> What about killing to protect others, as part of your duty?
How do you know if it's really going to protect others? How do you know you can trust the motives of those that say "it's all to keep us safe?".
Did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which let's not forget, also gave rise to IS) really save more people than if we hadn't gone to war? Given the numbers killed, I very much doubt it.
Overthrowing democratically elected governments, murdering leaders, drone strikes on hospitals, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay... are these really the actions of a benevolent leadership?
> "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm"
Churchill, I think? Those were rather different times, and Hitler's armies were a very different threat to those we're told we've faced since and now. These days, our leaders speak much the same words, but I like it would be naive to believe them.
According to Quote Investigator[0] it's actually Richard Grenier of the Washington Times (not to be confused with the Washington Post) paraphrasing something he believed Orwell might have said.
The basic sentiment has been around since at least the 1890s, and Orwell did during and after WWII criticize pacifism by essentially saying that the only reason you even can be a pacifist is because people that aren't pacifist are willing to protect you. But that particular phrasing is modern.
I'd argue that not killing certain bad people is an immoral choice in itself, designed to absolve one's of responsibility at a great price to others.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm"