Kill Vrs. Murder

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Winchester' date='20 September 2009 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1253496641' post='1970049']
Only after a point had he backed down. At one point, he was ready to kill, and it would have been justified to resist and use lethal force. It was luck.
[/quote]

Agreed. At the point that Christopher was in mortal danger, he would have been morally justified to resist with lethal force. However, I had assumed that you meant after the aggressor had backed down, because it was only then that Christopher was armed with the gun.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 September 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1253497815' post='1970078']
The Catechism is worded strangely on this point: "[b]2263 [/b]The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." Note how it says, "the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." Either it is saying that legitimate defense is not intentional killing, or it is saying that the murder of the innocent is what constitutes intentional killing. Which is it, in light of the fact that execution (protecting people by the means of intentional killing of the aggressor) is not always immoral?

-Sternhauser
[/quote]

"The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing."

Hmm. I think what it's saying here is that legitimate defense is not murder, and is therefore is not an exception to the prohibition to murder. It's meant to prevent this sort of logic:

[list=1]
[*]Murder is wrong.
[*]Murder is the intentional killing of a human.
[*]Legitimate defense is the intentional killing of a human.
[*]From (2) and (3), legitimate defense is murder.
[*]From (1) and (4), legitimate defense is wrong.
[/list]

The problem occurs in steps (2) and (3): murder is wrongly defined as the "intentional killing of a human", just as legitimate defense is. The problem is, as is noted above, murder is more than just intentionally taking the life of another. [b]The passage that you quote from the Catechism is trying to make this distinction clear: legitimate defense is not murder, because murder involves the death of an innocent.[/b] Therefore, point (4) is incorrect: legitimate defense is [b]not[/b] murder, and is therefore not wrong, as point (5) attempts to claim. The Catechism wants to make it clear that there are no exceptions to the natural law prohibition against murder, in order to have a more cohesive moral law. But, I agree that it's not worded very well.

[Mark of the Cross]

Thou shalt not Kill is a typical example of a non literal translation that can exist in the Bible, in that it can have an alternate meaning depending on the situation. If I say something very nasty to you that upsets you for today, then I have killed you for a short time. The alternate, 'There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another.' Once I was faced with the choice of going out for the day to enjoy myself on something that I really wanted to do or bringing my infirm Mother from the rest home and caring about her for the day. I chose the second in spite of her protest, I told her that she had gone without (much) for me and that I was laying down my life for her that day. I told her that if everybody were to choose the alternative then there could be no love in the world and I could not live in a world like that. The point really is about the [i]purpose[/i] whether you define it as murder or killing is not really important.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[elizabeth09]

5 Commentit Thou Shou Not Kill. But some tiem people say that killing and Murder the same thing.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='elizabeth09' date='22 October 2009 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1256221758' post='1989617']
5 Commentit Thou Shou Not Kill. But some tiem people say that killing and Murder the same thing.
[/quote]

It only says "thou shalt not kill" when you mistranslate it from the original Hebrew, which said, "Thou shalt not murder." "[i]Retsach" [/i]in Hebrew means "murder," not "kill."

~Sternhauser

[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