Harry Smith wrote:
--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
No, its not about emotional undertone.
"Murder" means
"wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
"Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
shalt not kill" This is the meaning of the word.
S Vertigo is correct on this point. I didnt want to
bring this up lest we have folks who are not aware of
this and a new diversionary arguments begins on this
point.
I think that very few of us are in a position to navigate the subtleties
of translating Biblical Hebrew.
So why not just
use the word murder in its general
sense? I agree its tempting to call all such killings
"murders" but nobody asks that we do so even-handedly
accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
(suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
collateral damage,), except for a very small number
of very strange people.
Murder has an intentional aspect.
Collateral damage is not murder for that reason, just
as manslaughter is not murder.
So a group of bank robbers start shooting their guns. Nobody in the
bank is killed, but an uninvolved passerby gets it from a stray bullet
when he is simply walking by outside. There's likelihood of a murder
conviction there for that collateral damage.
Missile strikes either hit the target populated by
enemy combatants or become collateral damage, unless
the intention is to target civilian populations.
(this addresses both Major H. Schmidt and Qassam
rocket attacks. One can reach their own conclusions
regarding Dresden. Thank God I was not issued that
order.)
Schmidt disobeyed orders to hold his fire.
Suicide is considered self-murder in a number of
societies. Unlike other murders, I dont know of any
that impose the death penalty for it however.
Civilized countries have repealed the death penalty.
Execution is not "without lawful excuse"
unless we are
talking about the recent beheadings (murders) in Iraq
regarding which the perpetrators prefer execution to
murder.
Execution may have "lawful excuses" but few lawful reasons.
Abortion is an issue about which numerous
well-intentioned, well-respected individuals disagree.
Some argue that there is not yet a life there to be killed, so that
opens up an argument that is outside the scope of murder vs. killing.
Im tempted
myself, but the use of
the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
vs other) that without other reason justifies its
disinclusion.
Example and further elucidation, please.
The fact that this debate is happening at all should be proof enough.
>>Killing the enemy in time of war is an
effective
>>means of preventing your comrades and yourself
>>
>>
>from being killed. This distinction is important.
>
>But this can also be a soldiers rationalization, where
>"enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some creeps
>use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
>Domestic enemies? So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
>scum?) To pull apart your little statement, if an
>"enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their
>mass killing murder?
>
Protecting one's comrades does have a certain justification in the
immediate circumstances. The guilt arises from their both being there
in the first place. Following orders did not absolve any of the
defendants at the Nuremberg trials
Foreign enemies are often, not always, identified by
uniform. Domestic enemies are the province of law
enforcement agencies rather than the military, unless
during a state of emergency or an incident located on
military property.
Where one country is trying to oppress another by applying overwhelming
military might, those acting in defense of their country from a position
of military weakness would be idiotic to wear uniforms.
To say that its
"not technically a
crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
and denial of the issue. People in denail about
something cant or wont really participate in the
discussion.
Killing in war is not murder. Neither technically nor
ethically.
That only applies to the winning side.
War, disagreements, fights in kindergarden, require
only one party to initiate. We all learned this many
years ago. Once initiated the other party(ies) must
decide how to respond. To refrain from responding,
seems hold out the possibility of veering in the realm
of self-murder.
When to stand up for one's rights is always a tough decision. In modern
society those rights are often suppressed by other than direct action.
If carcinogens are released into the environment it may be years before
the effect follows the cause.
My original questions seem to remain unanswered though
we have started to discussed some of them:
My question is do we use the term murder for this
shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
murder?
That's a false dichotomy.
seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
definitions for words at wikipedia.
is this type of internal consistency valuable?
if it is not should we make that known?
is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
definition POV?
The real issue is who has the right to make that decision? Their are
obviously at least two POV's about whether there may have been a legal
excuse.
Ec