Okay I tried to tackle this in the Pastor Jones thread, but there are too many variables there to define the argument. So I'm going to attempt the same question using theoretical arguments. Is it more ethical to kill someone for what they possess than for what they are? IOW, if you kill someone at a distance, someone you don't know at all, merely because they stand in the way of some goal, is that MORE ethical than if you kill them for their ideology, race, religion or political stance? Is eliminating a person for impersonal reasons like profit better than eliminating them for personal reasons like bias or prejudice? If you don't know the person you eliminate, does that reduce the value of that persons life? What makes one "better" than the other?