posted
*Note, "Murder" in this post refers to the moral dilema and ramifications or causing a death. It has nothing to do with "Intent" as is neccesary in court before the word can be used.
When is murder no longer murder? When does causing the death of another individual cease to be a crime and become... somthing else?
If you asked a soldier this question he might say, "When you're at war, and ordered to do it." But then how do you explain the Nuremberg trials? Obviously we must delve deeper then to say killing is okay just because you're at war or because you're ordered to kill.
Some might say that "In war, when you're ordered to, and the other people are trying to kill you." Okay, so I can kill them if they're trying to kill me, but what if they're only trying to kill me because I'm trying to kill them? Someone has to have wanted to kill the other first, therefore isn't that person a murderer?
What about civilian casualties in war? When that happens surely the soldier who killed them is guilty of somthing. But then I hear "No! You can't win a war without killing civilians, we try to stop it, so it's okay when it happens by accident.
But then, we look at examples of friendly fire such as the killing of 4 Canadian troops by US bombs in Afghanistan about a year ago. Why are those men up for trial? Surely they tried not to kill any allied troops, what makes accidentally killing allied soldiers a crime and accidentally killing civilians of another country not?
But let's leave the military example for now, because surely war situations have their own laws and morals which complicate the issue.
If a train is heading down a train with 50 people on it is heading down a train track towards my child, and I switch the tracks it's on so it heads off a cliff and all those people die, but my child lives, am I a murderer? Am I guilty of 50 murders? Or only 49 because it saved 1 life as well? Would it still be murder if only one person had been on that train and I simply chose that my child should live instead? What if I chose to let my child die instead? Am I still a murderer?
What if it was the other way around, and the train was already heading off a cliff? My child is still on the other track, but now I'm simply doing nothing. Is it no longer murder because my part in their murder is inaction instead of action?
What if I'm a cop in the mall and 2 guys have a bomb which will kill 50 people. It's right for me to kill them before they can kill those 50 people right?
What if the two of them have guns instead of a bomb and only 1 hostage? Are their two lives less valuable then their hostages one life? Would it make any difference if the hostage was going to die tommorrow of natural causes anyway? Then are the two gunmens' combined 80 years left of life more valuable then the hostages 1 day? What if the hostage had 1 week? Or 1 year? How much more life does the hostage have to have left for it to be morally right for the gunmen to die instead?
All I have are questions, anyone have any answers?
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
The US pilots were cleared of all charges inregards to the death of the Canadian troops via 'fog of war'. My best reading was that it was a mercy they didn't deserve. From all indications, a hot shot snot decided that having the excuse to play with his toy and to enjoy the "thrill of the kill" was more important than following orders; ie he disregarded the rules of engagement and standard operating procedures specificly designed to prevent such incidents. Did the leader kill them knowing they were Canadians? No. It was worse: he didn't care whether it was Americans/Canadians/Brits/etc, or hostiles; at least not enough to wait for confirmation that friendlies weren't being targeted. The pilot under his command is less culpable.
This is gun camera footage recently obtained by ABC news that shows an Army AH-64 helicopter killing three Iraqis. It has raised some interesting moral questions, although military authorities have so far stood by their assertion that it was within the rules of engagement.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see: train tracks and child - he wouldn't be on the train tracks to begin with, no problem. What ever happened to supervision?
The other way around? What do you mean? My child's not in danger but lots of poeple will die if I don't flip a switch? I will flip the switch.
As a police officer, I will certainly protect the 50 people in the mall over the two jerks with the explosive materials. If I were a patron (and my son was safe and my will in order) and I could see a way of taking those two out, I'd be all over it.
Hostage situation? They train specialists for that sort of thing - besides, my union contract forbids me from working outside my job specs . . .
quote: When is murder no longer murder? When does causing the death of another individual cease to be a crime and become... somthing else?
[derail]How does everyone think this question applies to the issue of abortion? (I'm actually quite curious as I've noticed differing opinions on the subject and would be very interested to hear the reasoning and logic of all sides.)[/derail]
Pokes head back in briefly to further derail thread: Narnia! We missed you today! The soup was wonderful and the card games were great fun! How did your exams go?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the situation with 1 person who will die tommorrow anyway as a hostage tab? Are the next 80 years (combined) of those criminals lives worth more then the 1 day of the hostage? If so, then what if the hostage had 1 week left to live, or 1 year. How long before their life becomes worth more then those of 2 other people... does it ever?
Abortion is murder where you don't see the victim. It's exactly the same as not donating money to charities to help people in some third world country to buy food for their family. You're condemning someone you've never met to death in a legal manner in order to make your life more pleasent.
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narnia, my first mental response to the question (before reading the lead in post) was "when you're living in your mommy's womb". But I'd as soon not derail the thread. There are a lot of old abortion threads, which undoubtedly would give you a pretty good idea where people here stand and why.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a question of Community/Law/Society.
It is never ok to kill someone within your society or covered by the law.
It is always ok to kill someone outside of your society and not covered by the law.
This is the rules that existed in most ancient cultures, from Islandic Saga's to Homeric Epics you can find it.
So the Judaic, "Thou Shall Not Kill" really translates to "Thou Shall Not Kill Another Hebrew".
Wars against, and the brutal slaughter of non-Hebrews were condoned and sanctified by God.
The question now comes around, whom do you consider in your society.
If you think all humans are in your society, then you should never kill.
Perhaps if you believe all human life is sacred then the killing of one to save many is allowed.
Out-Law is an ancient phrase that means a person who lives outside society. They broke the ancient compact of laws that society lives by, as such they are not covered by law and can be killed.
This is the truly historic basis for the Death Penalty, and the reason why executioners are not themselves considered murderers.
Some people have extended their belief in society to include unborn children. Some have not.
Some people have extended their belief in society to include animals. Some have not.
Today, we believe that terrorists and those who have picked up arms against our soldiers are acting outside of our society to the point that they must be killed before they kill us.
The problem is how do we differentiate between the good soldier and the sacred soldier who sees all Arab's as out of society and has no qualms about killing them all (after all, its them or us).
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the Judaic, "Thou Shall Not Kill" really translates to "Thou Shall Not Kill Another Hebrew".
This is a gross oversimplification, including at the historical time referenced. I may comment further if/when I feel I can do so calmly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
