|
It wouldn't be something to be taken lightly.
The means of death would need to be considered, lives weighed in the balance.
I think I would use it to grant a clean, dignified death to those denied the right to voluntary euthanasia by their governments, so that they could meet death bravely instead of wasting away in lives of pain and humiliation as their disease consumes them.
It would be too dangerous to use against world leaders, as sudden deaths create a power vacuum and thus breed rather than end wars.
Despite the great temptation, I'd be very wary of killing even those I'm certain to be guilty of crimes of stunning violence- vile as they are, those individuals may have unexpected consequences. Might be good to free the world from their viciousness, but at the same time it is too easy to make a mistake and allow the wrong one to die... the US' death row shows this, with many men killed only to be later shown as innocent.
I think I would reserve death for those who wanted it, needed it, to avoid the agony and humiliation of life. No others. I could not be trusted to remove others without becoming lost to the lust of power, and I suspect the same could be said of most of you.
__________________
The noblest sentiment I have encountered and the most passionate political statement to stir my heart both belong to a fictional character. Why do we have no politicians as pure in their intent and determinedly joyous in their outlook as Arkady Bogdanov of Red Mars?
|
