, absolute moral wrong. I guess because killing can (in unfortunate circumstances) serve a simple, utilitarian purpose, while the others are inherently punitive in nature. They're revenge motivated.