Well on killing...
If somebody, who you are unable to stop after trying everything
thing, is about to cause grevious and prehaps fatal harm on an
innocent... would you resort to killing or inaction?
I would kill that person to stop him, as it is my conviction that
that would be the moral thing to do. Unless I recieve any strong
supernatural conviction at that time to do otherwise I would not
stay my hand and commit events to moral and common sense.
In many ways I suspect it can be often our moral duty to use to
sword if we are policemen, soldiers or even people in the wrong
place at the right time. I don't think or treat the killing as
judgement, punishment or revenge, but as a very sad and unfortunate
consquence of that person's behaviour.
Just as a person who chooses to drive a car into a wall might
expect consquences, a person who threatens innocents deserves what
is coming under moral law. In any case pacifism is often a
justification for many evils to happen. We can say we choose not to
rebel against a evil and murderous governent because we ought to
listen to authority (as in the law), we can choose to do nothing
and watch innocents getting harmed (because our law says we should
not do any harm)
But I think we miss the entire point of what the law was there for
in the first place. In the sense of killing and violence, I suspect
it is not so much as a ban on the action, but on the intention of
killing and wrath for selfish and egoistic purposes. The same goes
for lying.
If the enemy wants to harm your nation, your loved ones, all that
you hold right and true and dear. The obvious and right thing to do
would be not to give him proper information and the means to do
it!
