• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Caru On April - 21 - 2011

 

Perhaps I am simply reiterating what has already been said when I write on the nature of necessity. I am not nearly well-read enough, worldly enough, nor arrogant enough to claim that my thoughts on the matter are wholly original. It may also be that I am simply wrong when I claim that there has been an equating of necessity and the morally justifiable, but it is something that I’ve noticed and wish to speak against.

To me, necessity is a feature of cause and effect: “This” is necessary for “that” to happen. Necessity itself has no moral dimension. For example: It is necessary that the radio contain batteries for it to work. This is a statement of necessity and, as you can see, it contains no moral aspect. Unless you consider radios to either be the intrinsically good or intrinsically evil, then the statement is morally neutral. It is when necessity overlaps with moral judgements that I believe is the area where the confusion occurs.

Note: While I will be mentioning moral justification and discussing its relationship with necessity I will not attempt to define moral justification and exactly what and what isn’t morally justified. While I will be using examples of morally justified and morally unjustifiable acts, I will attempt to draw them from broadly agreed upon terms. I do this, not to avoid tackling the issue, but because I do not fully understand it.

I propose that there exists a continuum containing the overlap of necessity and moral judgements. This continuum consists of four main aspects:

1.) Necessary, morally justified acts.
2.) Unnecessary, morally justified acts.
3.) Necessary, morally unjustified acts.
4.) Unnecessary, morally unjustified acts.

I shall draw examples of each of the above from what I believe are two generally agreed upon grounds:

A.) Helping people is good.
B.) Killing people is bad.

From “A” I draw these two examples:

i) Calling an ambulance for someone who is bleeding heavily. This is an example of “1”.

ii) Helping someone to pick up some papers that they have dropped. This is and example of “2”.

From “B” I draw these two examples:

i) Killing someone to prevent them from killing you. For me, this falls under “3”.

ii) Killing someone because you don’t like them. This is obviously an example of “4”.

I would hazard a guess that most people would agree with me on the two examples from “A” and the second example from “B”. I would also guess that the first example from “B” might be a sticking point for some people. I hope that the following explanation is enough to lay out my view on the matter.

I think that the equating of necessity and the morally justifiable has developed as a way to absolve oneself of guilt, especially with regard to killing. I my opinion, you should feel guilty after killing someone, even if they were trying to harm you. You shouldn’t wallow in guilt, of course, but you shouldn’t deny it either. To do so is to deprive yourself of part of your own humanity.

Furthermore, this principle can be applied on a grander scale. Take civilian deaths in war, or collateral damage as it is now euphemised. If we accept – as many argue – that these deaths are an unfortunate but necessary part of war, then it becomes all to easy to dismiss them entirely. To absent-mindedly wash your hands of blood. Not acknowledging the moral wrongness of these deaths, even if you consider them necessary, is weak, immature and, again, denies your own humanity.

Written by Caru

I don't really have anything of note to put in here... Oh, I won a bar of chocolate once.

43 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Dbos says:

    If one’s ever killed for whatever reason it lives with them forever.

  2. polishlogician says:

    Caru, it’s refreshing to see such views presented in a formalized style.

    You write that you’re not undertaking a thesis of what’s “morally justifiable”. This makes sense, as the blog would be too long, and with TV today my attention-span is already shot.

    I like these written arguments, not because I wish to substantially counter your points, but rather use your own rationale to play devil’s advocate.

    …so here’s my feeble critique, you write:

    --Calling an ambulance for someone who is bleeding heavily. This is an example of “1″--

    Why couldn’t an example of (1) be:

    (1+) “Stopping someone from being murdered in an attack”

    Wouldn’t you be saving that someone’s life and helping her more than just making a phone call to the ambulance?

    If (1+) is just as valid as (1), then what if (1+) could only be achieved by killing the attacker?

    Now, not helping isn’t justified but neither is killing the attacker.

    Hmmm, it’s a pickle…

    You write that killing someone was unjustified but necessary (in fact, it was the crux of your thesis).

    That same rationale could be applied to (1+) as killing the attacker is necessary, not for your own survival, but to do the right thing by helping someone.

    Thus, you’re committing one immoral act to secure a moral one. This also squares with the cause/effect flavor of your general notion of necessity.

    If that’s the case, then the rule is that the ends justify the means. And if the ends justify the means then doing whatever is necessary to secure a moral act is justified as well.

    Thus, justification for an immoral act only comes from securing a moral one. This BTW, is what I think is the real litmus test of moral necessity.

    However, not all moral acts require immoral ones, like picking papers up for someone; thus, it’s not a moral necessity, and this also squares with your (2).

    But still the morally justified act, and all it may entail, doesn’t equate to feeling swell and I don’t think it has to (morality doesn’t equal happiness)--that’s just the world we find ourselves in--but that would be an interesting topic for another time.

    I really liked your work and hope you keep writing, as it’s one of the most interesting posts I’ve read this week, and judging by the feedback I’m sure many others would agree.

    • kesmarn says:

      May I sneak in a sincere “Welcome to the Planet,” polishlogician, if you haven’t been welcomed previously? Hope to hear more from you!

      • polishlogician says:

        oh thank you….I’ve been here reading off and on for a couple weeks but I think this was my first post…I may have written something when I first created an account, but it obviously wasn’t that memorable…

    • Caru says:

      Thanks for reading, pl, and thanks for the critique. It gave me some food for thought.

      “1+) Stopping someone from being murdered in an attack”

      Yes, this would indeed be an equally valid example of 1. However if (1+) could only be achieved by killing the attacker, then we would, as you said, find ourselves in a pickle. The solution to this would either be:

      a) My ideas are wrong, which is entirely possible. I just haven’t been convinced otherwise yet.

      b) That helping the person by preventing them from being killed and necessarily killing the attacker are two separate, yet interlinked events with separate moral flavours. You can’t have one without the other. You’ve basically said this yourself.

      I agree with you that this leads to an ends justify the means type situation, but that’s only if you believe that a good ending justifies bad action. I don’t, I believe that a good ending renders the bad action necessary not justified -- determining when a bad action completely overturn the scales on a good ending is another matter entirely.

      Ultimately, I don’t ever believe that a bad action can be justified because I believe that doing so is taking the easy way out of a complicated situation by moving the goalposts. However, a bad action can be necessary and often is.

      Lastly, I do agree that a morally justified act doesn’t equate to feeling swell. Take the example of calling a ambulance for a murderer for example. You may prefer for him to simply die and calling the ambulance may pain you greatly, but it’s the morally justified thing to do.

      • polishlogician says:

        thanks for the reply…

        I think your difference between justified and necessary may be splitting hairs and here’s why:

        1. If I said you should do X,
        2. and I was right,
        3. then X is morally justified.

        Mind you, I’m not spelling out what theory or ethic I’m using to “prove” the statement is right, but if it is right, then doing X is morally justified because it’s something you should do.

        If I said do X to get Y, and Y was morally justified is there not some transitive property that makes X morally justified as well?

        You say no, it’s only necessary.

        But if you accept the definition of morally justified as that which you should do, then doing X to get Y, makes X something you should do. And something you should do is by definition what is morally justified.

        “…determining when a bad action completely overturn the scales on a good ending is another matter entirely.”

        well, at that point you’d probably have to make a case citing either consequence or intent. As in you did X but Y didn’t happen, or Y caused Z (an immoral act you didn’t foresee) = bad consequences.

        For what it’s worth, when I was younger I was intrigued by the calculus of consequentialism, but it was chimera. Now, the virtue-based approach holds sway--or in the truncated words of Paul Newman’s summation speech in “The Verdict”:

        “If we are to live in a world with justice, we need only listen to ourselves--and act with justice”.

        • Caru says:

          Perhaps I am splitting hairs, though I’ll try to defend my view.

          If I accept the definition of morally justified as what you should do, then you’d be completely correct. However, I’d say that the definition of morally justified -- at least for me -- would be more along the lines of what you should ideally do. After all, sometimes there are no “good” options.

          I can defend this somewhat lofty notion on the grounds that “good” morality is idealised and should be idealised, though not to the point of parody.

          I am unread in both consequentialism and this virtue based approach that you speak of. As I’ve said, I am not very well-read in the area at all.

  3. foxisms says:

    Caru, you picked one hell of a topic, here.
    Necessity, in and of itself is a muthah. (period)
    As I read your ideas on the four groups (examples?)of things necessary I was rocked by the blurring (or “overlap”) but I never did find any clean delineation between one or the other. Even the two givens (re: what is good and what is bad) you provided seemed to blur into others like egg whites from a tea spoon.
    For example, helping people is good and killing people is bad. Now I can accept that for sake of this conversation, but the world around us has shown me that this is a very digital approach. I genuinely believe we share this society and this planet with people who would contest that perhaps killing people is not necessarily bad and if it need be done even for the lowly purpose of material gain it (to them) is deemed ‘necessary’. Nor is helping people ‘necessarily’ good, if in fact they were helping someone kill someone. So helping IS good…but to what end and by whose concept of ‘necessary’.
    [I’m not arguing with you here or trying to dispute. It’s a huge subject and I’m just thinking with my keyboard.]
    To make matters worse for me, I can imagine that there are people who would not find it “necessary” to call for an ambulance to aid with a heavy bleeder. I think most would do so and for a variety of reasons, but I’m not certain if this would necessarily qualify as a necessity so much as a convenience or a moral or justifiable nicety.
    Now if someone is truly intent on saving the life of this person who is severely bleeding, it’s likely they would call an ambulance given one is in close proximity…others might simply try a tourniquet but in either case there would have to be a necessity on the part of the bystander to do one or the other as a means to save a life.
    The necessity that would be served immediately would be to stop the bleeding. All else, including the saving of a life would be a spin off coincidental to the response to that original act which was seen as a necessity. That being to stem the flow of this guys vital fluids.
    Do I have any idea what I’m talking about? I doubt it. I just felt it necessary to join in and kick some thoughts around with someone who has obviously spent more time pondering this ellusive subject than I have.
    I guess what I’m getting at is it would be extremely hard to find a one size fits all “necessity”. And the moral attachment only makes it that much harder for me to get my mind around it all.
    Still…nice job Caru, in at least having the where-with all to get this exasperatingly huge concept primed and rolling to begin with.

    • Caru says:

      I agree completely. I just choose the examples and areas I did because they were easy to describe. Of course, there is a certain degree of blurring between each. For example, helping a murderer escape from prison isn’t good.

      However, I do think that most specific situations arising from the two terms that I laid out would fit in one of the four areas I listed.

  4. ADONAI says:

    I think people’s attitude about killing is based on how much value that person puts on human life. Most people consider human life “priceless”. But they make exceptions. Abortion, death penalty, etc.

    I’m not a fan of mindless killing. But I have no problem with abortion. In fact, I’d like to see more. I want the death penalty to be done away with but if you kill a guy who killed your wife, I got no problem with you.

    I guess I don’t value human life so much as the human experience. And I think you have to have at least a halfway decent reason to take that away from someone.

    “It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.”
    ~Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven

    • Caru says:

      “if you kill a guy who killed your wife, I got no problem with you.”

      For me, I’d have a problem with it and I’d understand greatly. Condemnation would not come easily to me in such a situation.

  5. PocketWatch says:

    Caru --

    This discussion reminds me of the training I received for almost 2 decades in various forms of martial arts. Since most of them are derived from Buddhist monks and the morality of that lifestyle and belief system, ‘necessity’ and ethics are a big part of ***proper*** martial art training.

    As to self defense, the ideal is to never put yourself in the situation where it’s needed or warranted. However, recognizing the fact that not everything is under your personal control, sometimes it is warranted.

    So, how to proceed? The answer, according to my training, is to only apply as much force as necessary to extract myself (or another in the case of the defense of others). Any further force is now aggression, and not ‘approved’ or moral.

    In the end, the only fight you win is the one you never have to fight. I always think of it this way… An axe will cut down a tree, but the axe is harmed in doing so, becoming dull and corroded to some degree, and in the end, becomes useless. Any act of intentional violence harms the perpetrator as well as the victim.

    • jkkFL says:

      Hey PW! Good to see you.. and She who Must Be Obeyed is doing her usual task of keeping the riff-raff under control?
      Aren’t we overdue for a walk with HRHMsMaggie? :)

      • PocketWatch says:

        Hi jjk --

        I know it’s been a while. I’m in the process of moving, lots of packing and sorting through all my crap. I hate it, and Maggie doesn’t much care for it either, other than the opportunity it gives her to paw through closets she usually doesn’t have access to… LOL!

        We’re moving in with my daughter for the summer up in Wisconsin, and Maggie will be riding shotgun in the UHaul truck. Should be an experience! My daughter has 2 cats, Bob (a girl that looks like a bobcat) and Jasper, a male. I hope they will all get along. She lives out in the country in the woods, so we’ll have an opportunity to explore. I’ll have to figure out a way to keep the deer ticks off her, though.

        Once I’m settled (should be in about 2 weeks), I’ll see if I can get some video to post.

        • foxisms says:

          PW, Frontline is the way to go for deer ticks.
          The woods in the mid west are far too populated with the little bastids to take any chances.
          Pricey, but the only thing on the market that kills eggs and larvae as well as the tick.
          Then…enjoy the woods!

    • Caru says:

      That’s a great philosophy, PW.

      Could you tell me which martial art’s teachings most appealed to you and which didn’t?

      • PocketWatch says:

        Caru --

        I studied Tae Kwon Do and an old Chinese art called Pa Qua Chang, which was the basis of Judo, plus a little Shotokan karate and actual Judo.

        Shotokan is a straight-ahead aggressive form, which I didn’t much care for. TKD is also pretty aggressive, but incorporates many disabling moves which allow for escape from a bad situation. PQC is a style that stems from one of the old original Shaolin monks, and is very fluid, sort of like a high-speed TaiChi, and Judo is fully defensive unless it “needs” to be aggressive. All of these forms can be deadly if used and applied that way.

        It is really all about the sensei. It is my experience that many, if not most, American dojos are simply “black belt factories” in it for the money. Anyone that awards a black belt (which is actually the equivalent of a grade school diploma, NOT a master’s in martial arts…. that takes decades, really) to a 10 year old is not worth studying with.

        My sensei was American but very traditional, and did not guarantee any belt or level of achievement. You just came 3 times a week and studied. He firmly believed in what I expressed above, and people that came in that just wanted to learn how to kick butt did not last long.

        In the end, regardless of the “style” learned (I ended up with a sort of amalgam of all I mentioned based on my physical limitations -- short legs, good upper body strength, limited leg flexibility, fast hands, and able to think through a situation) it all comes down to having the confidence through training to be able to walk away and not feel emasculated or somehow inferior. That alone is worth it.

  6. whatsthatsound says:

    Hi Caru,

    Well thought out. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that killing another human is “immoral”, or at least “morally unjustifiable”, in case by any chance those two don’t mean precisely the same thing.

    I think there is a reasonable rationale behind that. Most people would agree with something like “well, sometimes it is necessary to kill, for example to save ones own life or protect innocents, but we should always be VERY mindful of what an extreme, and potentially traumatic to ourselves, act that would be”.

    If the fact that most people in any society feel that way (I’m assuming, of course, but hopefully with cause to), then perhaps that equates to killing being immoral.

    In that sense, I agree with you. Furthermore, I agree with where that argument leads you (and me): We must NEVER allow killing to become a casual, easily justified, commonplace occurrence, such as always happens in wars.

    Nicely done!

  7. kesmarn says:

    Caru, if I’m not mistaken, I think you mentioned earlier that you’re 18 years old. I’m so impressed at the depth of your thoughts and arguments. I hope you don’t ever stop writing — or thinking.

    You raise such important points. When is killing justified? And is it ever entirely justified — beyond a shadow of a doubt? One of most difficult ethical dilemmas I can think of was the one faced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in WWII. As you probably know, he was a Lutheran theologian/pastor, who although he was a brilliant man, and a pacifist at heart, eventually decided to participate in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. I’m sure he did a lot of soul searching before he entered into this conspiracy. As a pacifist, I’ve often asked myself what I would have done in his situation. To this day, I’ve been unable to come up with a conclusive answer. Could I personally have killed Hitler? I don’t know.

    The irony was that the plot failed. A bomb that the conspirators had planted in a meeting room did go off, but Hitler escaped injury. It was Bonhoeffer who died. He was hanged for treason. Did he “throw away” his life?

    None of this is simple. And I’m glad to see that in a world that encourages binary thinking, you’re so ready to recognize complexity.

    For me the abortion issue is like this, too. I’m fundamentally pro-choice. But if pressed to say at what point I would say no to the morality of abortion, I falter. I don’t know. I mean, strictly logically speaking, that little embryo is genetically a different entity from the mother from day one. A separate person, as it were. Does this mean that eleven year old children need to bear the children of men who molested them, though? It seems that can’t possibly be right either. It’s frustratingly complex.

    I wish I had answers. But I know one thing. I’m grateful that there are people out there like you, who still ask the hard questions

    • Caru says:

      Contrary to what some anti-abortion activists say, virtually no one supports abortion for the sake of abortion.

      I’d guess that most pro-choice people would consider abortion to be a sometimes necessary, though unsavoury act. Under what conditions is an abortion necessary is where the disagreement amongst pro-choice people lies. For some, the scope is quite broad and for others quite limited.

      • kesmarn says:

        I agree, Caru, “virtually no one supports abortion for the sake of abortion.”

        There are very few on the right or the left who would say: “Abortion is great. I wish there were more.” At least not seriously. I think when comments like that are made they are more in the line of bluster and provocation than serious discourse. At least I hope so.

        I think Bill Clinton summed it up: “The goal is to make abortion legal, safe and rare.”

    • invient says:

      In situations where my morality is on a sliding scale, I tend to delegate it to the actors involved… they are best left to make the choice and deal with the consequences… I also believe that there is no gray area in morality, that when we use sliding scales we are trying to find an optimally moral action for a situation that we know to be wrong but feel a need to justify… In short, no one wants to be immoral, but sometimes it is necessary.

      I struggle with the idea of abortion… so I defer it to the mother. I am anti-abortion except in cases like you mentioned (financial burden to me does not justify it), but I try never to impose my particular brand of morals (especially the fuzzy ones) onto others.

  8. KillgoreTrout says:

    “i) Killing someone to prevent them from killing you. For me, this falls under “3″.”

    So, are you saying that killing someone who is trying to kill you, is an immoral act? You say it is a necessary act, but not morally justified? Is killing to save one’s own skin a moral issue at all? I would say it heavily depends upon the situation. If you kill someone to prevent them from testifying against you in a capital murder case, that would result in a death penalty, I would not consider that moral, to any degree. But if you shoot someone who is shooting at you, then yes, I would consider that a moral act. But then, it would depend on why the person is shooting at you in the first place. There are many, many different scenarios.

    • Caru says:

      I do not consider killing someone in self-defence to be a moral act. I consider it to be a necessary, though immoral act.

      I think that we should accept that sometimes there is no “good” option, just varying degrees of “bad” options.

      • KillgoreTrout says:

        Often, there is no choice when defending one’s self. Sometimes killing the attacker is the only way to stop them. In a situation like this, there really is no choice involved. No conscious deliberation. In such a case, I don’t think morality is involved, in the fact that there is only one way out. Morality, for the most part depends on a conscious decision. It involves choosing between what is moral and what is immoral. In a life or death situation, where death is completely immanent, there is no choice, so how could such defensive action be moral or immoral?
        Life involves killing. All species kill to survive. Life depends on the destruction of other life. This is where vegans, who claim a higher moral ground because they don’t eat meat, are wrong. Their choice depends on the sentience of what is killed, but it is killing, none the less.
        Humans killing humans is always a misfortunate thing, and no killing should ever be celebrated. But, there are times when it is necessary without the conscious decision of morality.

        • whatsthatsound says:

          Hi KT. I don’t think you can say that vegans are “wrong”. They are perfectly aware, I imagine, that carrots don’t exactly ask to be pulled out of the ground and eaten. The “moral high ground” you write about, to the extent that it exists, derives from exactly what you mention -- the degree of sentience, and more importantly, the degree of suffering caused to the organism that is killed. We have no way of knowing whether or not vegetables and fruit experience pain. We can certainly imagine, however, that their cells go into full panic mode during the harvesting and cooking processes. So if not pain, then at least distress.
          But even so, I would never call the choice of veganism wrong, or done to impress anyone. I think it is admirable.

          • KillgoreTrout says:

            I mean wrong in the sense that meat eaters are condemned by vegans as “killers.” I say meat eaters are no more or less killers than Vegans, without the degree of sentience considered. I don’t think Vegans are “wrong.” I just don’t believe that they occupy a higher moral ground than meat eaters.
            As I said, it is the way of all life to sustain itself by killing. I approach this from a Nature stand point, not a religious one. But, even the Bible says the animals are here for our sustenance. (not that i am a big believer in the Bible) I don’t see veganism as admirable or contemptable. I see it simply as diet choice.

            • KillgoreTrout says:

              Khirad, yeah, there is a trendy aspect to veganism.
              Recently, a big supporter of veganism, Natalie Portman, started adding meat to her diet because her doctor told her that eating meat would be better for her unborn child.
              I just find it silly that vegans “moralize,” about not eating meat.

            • Khirad says:

              I actually have numerous problems with vegans.

              How many vegans have you met who didn’t come from upper-middle-class families.

              Often, to be vegan, requires shopping at places like co-ops and Trader Joes and higher end places.

              Furthermore, what indigenous culture is vegan?

              I see it not only as a diet, but a fashion choice.

              I was once a strict vegetarian, during my Hindu phase in High School (two years).

              I never got vegans.

              And I wasn’t so strict a vegetarian as to not wear leather.

              I mean, it gets focking ridiculous.

              And as I’ve pointed out before, I could never be vegan and wear the getup I do when I put on a kilt! Ha!

              I do draw the line at this stuff though.

              http://www.kilts.com/silver_fox.htm

              If for no other reason than it’s creepy to have that thing on your lap.

              But to take off on that. I mean, also, when a vegetarian, I made an exception when eating as a guest. For me manners was more important a value to me than my vegetarianism. And that especially applies with other cultures.

              I think it really tacky for vegans to say they know better, and it’s their loss if they want to turn down an ethnic treat because its TRADITIONAL, AUTHENTIC, AGE OLD recipe requires meat or meat broth, cheese, etc.

              P.S. “How Soon is Now?” is one of the greatest songs of all time. But the whole “Meat is Murder” thing. Yeah… a wee bit preachy.

            • whatsthatsound says:

              In that sense, I agree with you. I think Morissey, formerly of The Smiths, epitomizes what you are referring to. Once, during an outdoor concert, he smelled a barbecue, and threatened to call off the concert. “I smell roasting flesh, and it BETTER be human!” he shouted, or something like that.
              What a putz.

      • jkkFL says:

        Caru, You always amaze me!
        While I agree with your post.. this really popped out at me!
        “I think that we should accept that sometimes there is no “good” option, just varying degrees of “bad” options.”
        That’s right up there with “There are many ways to do something right.”
        The situational issue is the paramount determination.

    • invient says:

      IMO, murder in any instance for any reason is immoral… the question than for me is, is the necessity of survival enough in the case of self-defense to mitigate the murder… In a way I guess I am thinking of an “eye for an eye” justification, that you are only allowed to defend yourself at the same moral level as your attacker… but in reality, I would most likely break my own morality and murder my attacker because in those instances my necessity for survival would outweigh my need to be a moral person… I am a hypocrite! :(

      What necessities cause us to break our morality? Is it truly only survival, could it extend to our “standard of living” and greed?

      • KillgoreTrout says:

        Invient, not all killing is “murder.” Killing someone, in defense of yourself or more importantly, your family is not murder. It becomes a necessary act.

  9. ADONAI says:

    I don’t think you’re retreading anything, Caru. I’m just angry you beat me to it ;). So here’s my thoughts and what-not.

    I think you should have steered away from moral justification entirely and just focused on the necessity.

    Every organism on earth shares one common necessity. Survival. It’s hardwired into basically everything. Even in humans it can override every other impulse.

    If you enter into a kill or be killed situation, first of all, how unfortunate, and second,I highly suggest you kill. It is necessary for your survival. And no one’s morals are above that. If someone is going to kill me and I kill them first, I will sleep with a clear conscience.

    Likewise in killing for the sake of killing. Of course it’s morally reprehensible by almost anyone’s standards but even without that, it’s highly unnecessary.

    And it’s easy for many, especially in America, to accept “collateral damage” during “war” because we rarely see it.

    • Caru says:

      Unfortunately, I’m an idealist. Well, sort of. I’m not exactly opposed to killing. I just think that you shouldn’t be entirely okay with it.

      • ADONAI says:

        I get that. I’m not a fan of killing either. Anti- death penalty. I don’t condone vigilantism. But I understand.

        And at the end of the day, I can quite easily rationalize killing to preserve my own life. I’m alive. Enough said. The graveyard is full of idealists my friend. Many who went that way far too early.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features