Against Moral Consensus

Actually, now that I think about it, I think basically everyone accepts the death of people who they feel oppose them in a serious enough way, except the most extreme of pacifists. So I'm probably alright.

This dissolves human reason into statistics. It does not contend that the conclusion is true, only that it is common. Principles traded in for statistics with "realism" label slapped on top of it. Responsibility is quietly discarded by appeal to how many others have already looked away.

I reject pacifism as it demands surrender to force. An inability or refusal to defend itself gives the violent a moral authority over the innocent. Defending your life recognizes individual rights, accepting death as a means to an end destroys those individual rights.

When collateral death is tolerated, expected or even needed for ideological victory, and "enemies" are abstracted away so we can more easily bear their deaths, the morality already has deteriorated..

"So I'm probably alright." There is implied such a need for comfort. The desire not to feel alone replaces the question of what is right. Morality is not a majority vote, and guilt isn't removed when shared.

Force is justified only in defense of the individual, never in sacrifice of him. To accept death as a tool erodes the idea that an individual is an end in itself.