Originally posted by dj2becker
So you believe that absolute right and wrong exists?
Are you an atheist?
Absolute right and wrong exist; it is then up to each of us to either seek clarity in what may seem like moral ambiguity, or else trick ourselves into 'gray', usually at the cost of muddying how we view life in general, and ultimately, yourself.
Bottom line, that which promotes life is good (right). That which destroys it is bad (wrong).
The motive for killing has everything to do with its morality. It is absolutely wrong to initiate violence. It is absolutely right to destroy in self-defense. "Violence" in this respect can be a threat of inevitable violence; in other words, I don't have to wait for someone to pull the trigger of the gun aimed at my face before taking action.
I assume 'Innocent', in this violence question, is someone free from malevolent intent. Innocent, however, doesn't mean non-threatening by definition. I mentally deficient person may believe slitting my throat will send me closer to God (not malevolent, but 'kind' in his mind). In this case, I have moral grounds to destroy him (else.. who will? Or will he remain unharrassed and slit as many as he likes for as long as he likes?).
Asking for moral imperatives in response to generalities (to which you then demand "Yes or No"😉 is mentally lazy at best; a shallow playground trick at worst. Specifics matter.