Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-04-2008, 12:45 PM   #1 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Killing in a War: Murder?

Before you read this: if you're offended at all by this, please feel free to tell us why or go enjoy the rest of TFP. This thread isn't intending to call any TFP member a murderer, but rather explore what "murder" means in the context of war (which I see as a political question).

Murder:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Legally, war usually isn't murder, but what if laws were passed that allowed killing your wife for cheating or killing your children for not obeying? Would those cease to be murder just because they were legal?

I don't think so, and expanding that concept, I'd say that killing in war should be questioned as murder. At what point does killing become murder, or more specifically, at what point does killing become wrong?
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 12:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I am a firm believer in St. Augustine of Hippo's concept of a "just war" (and that includes killing) and the four conditions that must be met:
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
IMO, no war in which the US participated or initiated since WW II have met these conditions.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:00 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Very interesting, and I agree with the comment about wars since WWII.

So, in your opinion, it depends on how just the war in question is? So WWII would not qualify, but Grenada (for example) might.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:08 PM   #4 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Armed combat that meets those conditions is acceptable to me for the "greater good"...Granada was pure theater for the neo-cons and was probably an impeachable offense. WWII certaintly met the first three conditions...some might argue the use of the atomic bomb violated the fourth condition. I have always been troubled by that.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq meets none of these conditions.

The issue of innocent victims in just wars..."collateral damage" is far too sanitary a description of some atrocities of war....the millions who suffer the gravest consequences of war, both during and after the military action (land mines, depleted uranium....), but these would be violations of the fourth condition as well.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-04-2008 at 01:23 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
I suppose it's all murder when you get down to the semantics of the word itself, whether it's a crime of passion, self-defense, or wartime.

So I think essentially your thread comes to "is killing murder", which seems to be a bit like an obvious tautology.

I do think that despite being murder, there is a legal and ethical concept of "justifiable homicide."

Killing someone in self-defense, for example, is something that I will deign is murder with the side note that it's a justified murder.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 06-04-2008 at 01:17 PM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:33 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I think the concept of murder is mostly a legal concept. Given it being a legal concept it is defined by those who make laws, common law precedents and community standards.

From a religious point of view, murder is defined by one's religious view.

For the purposes of war, ultimately the winner decides what was murder and what was not murder. Organized military entities should have defined standards of conduct, including defining the difference between murder and combat, including the consequences of murder. We can not expect all military organizations to have the same standards.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:37 PM   #7 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
I think killing is killing. I'm sure many (if not most) soldiers who have killed in times of warm convince themselves that it was not murder, but I would certainly be haunted by it forever

Reminds me of a song off the most recent Drive-By Truckers album:

THAT MAN I SHOT

That man I shot, He was trying to kill me
He was trying to kill me He was trying to kill me
That man I shot I didn’t know him
I was just doing my job, maybe so was he

That man I shot, I was in his homeland
I was there to help him but he didn’t want me there
I did not hate him, I still don’t hate him
He was trying to kill me and I had to take him down

That man I shot, I still can see him
When I should be sleeping, tossing and turning
He’s looking at me, eyes looking through me
Break out in cold sweats when I see him standing there

That man I shot, shot not in anger
There’s no denying it was in self-defense
But when I close my eyes, I still can see him
I feel his last breath in the calm dead of night

That man I shot, He was trying to kill me
He was trying to kill me, He was trying to kill me
Sometimes I wonder if I should be there?
I hold my little ones until he disappears

I hold my little ones until he disappears
I hold my little ones until we disappear
And I’m not crazy or at least I never was
But there’s this big thing that can’t get rid of

That man I shot did he have little ones
That he was so proud of that he won’t see grow up?
Was walking down his street, maybe I was in his yard
Was trying to do good I just don’t understand

Last edited by Derwood; 06-04-2008 at 01:38 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Derwood is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:40 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Murder:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
what is it called when under conditions NOT specifically covered by law??
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:43 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The war is irrelevant to weather the killings are murder or not. In the end it comes down to each and every kill. If a marine is defending his unit or himself and has to kill an aggressor then it is not murder. If a marine goes to his friend watch me get this raghead and shoots someone for no reason it is murder. Our troops are in a very dangerous place, one I wish they were not in. In order to survive in this place they have to defend themselves with deadly force. Yes if they were not there there would be no killings but they are there. If you want to pin the murder tag on someone put it on the people that put them there in the first place.
Rekna is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:49 PM   #10 (permalink)
Crazy
 
smoore's Avatar
 
Location: West of Denver
Murder is just the term for illegal homicide. Therefore, any time you have open, armed conflict killing an enemy combatant isn't murder. Killing a villager through malice or neglect would be.
__________________
smoore
smoore is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 01:56 PM   #11 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoore
Murder is just the term for illegal homicide. Therefore, any time you have open, armed conflict killing an enemy combatant isn't murder. Killing a villager through malice or neglect would be.
what if the armed conflict was never a declared war?
Derwood is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 02:04 PM   #12 (permalink)
Crazy
 
smoore's Avatar
 
Location: West of Denver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
what if the armed conflict was never a declared war?
Not relevant. Open armed conflict is my statement.

Just for the record, it doesn't matter if it's an official war or a police action, IMO.
__________________
smoore
smoore is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 02:22 PM   #13 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I think killing is killing. I'm sure many (if not most) soldiers who have killed in times of warm convince themselves that it was not murder, but I would certainly be haunted by it forever
Agreed, though I do tend to fall in line with just war theory at the same time. I think we'd have to get some vets in here to shed more light on the question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Reminds me of a song off the most recent Drive-By Truckers album:
Sorry for this interruption, but you like Drive-By Truckers?!!! You're the first TFP'er I've met (hell, the first person outside of my anthropology department, where I was introduced to them) who even KNOWS who Drive-By Truckers are. Nice one! They are one of my long-time favorite bands.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 02:24 PM   #14 (permalink)
Kick Ass Kunoichi
 
snowy's Avatar
 
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Sorry for this interruption, but you like Drive-By Truckers?!!! You're the first TFP'er I've met (hell, the first person outside of my anthropology department, where I was introduced to them) who even KNOWS who Drive-By Truckers are. Nice one! They are one of my long-time favorite bands.
Hey, I like the Drive-By Truckers too! They were a frequent choice of my coworkers at a former job--The Dirty South was one of our favorite albums to play.

/threadjack
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Last edited by snowy; 06-04-2008 at 02:27 PM..
snowy is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 02:28 PM   #15 (permalink)
Minion of Joss
 
levite's Avatar
 
Location: The Windy City
I would tend to agree that there is such a thing as a just war-- although I might not necessarily define it or limit it in quite the ways St. Augustine does. I tend to think just wars are fairly few and far between, although a number of wars that ended up being just weren't entered into for just reasons.

But even in a just war, there can be murder. World War II, in my opinion, was a just war, and yet there were murders and even atrocities committed by Allied troops as well as Axis troops. The big difference between these war crimes and crimes committed by soldiers of the Western Powers in later wars is that the ones in WWII were most often prosecuted when discovered. To some degree, these kinds of war crimes are inevitable. Wars can be just, in the sense that a nation may have no other choice but to fight, or else be destroyed, or be party by silent acquiescence to the destruction of other innocents, and yet, for all the necessity of such a war, wars are simply never a good thing.

I have known and respected a number of men who have served their country in armed combat, and whether they felt the wars they fought in were just or not, none of them thought that war was a good thing, or anything but a last resort, that-- if effective-- was nonetheless detrimental to all who fought in it.

What I would say is that, since we know that war inevitably breeds excessive violence and inhumanity-- even within the parameters of its own context-- it falls to the responsible nations to:

1. Enter into wars as infrequently as possible, being certain to exhaust all other options before resorting to all-out armed conflict.

2. Prepare for responsible combat: do everything possible to avoid the killing or injuring of civilians. This includes formulating strategies and developing technologies designed to win with minimum civilian casualties, even at the cost of prolonging the conflict.

3. Arrange intensive oversight: military police should be given wide latitude to investigate complex or suspicious incidents, such as those involving civilian deaths or injuries, death or injuries of captured enemy soldiers, or of imprisoned non-military combatants. Military authorities should be constantly vigilant to discourage unethical unit behavior or command patterns.

4. Soldiers should be frequently given psychological evaluations and support, in order to help them deal with what they experience, and to ensure that soldiers who are overly traumatized, inclining to random rageful behavior, or prone to cruelty, are rotated out of front-line service or duties placing them in proximity to enemy civilians.

Those are only a few key points, of course. And in the end, we can strive to take the murder out of war, but we can never entirely succeed. The only thing we can do is, at the same time we are researching better battle technology to minimize unintended casualties, and implementing strategies to ameliorate the destructive impact of war on the lives both of civilians and soldier, we must devote equal energy and resources to trying to eliminate war altogether from practice on earth.
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)
levite is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 02:37 PM   #16 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
what is it called when under conditions NOT specifically covered by law??
Killing. Or homicide.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 04:32 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
there's laws on this. Soldiers have combat immunity, but don't have immunity outside combat. At least that's my recollection of how it works.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 04:39 PM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
This is more about political and ethical theory, not law. Legally, it's not murder unless they breach the rules of their country (for the US, the UCMJ).
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 07:23 PM   #19 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
I suppose deadly force during war-time is technically sanctioned killings managed under military codes of conduct (ideally). Outside of war or militarily sanctioned engagements, isn't murder considered to be the willful or illegal taking of life under civil law?

Often it just comes down to basic survival for those under fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice in Chains
"The Rooster"

Ain't found a way to kill me yet,
Eyes burn with stinging sweat,
Seems every path leads me to nowhere.
Wife and kids, household pet,
Army green was no safe bet.
The bullets scream to me from somewhere.
Here they come to snuff the rooster, oh yeah.
Yeah, here comes the rooster,
You know he ain't gonna die.
No, no, no, you know he ain't gonna die.
Walking tall, machine gun man,
They spit on me in my homeland,
Gloria sent me pictures of my boy.
Got my pills 'gainst mosquito death,
My buddy's breathing his dying breath,
Oh god please, won't you help me make it through?
Here they come to snuff the rooster, oh yeah.
Yeah, here comes the rooster,
You know he ain't gonna die.
No, no, no, you know he ain't gonna die.
ottopilot is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 07:32 PM   #20 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Sure, it's all murder really, though separated by varying degrees. Let's not dance around the issue and just call a spade a spade. Whether killing for sport, self-defense, war, robbery etc, it's all murder.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:08 PM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
So Jorge, it's the same to you if you kill a man who's wielding an axe trying to kill a 2year old girl... than the guy who kills because he enjoys it?

Sorry there Kant, there is no moral imperative.

Quote:
IMO, no war in which the US participated or initiated since WW II have met these conditions.
So you wouldn't consider the intervention in South Korea to be justified according to those laws?

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
Compare North vs. South Korea. There is a certain, lasting, and grave difference in quality of life for those living there


2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
There were extensive peace talks and negotiations, North Korea opened the war Blitzkrieg style. It's hard to stop a tank with 13months of talking

3. there must be serious prospects of success;
We won.

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The evil was not eliminated, but it was at least contained. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives, but this is much less than innocents who have died from starvation/torture/executions on the Northern border alone. Imagine the carnage if they had taken the entire peninsula.

Seems worthy to me.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Last edited by Seaver; 06-04-2008 at 08:15 PM..
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:12 PM   #22 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
So Jorge, it's the same to you if you kill a man who's wielding an axe trying to kill a 2year old girl... than the guy who kills because he enjoys it?

Sorry there Kant, there is no moral imperative.
Was it difficult ignoring "Sure, it's all murder really, though separated by varying degrees."?
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:16 PM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
No, I saw it. His statement of "it's all murder" was incorrect. It's all killing would be a correct statement, not murder.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:17 PM   #24 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
It's a good question Seaver. Yes, in the sense of action, as in the act of murder or killing. But no, because there are varying degrees of intent or motive which would lead us to things like justifiable etc.

But on principle, I feel that all killing is murder. Note that I am not saying if it's right or wrong or if it's good or bad. There is no value judgment here. Only defining an act or series of acts.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:29 PM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Murder, by the word is extremely malicious. Killing, is neutral.

I've killed plenty of animals, for food mainly (Venison is nutritious and delicious). However I love nature and animals. I've killed bugs, but I feel no anger towards them (I even find them pretty interesting).

I have never murdered anything. Nothing in the heat of passion wanted that thing to exist from this plane of reality. Nothing killed simply for my amusement, nothing for my shear thrill of killing. Nothing malicious.

That is where the line is disjunct. You say it's all murder to you, well that's great but you're changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument. I can't say any color in the spectrum is the same as the color red. Yes red is a color, and shades get extremely close to shades of other colors. However, as close as red and yellow can get to each other they are distinct colors.

I hope you get my analogy.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:17 AM   #26 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
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.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 06-05-2008 at 05:22 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 04:02 PM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
I don't think killing can ever be neutral.
So when you pull weeds out of your lawn, you feel malicious?

I'm not saying soldiers feel nothing when they kill, so don't get me wrong. I'm saying there are varying degrees within the word kill, it can be resentful/angry/regretful/remorseful/etc.

If a loved one was going to die a long, slow death and asked you to kill them is that equal to murder? I say no, it's a loving act to end the pain and therefore kill is a better term.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 04:28 PM   #28 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Clearly this is about killing human beings, Seaver.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 04:36 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Yeah, but homicide, manslaughter and murder each mean something very different - not just legally but morally. That's why we evaluate each one differently. It's not "all murder." It's all homicide, but there are accidental blameless homicides, negligent homicides and intentional homicides. We think of each one in a different way - and we should.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 04:52 PM   #30 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Well then, to start again, according to the definition of murder in the op, no, not all killing could be construed as murder, at least in the legal sense.

I will amend my previous post from murder to killing.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 04:54 PM   #31 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Yeah, but homicide, manslaughter and murder each mean something very different - not just legally but morally.
I may not have made it clear in the OP, but I'm asking about whether or not it's murder from a moral standpoint, and the political and social relevance of that opinion.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:25 PM   #32 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I may not have made it clear in the OP, but I'm asking about whether or not it's murder from a moral standpoint, and the political and social relevance of that opinion.
Okay, see, you need to provide a list of wartime scenarios. There is no single or simplified signifier for "war."
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:42 PM   #33 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Okay, see, you need to provide a list of wartime scenarios. There is no single or simplified signifier for "war."
How about every war over the past 100 years? Would it apply to France in WWI? Would it apply to Nazi Germany? Would it apply to the US in Grenada? The third Persian Gulf War?
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:51 PM   #34 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
You are being too universal, Willravel. You are treating armies as single entities when instead they are made up of individuals. The actions of each individual is what matters here, not the collective action of the group. We could talk about the group, but it would be a difficult approach.

What is at issue is whether an individual act of killing during a war is murder. Well, not everyone in a war is killed under the same circumstances. You're not clear on how we should approach this.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:00 PM   #35 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
If we get too specific the thread becomes too big. Estimate.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:18 PM   #36 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
If we get too specific the thread becomes too big. Estimate.
If we stay too vague, the thread goes nowhere.

But going back to your OP, there is the legal definition of murder (killing unlawfully) and there is the moral definition (killing brutally or inhumanely). The latter suggests that there might be other ways to kill. Perhaps the swift death of aggressors given by someone defending themselves or others?

Is there such thing as an illegal war? Is there such thing as a legal one?

What is the pretext for this thread, Will? Are you willing to go as far as to say that the Iraq "war" is illegal and therefore wholesale murder?

Killing becomes wrong when the ends are for something other than the support and/or restoration of harmony, or for the defense of human rights and dignity.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:20 PM   #37 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Killing becomes wrong when the ends are for something other than the support and/or restoration of harmony, or for the defense of human rights and dignity.
This is really a matter of personal philosophy, I reckon. Personally, I figure all killing is wrong; sometimes it's necessary, but that doesn't make it right.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:28 PM   #38 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
If we stay too vague, the thread goes nowhere.
For evidence that this isn't true, see Martian's post right before mine.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:52 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
There are differences within the war.

If two pilots are engaged in air-to-air combat, one kills the other in said combat it is killing.

If the pilot ejects is alive floating down in a parachute, and the other pilot strafes said 'chuter it probably constitutes murder.

It gets hazy when you then include if a pilot strafing combatants on the ground. They are all armed, and can fire back at the plane, but the parallels are clear when you look at the parachuter.

The devil is in the details. You wish to be black/white on this issue, in which Guru is absolutely correct... the discussion goes no where.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:53 PM   #40 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
For evidence that this isn't true, see Martian's post right before mine.
But, you see, we avoided compete vagueness.

Moreover, we haven't quite gotten far enough.

Martian, killing can be considered an act that is always wrong (think karma), but it doesn't mean it is always murder. What do you think of the legal/moral distinctions?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 06-05-2008 at 07:15 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
 

Tags
killing, murder, war

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360