That is a very simplistic view, indeed. I can think of several
situations when killing another person is not necessarily wrong.
Besides, those who see a value in retribution imply that killing is
justified to avenge wrongdoing. One may not accept that particulat
norm, but then again, one may or may not accept any norm evne that
saying that killing is always wrong.
>
> Basically, it comes down to your belief that the life of an
> insect is no less valuable than the life of a human. This is
> all very well in the abstract, but what it boils down to is
> that you regard human life to be as expendable as that of
> insect life. That's a slippery slope mate, not an increase in
> the value of insect life, but a massive devaluation of human life.
>
Expendable? It is a matter of "for what?" Killing a person for a trivial reason, such as obtaining his wallet, or because he does not know what you do, or because he wants to do what you disapprove, is one thing, but killing a person for less trivial reasons, such as self defence, prevention fo a great harm, or retribution (which many believe is a serious business) is a quite different thing. It all comes down to values and cognive boundaries. What values we accept where we draw the line beyong which these values do not apply. And every such act is arbitrary in the sense thatthere is no logical or factual necessity to accept one and reject another.
People do it all the time. A person may take a great care of her car or dog, and then buy an SUV knowing that driving this monstrosity carries a substantyial greater probability of killing another person in case of collision. We give food to animals knwoingthat elsewhere in the world people are starving. We kill people arouind theworld to avenge death of our own. It is neither right nor wron - just is. Moral rigidity of any sort is incompatible with life.
Wojtek