Murder and War whats the difference?

[Samuel_the_Great!]

Seriously,what is the difference between shoting somebody in a war and shoting somebody outside of a war.You are still killing them.War is just another name for it.Mother Culture says that you have the right to defend yourself.Okay,if someone cuts my arm do I have the right to cut there arm.If the arm of America is a navy aircraft carrier and somone blows it up,do we have the right to instead of just cutting there arm back by blowing up one of there aircraft carriers,instead we kill there whole Navy,Airforce and land force and kill inocent civilians at the same time.

"An eye for an eye will make the world blind."Gandhi I agree.

By the way,my sig does not reflect my views on this thread and specific grouping of threads.

[DarkKnight]

War is not analogous to eye for an eye. Eye for an eye implies that the malicious deed has already been committed against you, and you should (or should not) retaliate in the same mannor. War is more analogous to: take an eye before you lose an eye. If you don't kill them, then they will kill you. The stance that neither party should take an eye is erroneous because this assumes that the soldier is already at war. This also does not involve the leadership and reason for war. This involves an individual soldier who is on the battlefield; is him killing an enemy combatant any different than murder? Of course its different for the reasons above.

[Tecumseh]

Seriously,what is the difference between shoting somebody in a war and shoting somebody outside of a war.You are still killing them.War is just another name for it.Mother Culture says that you have the right to defend yourself.Okay,if someone cuts my arm do I have the right to cut there arm.If the arm of America is a navy aircraft carrier and somone blows it up,do we have the right to instead of just cutting there arm back by blowing up one of there aircraft carriers,instead we kill there whole Navy,Airforce and land force and kill inocent civilians at the same time.

"An eye for an eye will make the world blind."Gandhi I agree.

By the way,my sig does not reflect my views on this thread and specific grouping of threads.

I agree actually. I hate it most when Christians(who are supposed to respect the Ten Commandments) claim that "killing isn't murdering" and other semantic garbage so they can justify war. It's the same damn thing, if you join the army, hop in an F-16, and drop a bomb on a position you know has people in it, it's murder(regardless of whether or not it's a "bad" guy).

[DarkKnight]

It all depends on how you frame the issue. If you look at the ethics of joining the army to kill it's a lot different than defending your homelands from hostile invaders. It depends on the perspective, the situation, and the semantics. If you are comparing by definition, then there really isn't much arguement because you are killing people, regardless. But if you analyze it according to the circumstances, murder and killing enemy combatants is completely different.

[Nurab Sol]

Catholicism, and probably other religions, too, have developed laws that determine a just cause for the use of violence and war. Let's face it: some times you're going to have to kill some one. This could be in defense of your life, family, friends, nation, etc. It's a necessity of life. Justifications exist, but you don't have to accept them. Most Christians believe that one can fight a "just war" (just meaning acceptable or right). However, the case if different depending on who/what we're talking about.

Even a soldier in an unjust war can be justified in taking lives. Of course, there would be qualifiers involved. If the validity of the war itself, rather than the actions of people fighting it, are in question, then we have to look at a larger picture.

On a practical level, it doesn't really work.

For the killing of one person, by another person, to be considered murder one has to examine closely the details. Was this done without a strong outside force (government or military) acting to influence you, was their intent to kill, the status of the victim (is he an innocent person, a hardened criminal, a petty thief, a terrorist, etc?), and the context in which it happened (was this person minding their own business, attacking you, threatening you, attacking or threatening another person?). Cops aren't usually punished for killing bad guys, and can be let off the hook for civilian casualties, too, but they are not encouraged to use deadly force, it's just a reality of the job that people are going to get hurt and possibly die while protecting the peace. If all human actions resulting in the death of another person were to be considered murder, then life would be kinda difficult. How does a police force protect us? How do we protect ourselves? Should people be jailed for killing in self defense of defense of home and family? Why does the criminal get the benefit of the doubt? Would you just let another person take your life, because you don't want to risk endangering theirs?

Most people would feel bad if they killed a child, even if said child is attempting to kill you with an AK47 in the wilds of Uganda. Conversely, if the person you killed was a white, middle aged male, with a knife, and attempting to cut your throat or otherwise harm you, the conscience would be less stricken. The kid probably doesn't have a complete understanding or awarenesses of the deed his is doing. The middle aged white guy, on the other hand, is of an age that would leave you fairly certain he has full understanding and intention regarding the assailment of your person. The law considers such factors when passing judgment.

I agree actually. I hate it most when Christians(who are supposed to respect the Ten Commandments) claim that "killing isn't murdering" and other semantic garbage so they can justify war. It's the same damn thing, if you join the army, hop in an F-16, and drop a bomb on a position you know has people in it, it's murder(regardless of whether or not it's a "bad" guy).

One would be remiss to merely yank out a single aspect of Christian teaching and faith as proof of some perceived hypocrisy. If all of Christian teaching and doctrine were based solely on the Ten Commandments, then you would have a valid argument.

[Nurab Sol]

Society condemns the killing of innocents or "non-combatants." Soldiers, or "enemy combatants" are legitimate targets of military force, them selves being instruments of military force and designated to represent their side in battle.

Murder is usually defined as the unlawful taking of life. War, unlike murder, does not include the taking of human life in it's definition. Wars could, in theory, be fought by machine armies, trade sanctions, or by just destroying enough of the opposing nation's economic infrastructure to precipitate a collapse of the ability to even make war. A classic example is the recent Cold War. There was no fighting, no shooting, and no nuking. We won the war by being more economically and politically stable while facilitating our enemie's inherent instability.

[Titus Atius Labienus]

A classic example is the recent Cold War. There was no fighting, no shooting, and no nuking. We won the war by being more economically and politically stable while facilitating our enemie's inherent instability.

I disagree. The 'Cold War' proper, as an ideological and socio economic conflict between two power blocs, namely, going beyond geo-politics, western liberal governemnt, and its resutling economic and social institutions, and its direct ideological opposite, communism, for want of a better term (in as much as that communism is a blanket word for the USSR and its sphere of influence, not an analysis of its politics or structure).

Firstly, to define the Cold War as a single entity, something that stands alone as a continuous conflict with unchanging realities is innacurate. To have used the period with Gorbachev as Soviet premier might indeed make your statement more accurate, but as a whole the Cold War was not without 'fighting' or 'shooting'. To be sure, it was not a conflict on conventional terms, and your analysis of it being a war won by 'being more economically and politically stable while facilitating our enemie's inherent instability' is correct. However this can only be said of the Cold War post the Cuban Missle Crisis, or even later.

What was Korea? What was Vietnam? Was was Cuba? Were these not extensions of the Cold War. Were they not 'Hot' Wars, or if you prefer in Cuba's case revolutions. What about the Hungarian Uprising? To claim the Cold War was not a conflict in conventional terms is preposterous.


Referring back to the original point, the essential difference between murder and war is one of justification. Justification emerges from one's view point. Was the execution of Saddam Hussein murder? Yes. Was it punitive? Yes. Is it therefore justified? You decide. Capital punishment is claimed as justifable because it is punitive. It is still the taking of another's life.

Capital punishment is an instrument of the state. It is used as a punishment and deterred. It does not de facto require a state for it to be carried out, but de jure it does. War is also an instrument of the state, or of a body who have taken it upon themselves to devolve the capacity for war commonly held by state.

What is the purpose of war? To acheive objectives to one's benefit. What war was ever fought where at least one party had nothing to gain? People will only either give their own lives, or those of others if they see cause, regardless of its justification. If it is justifiable to those who hold the power to cause war, then does killing become murder in their eyes? No.

To touch briefly on religion, and its influence on war, the subject returns to justification. The essential hypocrisy that lies at the heart of a religion, regardless which, that preaches peace and understanding but justifies was is one of fixed and relative morals.

It you strictly adher to the tenets or a religion, then in most instances killing is wrong. Unless someone can be claimed to be outside the notice or worth of your tenets. To claim such a thing, your morals must be aloowed to bend when necessary. Is this true religion?

As an example of justification from fixed and realtive viewpoints. The Malmedy Massacre. The 6th SS Panzer Division had clear objectives. Upon their success lay perhaps the entire fate of the Reich, in as much as that if one part of the Ardennes Offensive failed, the whole may well fail. From Deitrich and Peiper's point of view, the death of POWs who were slowing the advance were acceptable losses in comparison with what was at stake. Their morals were relative, thus their actions were justifable in the circumstances. Those of the people who tried them were not.

This deabte can become endless. Suffice to say that those who hold power, or those who gain victory will justifiy themselves, and be justified. History is what historians tell us it is, and the victor write the history.

[Samuel_the_Great!]

You guys make good points.But,I still think that war even if it is justified in most situations,it very often nowadays is not.But I guess you guys have forced me to look at the issue of war and the issue of murder differently.

However,Murder=killing and War=killing.Even if war can be more justified than murder it is still killing which in my mind is bad and war should by all means be avoided unless it is absolutly necesary.I think most people would agree with that.

[Nurab Sol]

It you strictly adher to the tenets or a religion, then in most instances killing is wrong. Unless someone can be claimed to be outside the notice or worth of your tenets. To claim such a thing, your morals must be aloowed to bend when necessary. Is this true religion?

"Killing", as opposed to murder, doesn't include a moral judgment. Murder is "unjust" killing, while killing, when applied to living beings, is just the taking of life. Catholicism's written doctrine and teachings specifically allow for justified wars and killing. Other religions allow killing for specific reasons as well. What would you define as "true religion"? Unless a religion lacks written doctrines of some sort, the actions of those professing adherence to it do not necessarily speak for that religion.

Suffice to say that those who hold power, or those who gain victory will justifiy themselves, and be justified. History is what historians tell us it is, and the victor write the history.

While i understand your point of view, i disagree. A depressing view of truth such as this, while often espoused, is a horrible thing in practice. Was slavery justified while it was still law? Would you accept it as a justified action if the powers that be decided it to be so? If the victors decide they're justified in the slaughter of innocent children by the thousands to facilitate the creation of a "master race", does their might make it right?

The world would be a dismal place if this was widely accepted to be "true."

[Titus Atius Labienus]

"Killing", as opposed to murder, doesn't include a moral judgment. Murder is "unjust" killing, while killing, when applied to living beings, is just the taking of life. Catholicism's written doctrine and teachings specifically allow for justified wars and killing. Other religions allow killing for specific reasons as well. What would you define as "true religion"? Unless a religion lacks written doctrines of some sort, the actions of those professing adherence to it do not necessarily speak for that religion.

The better phrasing perhaps would have been if religions can allow the putting of persons outside of their own protection, to make them unequal to the religions adherents, then are people true to the tenets of their faith by allowing this, and killing?

While i understand your point of view, i disagree. A depressing view of truth such as this, while often espoused, is a horrible thing in practice. Was slavery justified while it was still law? Would you accept it as a justified action if the powers that be decided it to be so? If the victors decide they're justified in the slaughter of innocent children by the thousands to facilitate the creation of a "master race", does their might make it right?

You use two examples of gross injustices here, crimes against humanity. However, both slavery the nazi master reace concept have been overturned and defeated. Whilst there these things are now not justified from our standpoint, had events turned out differently would they have been so? People do not form their own consciousness and opinions, society does. If you live in a society where these things are utterly justified, and nothing exists to tell you otherwise, then they will be right. Your perception influences your justification.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions—in one word, man's consciousness—change with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and his social life?

[Idwayreth]

it's all part of this complicated mindset we call human reasoning.

[Lord Bohemond]

Both are the same. Both can be used for good or ill. At least, this is the evolutionary perspective.

Eliminating a rival can be good for the tribe if done properly, but can hurt the tribe. Same with war. A careless war hurts the tribe, but a successful war is beneficial to the tribe.

[Richard]

War is murder on a larger scale. Really, what's the difference between the soldier who kills because he is ordered to, and the mafia man who kills because he is ordered to? They're both doing what's percieved by them as beneficial to their "tribe", as Lord Bohemond said.

Random acts of killing are different though as they have no beneficial outcome.

[Odovacar]

You are not allowed to settle differences by murdering people, because the state's authority can deal with every problem between individuals.
But states had no jury over them, so there can be a problem which they cannot decide peacefully anymore.

[Tom Paine]

You are not allowed to settle differences by murdering people, because the state's authority can deal with every problem between individuals.
But states had no jury over them, so there can be a problem which they cannot decide peacefully anymore.

But since we have international bodies like the UN, there should be no more need for war, no? But that's not the case.

[DarkKnight]

But since we have international bodies like the UN, there should be no more need for war, no? But that's not the case.

I think the U.N. has successfully proven itself that it is incapable of preventing war.

[General Danilius]

Murder is often done in cold blood.
A soldier killing an enemy soldier during war is self-defense.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Combatants and soldiers fight and put themselves at risk knowing there is a strong chance of death during war/battle. War, despite the opinion of a few, is above the law. There is really no higher power on earth that can determine "legality" of war, as there is never a "legal" war at all.

But, on the flipside, murder envolves killing someone who doesn't entend to harm you. Snipe a mailman? Murder. Shoot the cop who's pulled you over? Murder. Stab the little girl going to school? Murder.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Or better yet, prolonging war.

Case in point: Sierra-Leone

[Titus Atius Labienus]

Two points:

First - against the concept that there is no body that can apply the rule of law to states - what exactly in the Bosnia and Serbia case all about. If that is not a state being tried for something, then what is.

Second - The UN in theory ought to be able to prevent war. It does not in reality for two reasons. Firstly, when it comes to prevention, the UN is easily sidelined because it has no state itself, no de facto power to back itself up with. This means if the security council disagree, they are easily ignored, and so make themselves redundant e.g. the Iraq war. Secondly, when it comes to resolving conflicts, they are paralysed because of virtually the same reasons, excepting that there are troops availiable to them, but their lack of concensus and often petty vascillating means they cannot directly apply their wishes.

The UN is a sound thoery, with often unspeakably implementation. It in essence ignores the fact that nations with sufficient power will always be sovereign.

Titus