I think this is one of those questions that ,for me, doesn't have a right or a wrong answer.

Until we are in a circumstance which threatens our own physical existence, I think it is hard to know what we would do.

Where one life has to be taken to save another, who is to put a value on which is more important?

I think in every situation the individual has to go with what feels right to them and if placed in such a situation which decision they would find it easier to live with.

We're all at different places on our journey so the answers may be very different for each of us.

I agree with Michaela and Graham - this is a very hard position to define and likely one of the longest standing dilemmas of human morality. I would imagine you could find millions of answers out there, many of which would take into account all or many of the relevant issues. We want a world of black and white, where some outer authority will inform us in every situation what the right path is. Life would be a lot less fun without the color, the shades of gray, to chose from.

I would highly recommend finding a translation of the Bhagavad Gita that works well for you. One of the underlying messages conveyed by Krishna, the creator/destroyer and generally perfect being, to Arjuna the most accomplished mortal as they stand in front of the deluded armies of Arjuna's uncles, cousins, teachers and friends is this: to do whatever is your sacred duty, dharma, well is among the best good you can do, to shy away from your duty is not so good. For Arjuna this means putting aside his notions that destroying his kin, destructive of order though they may be, is an atrocity. This means standing on the battlefield and excelling at what he excels at: war.

The reason for this is a bit beyond what much of the westernized world can really get behind as it is based in the nondual nature of reality. Because they have been created by Krishna, they are already destroyed by Krishna, as all things are. If Arjuna chooses to fight and slay them or not is irrelevant in the cosmic scheme, as they are already killed.

But, on the other hand, I was told the story of a monk who was drafted into the Vietnam war. He asked his master what he should do; if he went to war he may have to kill, if he fled the draft he would be breaking the law and bringing trouble upon himself and those around him. The master said he must go to war. Worried that in war he would either have to shoot at the enemy or suffer verbal and physical abuse by his commanders if he refused to shoot, he again asked his master. The master told him that if he can avoid fighting, to avoid it. But if it is unavoidable and someone is shooting at him, he should be sure to defend himself to avoid the wrath of his commanders.

But, he said, be sure to shoot over their heads.

So, two very different answers from two old lineages of spiritual thought. I would say, like the others before me, that it depends on your station in life at the given time. If you are unable to release your attachments, if you fear injury, loss, death of yourself or your loved ones, way of life or whatever, it may be right for you to kill if absolutely necessary. That said, I will confess that I have never been in a situation where killing seemed absolutely necessary, but I do not know if, for me, that absolute would ever exist.

Not sure about the reward thing or if its not a good thing or is.

I think its just neccessary at the time.I suppose the average police officer and serviceman doesnt want to do this at all ( kill i mean ). I have heard that many police officers even in the US where they are armed ,very rarely draw their gun in anger.

My son in laws an ex paratrooper and to my knowledge hasnt killed anyone. I would imagine that the situation sometimes escalates very quickly and it may be a very quick gut reaction.

I would imagine if someone broke into my home to harm me and i drew a weapon out of the cabinet and shot them i would be grateful for being alive in this body still.

But i also imagine it would be a very negative experience for myself and family. I would imagine that any policeman who drew and fired would be doing so in a situation where he simply had NO CHOICE.

I would think that this could negate some feelings of guilt at least to some degree.I would also think that after the event the only thing concerning you would be getting your head back into place.

I am a gun owner although not in any of the services.The recent events in the Lake District in Cumbria made me think what i would do if i saw this happening and had a gun at hand.If someone had opened fire after victim number one could the other dozen have been saved.The relatives of these people would no doubt answer your question with a yes.I also doubt weather they would have any qualms about hoping the saviour of the day got a good reward.

Good question.

Graham

A soldier stands on guard, he heard a noise, he turned, and he fired his Gun six times. He killed two of his own men, because he heard a noise, and he acted to protect himself, his other teams members, and at the same time killing two of his team members. So, how do you judge this man, he was performing his duty to serve, and to protect?

My point is that every situation differs, and a person on the call of duty can also kill, or be killed by mistake, or can kill for personal reasons, or can kill for the greater good of society. If it is done in honor, and for all the right reasons, the soul can be rewarded; but it is such a non-physical thing, that I will leave it to God to decide, if the soul can be rewarded!

Killing your enemy, while on duty, is a good thing / service to others, from a perspective that sees forgiveness as meaningless and impractical.

Go have a semi intellectual discussion with one who believes killing is necessary in particular circumstances. Be sure to bring up the idea of forgiveness. Then be prepared for this person to mock forgiveness and to downplay it to something that is entirely ineffective when your life is on the line and/or your back up against the wall.

I believe the soul sees as much reward in killing as it does in sleeping. Both are laughable if not entertained as entirely meaningless. At worst, the soul would teach those who are less aware that killing is a surefire way to realize the mind has given itself over to insanity. For what is real (i.e. Soul) cannot be threatened. Even a little bit. But what is unreal, or existing only temporarily (i.e. the body) can be perceived as under constant threat, for awareness knows it is not real, not existing but a mere second in the 'scheme of things.'

There is no honor, nor actual duty, in killing. To accept otherwise, is to accept deception of Who You Are.

On the other hand (the illusionary self perspective) not killing and living in this world is nearly impossible. You kill your food or are party to that killing (be it plant or animals that are killed for your nourishment). You kill bugs or other critters that invade 'your space' or heaven forbid feed off your body. You kill or are party to killing enemies of 'your land.' Hence, from this perspective, it is really challenging to say there are 'innocent people' who are killed in the ongoing war we are waging with each other. From the perspective that can justify killing as necessary, honorable and act of duty, there are no innocent people. Yet, it is easier to drum up support for the next battle if 'we' can convince you that 'they' killed some of our 'innocents.' Please believe 'us' and please help us destroy 'them.' You will be honored and if you are lucky enough to die in the line of duty, we'll make bold claims of you making the 'ultimate sacrifice.'

While from the perspective of actual Innocence, killing is without meaning as there is no death. The only thing to sacrifice is the belief in sacrifice.