It's easy to have a moral compass when nothing ever challenges it.

I'm susceptible as the next man, but I'm pretty damn sure I will never go around killing drug traffickers or users with the justification of improving my country or something abstract like that.

It wouldn't be the same if, for instance, they posed a direct physical threat to me or my close ones.

But they do pose a direct, physical threat to everyone in the phillipines.

I know handful of alcoholics and prescription pill addicts. They have successful (for the moment, at least) lives contributing to society. They have an unfortunate problem.

Many successful, influential people had drug and alcohol problems. Leaders, philosophers, writers, surgeons, entertainers, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters have been addicts that were never a direct, physical threat to anyone but themselves.

That doesn't distract from the fact that this problem can be solved without resorting to vigilante justice and out right murder. Death shouldn't be the punishment for having a problem.

What? So let's kill drug addicts everywhere?

Here's an idea... those Filipinos over there have such a violent country! They just can't get there act together! I guess Filipinos are prone to violence, and they DO pose a direct, physical threat to everyone in the world! So, go ahead and kill a Filipino if you see one -- you'll just be putting them out of their misery -- and of course we're so benevolent, we offer free rehabilitation (AKA prison) for any Filipino that turns themselves in.

And it's easy to have no moral compass if you are constantly challenged

Morals and ethics can only ever be relative / subjective / personal. Moral absolutism is the root of all evil.

I once thought this, and I disagree.

There are many issues which you can find common ground for a base case of moral absolutism when you are not being absurd.

Moral relativism allows you to accept the actual evil of other's actions as a product of their culture.

That is the kind of thinking that allows people to say genital mutilation is a cultural thing.

Claiming moral absolutism is the root of all evil is a morally absolute statement in itself. What is the basis for this claim?

RMS is absolutist, does that make the FSF evil? If one is absolutist about being against rape or child crimes, what evil does that cause? The courage and consistency of ones conviction shouldn't be the basis of judging its merit.

Can we start the counter of americans that do nothing against the killings of black people or americans/europeans that don't care about their government killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions? Moral relativism.

I don't actually have a strong opinion on the matter, but keep in mind the OP is advocating killing people to improve the state of the country. In the abstract. It's "kill the narcos", not "if a narco rackets or threaten me", then I'd be justified in taking him out".

For me that's quite a line to cross.

Start fighting using non-violent means and maybe only resort to violence when confronted with violence from the other party.