Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Murder, by the word is extremely malicious. Killing, is neutral.
|
I don't think killing can ever be neutral. One who kills is either malicious, apprehensive, or ignorant, etc. Even the axe child-murderer feels pain and suffering, and perhaps wishes not to die. How can killing him or her be neutral? It might not be murder to kill in this case, since it wouldn't necessarily be malicious. But neutral? I think not. [EDIT:
Even on the microbiological level, organisms live and die based on the human body's essential functions. Even this isn't neutral. There is a function being filled. The same goes for agriculture, where millions of living things die just in the production and harvesting of grain. Much of this I would classify as ignorant, as we don't tend to think of these things. To be neutral would imply that we want nothing to do with the process at all, which isn't the case.]
In wartime, I think it's the same. As a soldier in combat, it's often "kill or be killed." Following orders, defending yourself, securing an area, etc., isn't necessarily malicious, but it very well could be. This is a moral quagmire. I doubt it would be useful to call into question whether a nation's entire army are murderers.
But this thread seems to me to be more about understandings legalese. Is this more a legal question or a philosophical one? Once I get a better feel, I'll change my tack.