Too many issues here I feel. That means not much chance of a continuous discussion on the issues involved, if we talk about them.

I think Amos's if to get it down beneath the specifucas to the underlying question is teh right way to go - and the underlying question is how do we distinguish between rules that are essentially a metter of particular cultures, and rules which apply regardless of cultures.

Very often people will take as if there is no distinction - as if a cultural rule that you have a duty to kill your daughter or son in certain circumstances if no different from a rule that you should take your hat off in church.

What appears to be the case is that all cultures have rules which outlaw killing of other human beings except in certain circumstances - the circumstances vary according to culture, but they generally seem to centre round the idea of defence against some kind of threat.

So far as I am concerned I would wish to live in a culture in which the circumstances in whch killing was allowed was restruicted as narrowly as possible, whch essentially means to cases where it is the unintended consequences of preventing greater harm being done to other people.