Kill Vrs. Murder

[JimR-OCDS]

Main Entry: [b][sup]1[/sup]mur·der[/b] Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\Function: [i]noun[/i] Etymology: partly from Middle English [i]murther,[/i] from Old English [i]morthor;[/i] partly from Middle English [i]murdre,[/i] from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English [i]morthor;[/i] akin to Old High German [i]mord[/i] murder, Latin [i]mort-, mors[/i] death, [i]mori[/i] to die, [i]mortuus[/i] dead, Greek [i]brotos[/i] mortalDate: before 12th century[b]1[/b] [b]:[/b] the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought<BR itxtvisited="1">

Not all killing is murder, otherwise the soldiers who fought in WWII are all murders.

Jim

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='23 October 2009 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1256330330' post='1990377']

Not all killing is murder, otherwise the soldiers who fought in WWII are all murders.

Jim

[/quote]

No, just the pilots and bombardiers who deliberately targeted civilian populations were murderers. Those who defended the planes from attack were formal and proximate material cooperants in murder.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='23 October 2009 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1256330330' post='1990377']
Not all killing is murder, otherwise the soldiers who fought in WWII are all murders.

Jim
[/quote]
That's not really a logical argument, because if killing is murder, then every soldier who fought in WWII are murderers by definition.

If "all killing is murder" is a statement, then "all soldiers are murderers" is an implied consequence. You can't prove all soldiers are not murderers unless you've first refuted the original statement.

I'm not saying all killing is murder, just that this argument isn't valid.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Obviously it's murder; it wouldn't make sense otherwise. If it's "kill," how do we know that applies only to killing humans. Maybe it also applies to animals and even plants. Then we could only survive by scavenging or and eating fruits and berries. The implication is unjust murder. On the other hand, "thou shalt not kill" has a better ring to it.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 October 2009 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1256341607' post='1990407']
No, just the pilots and bombardiers who deliberately targeted civilian populations were murderers. Those who defended the planes from attack were formal and proximate material cooperants in murder.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Actually, even they are not murderers because their targets where for the most part, given to them as orders from higher commands. Most often, they had no idea what they were bombing until after the fact.

Howard Zinn, who was a bombardier in WWII, flew many missions over Germany. He supported the war effort and served well. Two weeks before Germany's formal surrender, he and the crew of his plane were ordered out on a bombing mission, over a small village in France, along the German border. He said that when they got down to the plan, they noticed that it was loaded with fire bombs made from 50gal drums of gasoline, retrofitted with wings. Anyway, following orders, they went out and bombed the assigned target.

After the war, Zinn learned that the village contained German soldiers who had surrendered to allied forces, and were waiting to be picked up and transported to a POW camp. Most of the soldiers at this late stage of the war, were just 15 year old kids. They were bombed for no reason other than that they were German soldiers. Zinn, says his conscience still bothers him about how he killed innocent human beings, for nor reason, only two week before the war ended. Zinn ended up becaming a staunch anti-war activist.

Was Zinn and his sguadren members murderers? No. But the commander who gave the order for the bombing, surely was.

Jim

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='26 October 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1256565715' post='1991474']
Actually, even they are not murderers because their targets where for the most part, given to them as orders from higher commands. Most often, they had no idea what they were bombing until after the fact.

Howard Zinn, who was a bombardier in WWII, flew many missions over Germany. He supported the war effort and served well. Two weeks before Germany's formal surrender, he and the crew of his plane were ordered out on a bombing mission, over a small village in France, along the German border. He said that when they got down to the plan, they noticed that it was loaded with fire bombs made from 50gal drums of gasoline, retrofitted with wings. Anyway, following orders, they went out and bombed the assigned target.

After the war, Zinn learned that the village contained German soldiers who had surrendered to allied forces, and were waiting to be picked up and transported to a POW camp. Most of the soldiers at this late stage of the war, were just 15 year old kids. They were bombed for no reason other than that they were German soldiers. Zinn, says his conscience still bothers him about how he killed innocent human beings, for nor reason, only two week before the war ended. Zinn ended up becaming a staunch anti-war activist.

Was Zinn and his sguadren members murderers? No. But the commander who gave the order for the bombing, surely was.

Jim
[/quote]

Pilots of full-blown raids knew their targets. When the target pointed out on the pre-bombing briefing map is a city center, you can safely assume you are being told to slaughter civilians. The first German raid on London was a mistake. The pilots knew it was a mistake. They knew when they were told to attack civilian populations.

The newspapers reported that whole cities were being decimated by air. Anyone with half a microgram of sense would have known who was causing that decimation.

Norden bombsights offered a rather decent picture of the target. A daylight raid on an oil field or a ball bearing factory is obviously very different from a daylight raid on a city, despite any camouflage efforts.

~Sternhauser

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='27 October 2009 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1256691066' post='1992445']
Pilots of full-blown raids knew their targets. When the target pointed out on the pre-bombing briefing map is a city center, you can safely assume you are being told to slaughter civilians. The first German raid on London was a mistake. The pilots knew it was a mistake. They knew when they were told to attack civilian populations.

The newspapers reported that whole cities were being decimated by air. Anyone with half a microgram of sense would have known who was causing that decimation.

Norden bombsights offered a rather decent picture of the target. A daylight raid on an oil field or a ball bearing factory is obviously very different from a daylight raid on a city, despite any camouflage efforts.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Never the less, the pilots are under orders and are therefore it is by definition, not murder on their part.

Murder is the illegal taking of innocent life.

States that use capital punishment against convicted murderers, are not committing murder.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1256736167' post='1992673']
Never the less, the pilots are under orders and are therefore it is by definition, not murder on their part.

Jim
[/quote]
Acting under orders, while maybe reducing culpability, should be assumed to completely remove it. That's what allowed the Holocaust to happen.

[rkwright]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church has always interpreted it as thou shall not kill, a broader definition. This would include consentual killings as well, think suicide, euthanasia, reckless killings like manslaughter. I know the current CCC translates it as thou shall not kill.

As to the legitimate defense, again it is my understanding that the act and intention would be defense of another, the killing of the agressor is unintended and not what the act is directed at. Its the double effect principle.

Thus when the CCC says that legitimate defense is not an exception against the commandment thou shall not kill, it means that even if legitimate defense is your intention, you cannot do an act which primary end is to kill the other purpose. The distinction is small but important. Think "I'm going to keep you off me by all means possible - if that means that you end up dying then so be it" vs. "I'm going to keep you off me so I'm going to kill you."

Edited October 28, 2009 by rkwright

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1256742956' post='1992742']
Acting under orders, while maybe reducing culpability, should be assumed to completely remove it. That's what allowed the Holocaust to happen.
[/quote]

But it distinguishes between killing that is immoral and murder.


Murder by definition, is the illegal act of ending the life of another person.

Capital punishment isn't murder, but it could be immoral, depending on the circumstances.



Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1256748143' post='1992779']
But it distinguishes between killing that is immoral and murder.


Murder by definition, is the illegal act of ending the life of another person.

Capital punishment isn't murder, but it could be immoral, depending on the circumstances.



Jim
[/quote]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying someone can still be guilty of murder even if they're "just following orders". We have a moral duty to resist unjust orders or laws.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1256748230' post='1992781']
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying someone can still be guilty of murder even if they're "just following orders". We have a moral duty to resist unjust orders or laws.
[/quote]


There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim

[Winchester]

In kill vs. murder, my money's on murder because the passion will be an advantage.

[Theoketos]

I think that as a christian husband I have a duty to protect my families' innocence and life with lethal force if necessary and a last resort.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1256759975' post='1992878']
There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim
[/quote]

Uh, that is clearly a disordered and evil act. War or not, it was unjust.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1256759975' post='1992878']
There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim
[/quote]

It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1256762962' post='1992906']
It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.
[/quote]
But perhaps not imputed to the soldiers.

[Nihil Obstat]

If it came down to carrying out an unjust and murderous order, and being shot, I believe that a Christian must in good conscience refuse the order and be shot.

In the example you quoted, in my opinion those soldiers, as well as the officers, are guilty of murder. Of course I cannot judge their interior thought process, but in my personal opinion a person in nearly every case in his life, will have the moral wherewithal to realize that shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head is wrong under all circumstances.
I will add a caveat though, that culpability would be diminished if the American soldiers had been broken in boot camp so thoroughly that they did not have the psychological strength to resist an order from their superiors, and in other situations of that rather extreme ilk.

The fact that it was a time of war makes no difference. The fact that the order was given by superiors makes no difference. The American soldiers had a moral duty to resist a murderous order and face the consequences.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Catholictothecore]

God meant "thou shall not murder." Personally, I'd be more comfortable with kill...

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Yes, slaughtering surrendering soldiers is murder. The traditional Christian standards of "Just War" are very, very, very, very high. This includes [i]jus ad bellum[/i], the justice of the war, and [i]jus in bello[/i], justice within the war. According to [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#III"]the Catholic Catechism[/url]:

[quote][b]2313[/b] Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.[/quote]

Furthermore, to address the question about "following orders":

[quote]Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.[/quote]

That about says it all. Unfortunately, war has an overwhelming tendency to push otherwise decent people into committing atrocities because the stakes are so. It makes monsters out of everyone. It is morally destructive even to those for whom the war might be a defensive war. War should truly be avoided except in the most [i]extreme[/i] of circumstances. It's one of the most destructive things in the world.

Edited October 29, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn