What Separates War from Murder?
According to Discovery.com
Quote:
The answer boils down to philosophy. Soldiers are following orders -- it's their duty as instruments of war to inflict damage upon the enemy. A murderer is someone who illegally kills another human. Some nations further define murder to refer to premeditated killings. You could argue that soldiers don't commit premeditated killings -- they know they may have to fire upon enemy soldiers but they haven't singled out specific individuals to kill beforehand. If you're opposed to the thought of one human ending the life of another, such distinctions may hold little meaning for you.
What separates war from murder? | Curiosity
Quote:
Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder.
Why don't we consider war to be murder? | Curiosity
I hate that, "technically," I have to agree with this. There is this minute (yes enormous) technically, that War cannot ever be considered murder. It is a subtle cue that "well, since it's not illegal, it isn't wrong," regardless of whether or not that particular faction is the aggressor. It is the same as painted a person who smokes marijuana as "bad," because the act of smoking marijuana is illegal, but put in reverse.
Personally, I just don't like the double standard. Came across the Q&A and thought I'd share. What are your thoughts on the matter?