Sorry if my jaw dropped upon reading your request. Isn't that entirely self evident and needn't be asked? My apologies. Perhaps it's simply my assumption that everyone understands what sanctity of life is. At least those who proudly consider themselves civilised.
So let me ask you a series of questions which, if answered honestly by yourself, should provide you your own answer. Do you go around killing people whenever you disagree with them? Well, of course not. Silly question as there are laws against murdering people. Assume for a moment that there were no such laws against murder, or that laws existed which would justify murder. Would you resort to that measure to resolve your differences? And if not then why not?
Do you consider your life precious? And the lives of your dearest loved ones? Your mother? Your father? Are their lives precious? Would you be okay with someone murdering you, or your mother or father, over a dispute and consider the murder justified?
Answers, true answers, are always within us. You just have to ask the right questions.
Hopefully the answering of these simple questions leads you to conclude that the sanctity of life means that life is precious. All life. And another's life should never be taken by any other.
So now that we've gotten that out of the way I'll ask once more. Would you sacrifice your life and the lives of your loved ones for any "greater good?" Do you consider your life and the lives of your loved ones justifiably expendable for the pursuit of someone's fulfillment of their personal ends, their personal vision of what "needs" to be done?
If not then you will have concluded as well that the means never justify the ends. And you should just as well come to an understanding of what fanaticism is.
Very much looking forward to your answers.
Nice to hear an alternative viewpoint for once, much of the media seems to have forgotten that old maxim - I may diagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (originally something to do with Voltaire, apparently).
You really are having touble coming to grasp with this, aren't you?
You make ridiculous assumptions and seem to think they are facts - what the hell do you think "sovereignty" is? - Apart from flat-earth's cousin?
Point out the specific assumptions which you deem ridiculous and we can go from there to try to see whose reasoning is valid and whose is not. As I said, there is nothing, no conclusion is ever drawn, that is without reason. Although not all reasoning leads to a true and accurate reflection of bedrock reality.
Now we should at least start by agreeing on the definition of terms. I'll begin with the definition of sovereign.
1) a person who has supreme power or authority.
2) a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
Does that definition agree with you? If not, then define it for yourself.