I specifically avoided that aspect of the discussion. :p

Legal and moral are not always synonymous. Legal definitions are usually pretty clear on what does and does not constitute murder. Morally, see above. From a moral standpoint the terminology is semantic. Taking another human life is never a positive thing and in any situation where it becomes necessary I believe that we (collectively) have already failed to uphold that which is right.

That's about as clear as I can make it, I reckon. I am of the firm opinion that one cannot ever do good in the world through violence, andfrom there I don't really care what you call it. Killing in a war is killing. You can call it murder if you like, or you can call it something that eases your conscience. Whatever. I'll even concede that you may not have a choice. It's still not right.

We'll call it the karmic straitjacket.

I agree with you, Martian.

Ooh, I don't know if I like the karma aspect of this discussion. It may need to be a different thread.

jorgelito, look at the karmic straitjacket this way: It can mean being forced to do something that will affect you for the rest of your life, and the only way you can deal with it is to counterbalance it with other actions. This happens all the time even if you don't believe in karma proper.

I have to disagree. I've always hated Kant, I'm very much a John Mills type of guy.

What is right is whatever provides the greatest good. If the Huns are laying siege to my city, and say if we give up one child they'll spare the city (if not they kill anyone) well sorry kid but it sucks to be you today.

Killing is not always wrong in my opinion. If someone is attacking an innocent with lethal intent, then stopping said attacker is a good thing. If lethal actions are required than so be it.

No, it's not a good thing. A necessary thing, and maybe better than the alternative, but not good.

Ask any vet that, and I bet they will agree. Killing in war may not be the same as "murder" (in whatever legal sense), but as an armchair psychologist, I do believe it affects the human soul in much the same way. I don't see how it can possibly make anyone a better person. It does not make a person "worse," but there is no way to avoid the scar it leaves on you.

Take for example that Chapman kid (the thread I started earlier this week) who accidentally backed over his 5 year old sister in the family driveway. He didn't "murder" her, but would it surprise any of you that no matter how much forgiveness and grace is involved, he is never going to entirely be the same person as he was before that event? It's going to mark him, even if to one other than himself. Frankly, I'd be more concerned if it DIDN'T haunt him, you know? That's what concerns me about any kind of military training... the whole purpose is to deaden your nerves against what you are about to do. I just don't know how healthy that is for humanity as a whole. But it's not going to go away anytime soon, given human history... we evolve so slowly.

just to throw another lollie in the bag..

was killing saddam murder? he became a captive of war in 'the war on terror'. was his execution murder? was the court set up to try him legal and most importan just?

most people would say that in this case its not murder. is this because of human emotions attached to the stigma of saddam?

the way i see it as it stands now (and i dont think its necesarly correct) is that any killing done under a government or law is not murder.

but does that make the murder of thousands of kurds by saddam 'not murder' because it was done by the government? if so, then why was he tried and executed if he had the protection of the state?

Politics aside, "war" is a get out of jail free card for governments to kill people by using soldiers (some call us humans) as a means to that end.

Despite the emotions often attached by those who've been... war wasn't all that personal (at least not to me).

I never once worried about killing somebody in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not for my job, not for my soul. When I put on the uniform and picked up the M4... I lost Mr. Crompsin and became Sgt. Crompsin, the Doer of Orders and the Leader of Subordinates.

Is murder legally defined? Sure. Sanctioned? Yep. "Neutralizing the enemy."

Personally, I think a big part of it is rationalizing it after it happens... both for government entities and individuals.

you could be a genius / cupcake...

That's exactly what I see as wrong, though. It's okay to kill them if you don't care? Is it okay to think "Well, they were trying to kill me..." without recognizing that they could be saying the same of you had they pulled the trigger first?

We invaded Afghanistan. Some Afghanis are bad, some are good. A lot of the good ones took up arms because the invasion victimized them (collateral damage). They try to get the coalition forces out of their country, so we're justified in killing them? And all because the gubbmit said so?

Well, if you have to you can use the definition the military uses when it employs 20mm guns on infantry. The trick is 20mm guns are not allowed to be used on infantry because it is "inhumane". So instead of using it to kill the infantry, we're damaging their uniforms or aiming for their guns.