theducks.dreamwidth

greyreviews

I would argue that there is only a moral dilemma if you make the assumptions that all human life is of equal value and that value is something irreplaceable ergo taking any life is bad.

Both assumptions have no logical basis, as it is clearly obvious that the value of one person is never going to be the same as another unless they live identical lives with identical actions, outcomes and achievements. Even twins do not qualify for this.

The assumption human life is of an irreplaceable value is currently proven wrong nearly 7 billion times over.

So considering human life is neither irreplaceable or of a singular value the killing of any individual or for that matter group is completely moral. This is the case for not only the Osamas and Stalins of the world but just as moral, in the sense of taking life, as it is to shoot Mother Teresa in the face.

There is a difference, but it is not in their living rather in their actions. All three are (in)famous individuals who are remembered beyond their death and had a profound effect on others. All lived, but that is unremarkable, when future generations mention these three names, no one will be saying “Hey this person sure was alive!” The actions are what makes these people memorable and their actions are what they are judged by and it is by the stopping of their actions that we can judge the morality of their killing.

Kill Osama and you stop his actions to encourage violent Islamic attacks around the world. Kill Stalin and you stop his actions to oppress and kill millions of his fellow citizens. Kill Mother Teresa and you stop her actions of handing out food and comfort to lepers. This of course brings back to my first point that we are not of equal value and the assumption that we are is completely lacking in any basis of logic or reality.

So I’m not dancing in the street like some mardi-gra wannabe over Osama’s death but do I approve of his actions being stopped? Yes indeed and I feel no moral dilemma in thinking so.