Hard disagree
Can you please explain why?
I mean I could but does it really matter we're never gonna be in that position, hopefully anyway, any difference in opinion is largely theoretical, based on our own morality/values and how they adapt to different circumstances. Which are themselves heavily influenced by our own personal experiences with the world. So idk if there's any point in debating it, clearly we fundamentally disagree
Not looking to debate. I'm just curious about your view more so.
Oh ok i just think there is a bad person in an apocalypse. I don't think it's an excuse to murder senselessly, ie just because someone is useless, outside of self defence, esp in the circumstances where as here it's not even much as to self-preservation in the moment because they're in dire need of resources but instead to take out the competition
I agree with the Hound rules. Personally, in a apocalypse, it's important to stay alive. Despite the person being a kid, he had no supplies whatsoever. That's highly suspicious to me and seems like a trap. So it's best to kill (even a kid) then be killed or worse.
There is no bad person in a apocalypse unless they are raping or something in that manner. But murder over disturbing order, stealing limited supplies, uselessness, or trickery is reasonable.