Kill Vrs. Murder

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1256748143' post='1992779']
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
[/quote]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying someone can still be guilty of murder even if they're "just following orders". We have a moral duty to resist unjust orders or laws.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1256748230' post='1992781']
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying someone can still be guilty of murder even if they're "just following orders". We have a moral duty to resist unjust orders or laws.
[/quote]


There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim

[Winchester]

In kill vs. murder, my money's on murder because the passion will be an advantage.

[Theoketos]

I think that as a christian husband I have a duty to protect my families' innocence and life with lethal force if necessary and a last resort.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1256759975' post='1992878']
There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim
[/quote]

Uh, that is clearly a disordered and evil act. War or not, it was unjust.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1256759975' post='1992878']
There's a very big "could be" when it comes to soldiers. The WWII German soldier's ultimatum for not following orders, was that he'd could be shot on site by his commanding officer. The soldier would not be guilty of murder for carrying out the order, but his superior might be, but then, he too could've been shot for not carrying out his orders.

In the book, "Evil," by Lance Morrow, he tells the story of an American soldier, whose unit had gone on a reconnaissance mission. They had traveled well beyond their lines when they came upon some German soldiers, who noticed them at the same time. The German soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered to the Americans. The Germans were only in their teens, and very green. The US soldiers had a dilemma. They didn't have the time or resources to bring the Germans back to US lines. and could they allow the soldiers to return to their lines. So, they had the soldiers line up, and they shot them all in the back of the head.

Did the soldiers commit murder?
No, it was a time of war, they had no choice.

Was their act immoral?
Maybe, but I wasn't there to know whether there was another option.

Either way, the guy that told the author the story, said that even has haunted him for all of his life.

Jim
[/quote]

It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1256762962' post='1992906']
It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.
[/quote]
But perhaps not imputed to the soldiers.

[Nihil Obstat]

If it came down to carrying out an unjust and murderous order, and being shot, I believe that a Christian must in good conscience refuse the order and be shot.

In the example you quoted, in my opinion those soldiers, as well as the officers, are guilty of murder. Of course I cannot judge their interior thought process, but in my personal opinion a person in nearly every case in his life, will have the moral wherewithal to realize that shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head is wrong under all circumstances.
I will add a caveat though, that culpability would be diminished if the American soldiers had been broken in boot camp so thoroughly that they did not have the psychological strength to resist an order from their superiors, and in other situations of that rather extreme ilk.

The fact that it was a time of war makes no difference. The fact that the order was given by superiors makes no difference. The American soldiers had a moral duty to resist a murderous order and face the consequences.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Catholictothecore]

God meant "thou shall not murder." Personally, I'd be more comfortable with kill...

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Yes, slaughtering surrendering soldiers is murder. The traditional Christian standards of "Just War" are very, very, very, very high. This includes [i]jus ad bellum[/i], the justice of the war, and [i]jus in bello[/i], justice within the war. According to [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#III"]the Catholic Catechism[/url]:

[quote][b]2313[/b] Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.[/quote]

Furthermore, to address the question about "following orders":

[quote]Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.[/quote]

That about says it all. Unfortunately, war has an overwhelming tendency to push otherwise decent people into committing atrocities because the stakes are so. It makes monsters out of everyone. It is morally destructive even to those for whom the war might be a defensive war. War should truly be avoided except in the most [i]extreme[/i] of circumstances. It's one of the most destructive things in the world.

Edited October 29, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 09:22 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.

Murder is the illegal taking of innocent life.

Jim
[/quote]

The "illegal" taking of innocent life? Stalin's slaughter of innocents were "legal," if by "legal" we mean "statutorily approved."

Himmler's S.S. were "just following orders," and were rightly executed at Nuremberg. They tried that excuse.

Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. Period.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 29, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1256776724' post='1992986']
If it came down to carrying out an unjust and murderous order, and being shot, I believe that a Christian must in good conscience refuse the order and be shot.

In the example you quoted, in my opinion those soldiers, as well as the officers, are guilty of murder. Of course I cannot judge their interior thought process, but in my personal opinion a person in nearly every case in his life, will have the moral wherewithal to realize that shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head is wrong under all circumstances.
I will add a caveat though, that culpability would be diminished if the American soldiers had been broken in boot camp so thoroughly that they did not have the psychological strength to resist an order from their superiors, and in other situations of that rather extreme ilk.

The fact that it was a time of war makes no difference. The fact that the order was given by superiors makes no difference. The American soldiers had a moral duty to resist a murderous order and face the consequences.
[/quote]
One is not required unde rpain of sin to surrender one's life. The soldiers were possibly not acting freely.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1256784025' post='1993076']
One is not required unde rpain of sin to surrender one's life. The soldiers were possibly not acting freely.
[/quote]
If the only choices were murder or death?

I guess you're right; you could try to incapacitate your officer first. There's always another choice.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1256762962' post='1992906']
It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.
[/quote]


Well, hold on for a sec, lets take a look at the predicament the US troops had.

First off, as stated in the story, the US forces did not have the means to get back to their lines
while guarding the prisoners, without compromising their own lives, and also the secrecy of their mission.

If they just let the German soldiers go, they would've informed their German officers, which would've given away vital information on the location and strategy of the US military operation. This would cost more American lives.

So, in their judgment, they had no choice but to kill the soldiers.

Now, we have the hindsight of 50+ years to look at the situation differently. But for them, at the time in a combat situation, they had to make a quick decision, with their mission and the lives of their fellow soldiers in mind.

So, was the actions of the US Soldiers murder? No, it was not, it was a combat operation in a "just war."

Was the act immoral? I don't believe it was, but I think there could've been other options other than killing the prisoners. I wasn't there though, so its hard for me to make the judgment.


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 08:16 AM' timestamp='1256822161' post='1993275']
Well, hold on for a sec, lets take a look at the predicament the US troops had.

First off, as stated in the story, the US forces did not have the means to get back to their lines
while guarding the prisoners, without compromising their own lives, and also the secrecy of their mission.

If they just let the German soldiers go, they would've informed their German officers, which would've given away vital information on the location and strategy of the US military operation. This would cost more American lives.

So, in their judgment, they had no choice but to kill the soldiers.

Now, we have the hindsight of 50+ years to look at the situation differently. But for them, at the time in a combat situation, they had to make a quick decision, with their mission and the lives of their fellow soldiers in mind.

So, was the actions of the US Soldiers murder? No, it was not, it was a combat operation in a "just war."

Was the act immoral? I don't believe it was, but I think there could've been other options other than killing the prisoners. I wasn't there though, so its hard for me to make the judgment.


Jim
[/quote]
The ends never justify the means. The act was murder, and all that is left is for God to judge the individual culpability of each soldier. There's no question that it was murder according to any Church teaching you care to look up.