“…in a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also extend to the collective. Immoral acts that are forbidden severally cannot be sanctioned collectively. If the citizen must not murder; neither should The State, any state.”

— Ilana Mercer, from an article recently posted at the Unz Review.

To which I say, “Amen, sister! Absolutely right!”

One of the problems about human nature which I find especially irritating is the propensity to engage in and make excuses for actions that are off limits and forbidden to the individual but completely accepted if taken by the collective. Murder, for instance. Individuals are not allowed to kill other individuals unilaterally and, if they do, the full weight of society, government, and the State is applied to punish them in some way. However, given sufficient numbers, that prohibition can be cancelled to the effect that IF society and/or the government approves, then murder is accepted. At least, it is accepted by those who are not on the receiving end of the stick.

War is the most obvious example of this. People who would recoil in horror at the suggestion or thought of personally killing their “neighbors” often clamor and bay for the opportunity to kill them collectively under the auspices of and with the encouragement of the State. Even those who have been raised and rigorously trained in the tradition of “Thou shalt not kill” are susceptible to the attitude. Remember what it was like in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when virtually the entire country bought into and voiced the bloodlust of revenge, including many of those whose lives and faith were built on the Ten Commandments.

At what point does killing become morally acceptable? How many people, thinking and acting collectively, does it take to justify the taking of someone’s life? Where is the dividing line which determines whether killing is murder or legally and socially legitimate? Does adding one more person’s assent to the mix countenance the action? Why?

Where is it written that a large multitude numbering in the hundreds of millions can inflict immense damage and horror on a city with a nuclear bomb or overwhelming, lopsided force? Can a lynch mob of twenty take “justice” into its hands and administer it by “stringing him up”? Is not the nation or the mob made up of individual persons and, as individuals, if they are not allowed to commit these actions, then how do they conclude that such actions are justifiable because a “consensus” was reached among them? Does might really make right? Where does the “might” originate? Majority rule? Raw power? The willingness to cause great harm to others? The willingness of quiet society to go along and say nothing?

If I conclude that I cannot personally kill another human being unjustifiably, then to remain consistent with my beliefs, I must also arrive at the understanding that I should not join, encourage, support, or endorse killing by a group or proxy, regardless of the number of persons involved. Where, how, and why is my “collective” thinking off kilter and what must I adjust in order to more closely align with my core belief?

If I change the way I think, then I will change the way I act. Repentance, in other words.