So you say. But if we think the way you suggest, who's to say that someone doesn't find you injured someday and consequently makes the executive decision that leaving you for dead is more efficient than tending your otherwise lethal wounds?
Particularly when faced with a combat situation, someone could be placing themselves at greater risk by stopping to help you. Provided you want to live, though, you might hope that they would decide to take that course of action even though it's not the more "efficient" course.
Destroying lives without reason, or letting them be extinguished because it seems convenient at the time, doesn't make us that much of a team. It promotes a mentality of "us" versus "them". And you don't ever know when you'd become the out-group yourself, for any number of unanticipated reasons like the one I described.
no subject
Particularly when faced with a combat situation, someone could be placing themselves at greater risk by stopping to help you. Provided you want to live, though, you might hope that they would decide to take that course of action even though it's not the more "efficient" course.
Destroying lives without reason, or letting them be extinguished because it seems convenient at the time, doesn't make us that much of a team. It promotes a mentality of "us" versus "them". And you don't ever know when you'd become the out-group yourself, for any number of unanticipated reasons like the one I described.