If the fundamental element of humanity (or any living species for that matter, but let’s use human beings for pertinence sake) is to survive and thus, through the passing of time, evolve (so as to ensure future survival of the species in a changing universe); does not the conscious desire to kill one’s self – for any reason, be it religion, delusion, depression, chivalry et al – constitiute a forsaking of one’s rights to be treated as a human being? If the the import of one’s existence is not to survive, is this not the forfeiture of the very essence of what constitutes a human being? (*Pressuming human beings are the quintessence of evolution [in the known universe] given they have the acquired the cognitive ability to further their survival).
That is to say, why do we go to such diplomatic pains to try reason with terrorists and the like (i.e., treat them as equals) when they are effectively renouncing their very own humanity by using themselves as sentient killing vessels? Why do we use a scalpel to excise a wound that’s so ingravescent and incurable the affected area warrants summary amputation?
Ultimately, I’m confounded as to why we must play by ‘our rules’ when these rules are irrelevant and, indeed, oftentimes faciliatory to those we are in confilct with?
NB: To head off the obligatory “what of the ‘innocents’ those with a death wish put in the firing line, if we take such a no holds barred path – how is such a ‘means to an end’ approach politically tenable?” and of course the “are we any better than them if we abandon our own values to combat theirs?” – I’m looking at this purely from the pragmatic, non political or moralistic aspect. From the viewpoint of the survival of a species; a species whose primary goal is to evolve in peace.
Notwithstanding, incidentally, the fact that in the case of terrorism, ‘collateral damage’ is politicized to be glorious if for the cause and justification for the inhumanity in question when a byproduct thereof.