Well said…

However: “Humanity must support itself, even indirectly, in cases such as these.” Is this what happened on the airplanes during 9-11. I think not.

And Joe Everyman should defend the child, every time.

Humanity must support itself, even indirectly, in cases such as these. If I awoke tomorrow, and was informed that 50 years back, this choice was made by person (x), and the ’cause’ needs help continuing the struggle against evil, then, like that original person (x), I am presented with a similar choice.

And the right thing for me, as well as it was for him, would again be to defend the child.

Allowing evil to do it’s will is a precedent that, if most of thought about it in depth, I very much doubt we, as a collective species, would accept.

We can’t know the parameters of this, or any other thought experiment. We can’t know the multiplication will continue on inevitably, to attack such a problem from a platform of reason or reasonable assumption is folly - the problem itself seems absurd in it’s design.

But when faced with the absurd, the random, the cruel, we have only our own values to fall back upon. And that is a calm, steadying force that will remain a reliable measuring stick for the worth of our actions.

I would look into the future outcome. If you begin to fight, evil will multiply, and eventually you will lose leaving a wake of evil behind that would eventually encompass all.

If you let the man do his will, you may have prolonged life for countless others. But would you die for good and take many with you later on, or take the stance of ‘the many outweigh the few.’

Which rapidly evolves into a life disposing of evil men, and defending innocent children.

I can’t see this as a waste of one’s life, and as much as one might not necessarily seek out such an option, should you (the ethical man) be presented with the final say on this matter, the choice is clear, if grim.

~ Driz