> Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? > If the answer is no, never, I don't see how we can have states at all. You

> Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? > If the answer is no, never, I don't see how we can have states at all. You're talking about an innocent 100 people right? To save an innocent 1000. Like some sort of hostage situation? I say no, it's not just. It's wrong to kill except in self defense. So how does that imply we can't have a state? Can't the state use the same principle? Kill only in self defense?