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?

Quote:

---

what separates war from murder

---

absolutely nothing

Quote:

---

The answer boils down to philosophy.

---

I can see that, sure. philosophy about whether or not killing a person is bad or good always has some fuzzy grey lines.

in an ideal world, I would have prisoners detained for life, but never sentenced to death. death should always be avoided if possible.
but it's not! so we arm police officers with guns and we shoot other people and it sucks
killing another human = murder.

There's clearly an enormous difference between a murderer and a soldier. A murder is a very specific legal term that only applies to a single country's set of laws. Wars (except civil) are international and the belligerents obviously have no need to respect the other country's laws. In modern times we have international laws governing warfare so if an aggressor (or any party really) is guilty of any crimes against humanity they can be tried for war crimes in an international court.

More accurately, a soldier commits homicides (which isn't a specific legal term), not murders. There are other legal homicides, such as from self-defense and capital punishment.

I think it's sad how people fight wars and sometimes don't even know "what the other country done".

My brother's in training for the Royal Marines, and I get so worried for him. Not because of the training, but for what is to come.

When you mow down large lines of people, it becomes a lot more fun. Most games where you just kill one person and that's that are often kind of boring. Not my kind of game.

I guess it boils down to why you think that murder is wrong. Is it because it is against the law or is it because you value human life? Most wars are fought because of power, not because of any real reason, other than that people still follow dumbasses(sometimes reffered to as politicians) rather than working together as individuals and thinking for themselves.

It's true that soldiers who kill in war are just following orders, but really, we can choose to disobey orders. Growing up in a world of war, it seems normal to us to charge into another country, armed to the teeth because our higher-ups had a disagreement with someone. But if people would just be smart enough to think for themselves, rather than just blindly do as they're told, then maybe we'd have more people laying down their guns and demanding a good reason to go off killing people.

I disagree with war, but at times we feel a need for it. Like in WWII, everyone must have been tense to see and hear the Nazi party on the news, talking about the German master race and the inferior Jewish race. They probably felt it was none of their business to intervene in the affairs of another country. But when the Nazis went out into the world, invading and killing everyone they saw as lower than them, that's when people knew that they had to be stopped.

Putting a stop to mass-murdering psychopaths who are hell bent on conquering the world seems like a good reason to spring to action. But for soldiers to go to war with another nation or people just because their government had an argument with someone or they're suspicious of someone. That's just stupid. Unbelievably stupid.

So if we asked a few questions when the war hungry guys in charge want blood, instead of just doing as they say, then maybe they would go from being stupid and dangerous to just being stupid. :roll:

I wouldn't want soldiers to question orders. If you have doubts then speak up before your country goes to war and for god's sake don't join the army...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I wouldn't want soldiers to question orders. If you have doubts then speak up before your country goes to war and for god's sake don't join the army...

---

Agreed.

Those quotes do a pretty good job of explaining it.

It's basically the same as if you came here and asked "When is the death penalty okay?" Each of us would consult our own sense of morality, which is totally subjective, and cast a vote. The majority would come to something that is close to an answer, not because the majority is always right but because as a social entity of website-vistors, just like the social entity of our country, the answer voted by the majority is the answer that best reflects how most of the participants feel.

When we go to war we are saying we're not just marching into XXXX to kill for the fun of it- that would be murder. We're saying there is a moral implication, that we have a responsibility to use deadly force to accomplish a goal. While US citizens may not go to the polls to decide if we (for example) were going to invade Canada, we provide our consent by electing the officials who fill the positions in our government that allow them to make those decisions.

I liked the part about the soldier knowing he might have to shoot someone, but not having selected specific individuals. It's a little bit of wordsmith smoke-and-mirrors, but it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I guess it boils down to why you think that murder is wrong. Is it because it is against the law or is it because you value human life? Most wars are fought because of power, not because of any real reason, other than that people still follow dumbasses(sometimes reffered to as politicians) rather than working together as individuals and thinking for themselves.

---

That Pretty much sums it up. If the only reason you don't murder people, is because its illegal, then you got some serious problems. You have to make the distinction, are you looking at this from a moral perspective, or a legal one? There are some things both have in common. Self defense is generally consider legal and morally acceptable. However when it comes to war, the difference becomes far larger. Even illegal wars, often go unpunished, and what is legal is more like what can be enforced.

Mutual agression. Self-preservation.

Not that I think that all wars are just. What the heck are we doing in the Middle East?

hmm, the main difference I see between war and murder is, during a murder one or more parties may be trying to avoid conflict. In war the two armies are both expecting to fight and expecting to kill. I mean, who really joins the army without the knowledge they may have to kill someone?

It's down to what we as a society believes in. Take law and order:

Fining <--> Extortion
Imprisonment <--> Kidnapping
Execution <--> Murder

It's how we want our society to be run.

rickrold and tkdyko- you guys are using the mutual agression argument? Essentially, both parties have agreed to settle a dispute by killing each other. Okay. If war is not murder for this reason then I could start a fight club where all participants have to beat each other to death with their bare fists, (no calling uncle!) and my club would not involve murder. Or else I could challenge someone tommorow to a game of pistols 18th century style and this would not be murder.

Also, some of you are talking about the reasonable expectation to kill someone if you fight in a war and that if you don't feel capable of killing someone you shouldn't join the army. I agree. But this moral argument only applies to all volunteer armies. As shoon as the draft is initiating any argument about expectation or mutual aggression on an individual level all go out the window.

I bet that if you killed somebody in a duel (where both parties are willing participants), you'd be charged with manslaughter, not murder. Just my guess though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

rickrold and tkdyko- you guys are using the mutual agression argument? Essentially, both parties have agreed to settle a dispute by killing each other. Okay. If war is not murder for this reason then I could start a fight club where all participants have to beat each other to death with their bare fists, (no calling uncle!) and my club would not involve murder. Or else I could challenge someone tommorow to a game of pistols 18th century style and this would not be murder.

---

Technically speaking...if it was in the contract that the company and fighters couldnt be held accountable for deaths you could get away with it couldnt you? Though if enough people were disgusted by it they could get the government to shut it down most likely. Also, I think spartiate is right, it might be considered manslaughter regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Also, some of you are talking about the reasonable expectation to kill someone if you fight in a war and that if you don't feel capable of killing someone you shouldn't join the army. I agree. But this moral argument only applies to all volunteer armies. As shoon as the draft is initiating any argument about expectation or mutual aggression on an individual level all go out the window.

---

I agree, if you have a draft then the only thing you can do is try to intentionally dodge the draft, which depending on how strict the government is in the country may or may not be possible. I was just looking at it from a more philosophical point of view than legal. Once you bring in a government forcing its citizens in to it, then yes the only difference between war and murder is in the legal definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I bet that if you killed somebody in a duel (where both parties are willing participants), you'd be charged with manslaughter, not murder. Just my guess though...

---

Yeah, I am not sure what it would be. Except in Britain, where it is considered murder by the courts. Just about anywhere in the modern world you would absolutely go to prison, I should think. But what for? If it was classified as murder, it would have to be first degree, wouldn't it? Seeing as the killing would be pre-meditated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Technically speaking...if it was in the contract that the company and fighters couldnt be held accountable for deaths you could get away with it couldnt you? Though if enough people were disgusted by it they could get the government to shut it down most likely. Also, I think spartiate is right, it might be considered manslaughter regardless.

---

UFC, where there is just a risk of death is one thing. But most places do have specific laws against mutual combat to the death. Gladiatorial combat would fall under that. But, again, what it would fall under legally I don't know. Speaking on a moral level, though, not a legal one, duels to the death cannot be considered murder if war is not considered murder because of mutual aggression.

War could be divided into three catergories: Murder, Manslaughter and self-defence

Murder- Your neighbour has some very expsensive diamonds, you go in and they awake while your robing the house, and you stab/shoot them to shut them up.
Hitler wanted the world, for resources and power, and killed people of all differen nationalalitys
Manslaughter - Your friend just murdered your wife, you try to shoot him and miss, killing a bystander
teroirists blow up the world trade centres (conspiracys aside), bush attacks, but hundreds or civialians are killed
self-defence - a theif has broken into your house, you have awoken and grabed a knife, the theif jumps at you weilding a blade, you stab him and he dies.
WW1 Germany goes to war with france and russia, they strike back

Soildiers arn't Murders, they are just the wepon used to murder people. Its the people commanding them that are guilty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustralianFire

War could be divided into three catergories: Murder, Manslaughter and self-defence

Murder- Your neighbour has some very expsensive diamonds, you go in and they awake while your robing the house, and you stab/shoot them to shut them up.
Hitler wanted the world, for resources and power, and killed people of all differen nationalalitys
Manslaughter - Your friend just murdered your wife, you try to shoot him and miss, killing a bystander
teroirists blow up the world trade centres (conspiracys aside), bush attacks, but hundreds or civialians are killed
self-defence - a theif has broken into your house, you have awoken and grabed a knife, the theif jumps at you weilding a blade, you stab him and he dies.
WW1 Germany goes to war with france and russia, they strike back

Soildiers arn't Murders, they are just the wepon used to murder people. Its the people commanding them that are guilty

---

That's too arbitrary. It's also not unfair to villanize the axis in WWI as much as is done- but that is just arguing the example not the point. Let's muddy the waters a bit. A guy murders your wife. So you shoot him dead. He had no intentions of hurting you. You pre meditated the death of a human being and carried it out even though no risk was posed on your own life. Is that murder? Does the quality of 'justice' affect whether or not something is murder?

Now look at the last sentance you made. The soldier, you say, is not guilty. 'Kay. Let's take an assassination. Is the assassin not guilty because he didn't give the order? And the General who ordered the assassin to kill the president of Tunisia, well, he was ordered by a Senator to find a way to change up Tunisian government so is the Senator guilty even though the Senator was ordered by his nations Prime Minister to establish more North African allies even if that means displacing current leadership? So is the Prime Minister responsible? Because his constituency demanded that he take greater concern in African affairs. A Minister is a public servant after all yada yad yada you can go so far with this nonsense.

What if a soldier is ordered to line up a group of dozens of civilians including children and infants in a small village in Asia, told to ignore literal rape of women going on, and then ordered to shoot the civvies dead into a ditch? Is he accountable for following the order?

No, I am not trying to redirect the topic. But I want to know where is the line drawn at responsibility of taking human life. Does the other guy have to be actively aiming a rifle at you for it to be self defence? Or is an air raid the same thing. Is killing political enemies okay? How about following orders and taking civilian life? And does the motivation for the killing matter more than the context? I am a highwaymen and kill someone for money. I am a military man and attack a smaller nation to take their resources. Is there any substantial difference? These lines have to be somewhere and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

That's too arbitrary. It's also not unfair to villanize the axis in WWI as much as is done- but that is just arguing the example not the point. Let's muddy the waters a bit. A guy murders your wife. So you shoot him dead. He had no intentions of hurting you. You pre meditated the death of a human being and carried it out even though no risk was posed on your own life. Is that murder? Does the quality of 'justice' affect whether or not something is murder?

Now look at the last sentance you made. The soldier, you say, is not guilty. 'Kay. Let's take an assassination. Is the assassin not guilty because he didn't give the order? And the General who ordered the assassin to kill the president of Tunisia, well, he was ordered by a Senator to find a way to change up Tunisian government so is the Senator guilty even though the Senator was ordered by his nations Prime Minister to establish more North African allies even if that means displacing current leadership? So is the Prime Minister responsible? Because his constituency demanded that he take greater concern in African affairs. A Minister is a public servant after all yada yad yada you can go so far with this nonsense.

What if a soldier is ordered to line up a group of dozens of civilians including children and infants in a small village in Asia, told to ignore literal rape of women going on, and then ordered to shoot the civvies dead into a ditch? Is he accountable for following the order?

No, I am not trying to redirect the topic. But I want to know where is the line drawn at responsibility of taking human life. Does the other guy have to be actively aiming a rifle at you for it to be self defence? Or is an air raid the same thing. Is killing political enemies okay? How about following orders and taking civilian life? And does the motivation for the killing matter more than the context? I am a highwaymen and kill someone for money. I am a military man and attack a smaller nation to take their resources. Is there any substantial difference? These lines have to be somewhere and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily.

---

ok, you win. You shot my theory to pieces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustralianFire

War could be divided into three catergories: Murder, Manslaughter and self-defence
Soildiers arn't Murders, they are just the wepon used to murder people. Its the people commanding them that are guilty

---

Interesting opinion, as current thinking is that they are responsible for their actions. Recent examples are E German soldiers held responsible for shooting people trying to climb over the Berlin Wall, even though they were following orders.

I sympathise with conscripted soldiers, and would show compassion rather than revenge, at least for battlefield actions (not subsequent abuses). But professional soldiers are effectively mercenaries and should certainly be held accountable for their actions. No good saying in defense "I had to burn that village" after voluntarily signing up to the possibility of being told to burn a village. A bit like a contract killing, where the assassin and the paymaster are both guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

UFC, where there is just a risk of death is one thing. But most places do have specific laws against mutual combat to the death. Gladiatorial combat would fall under that. But, again, what it would fall under legally I don't know. Speaking on a moral level, though, not a legal one, duels to the death cannot be considered murder if war is not considered murder because of mutual aggression.

---

and, I agree, if there is mutual aggression and it is an agreed fight to the death, then its not murder even morally as both sides new and accepted the consequence.

Both war and murder involve a sense of retribution. But in my mind, true "murder" comes with a dark psychological satisfaction which usually involves the person feeling powerful, relieved, or like they got payback for something. As with war killings, the person knows they're defending their country and freedom, which isn't quite as shadowy and is more justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burned up

I sympathise with conscripted soldiers, and would show compassion rather than revenge, at least for battlefield actions (not subsequent abuses). But professional soldiers are effectively mercenaries and should certainly be held accountable for their actions. No good saying in defense "I had to burn that village" after voluntarily signing up to the possibility of being told to burn a village. A bit like a contract killing, where the assassin and the paymaster are both guilty.

---

I agree, and I do want to make a bit of a distinction: I do not mean to defame the soldiers, themselves (well, some of them), because in the end, they are just following orders. This is not an excuse, in and of itself, but any (honest) person that has had any sort of military exposure will tell you that there is extreme pressure to keep one's mouth shut and do as told, without deviation. I show much more understanding to the low-level grunt who is forced with the charge of doing something they know is wrong, and not being able to decline without consequence, than I do to the men who put them in those positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puffin

Both war and murder involve a sense of retribution. But in my mind, true "murder" comes with a dark psychological satisfaction which usually involves the person feeling powerful, relieved, or like they got payback for something. As with war killings, the person knows they're defending their country and freedom, which isn't quite as shadowy and is more justified.

---

That's all fine and good, but not all military actions are a result of "defending their country and freedom." I am not just speaking about America. I'm talking about globally. Literally any war can be propagandized as "defending country / values / freedom / religion / etc." Take the war in Iraq, for example. Our immediate fight was not in Iraq. It was in Afghanistan. We went into Iraq under false pretenses, because we were (quite strategically) led to believe that that was where our fight was. Not only that, but we weren't even fighting against the people who had attacked our country / freedom. We went to take out Saddam who (while a dangerous man, no doubt) was not a direct threat to us - certainly not a threat worth invading the country and exacerbating the deaths of some-odd-hundreds of thousands of people.

Mutual aggression doesn't work at all from a legal perspective. If two people try to settle a dispute with a duel and both agree, and one dies. The other is going to go to jail. On the other hand if someone in the military kills an innocent person nothing happens to them. Under the law you can't fight in duels but you can blow up a building and kill any innocent people who happen to be standing next to it.

It does kind of work on a moral ground though. People often object to wars because of the innocent people that will die, and even though its illegal most people are not outraged by two consenting adults fighting to death.