Murder.

Originally posted by Artol
I mean it is a pretty common view, especially in the United States, the US curriculum on history is not that interested to frame itself in any sort of moral grey in this regard. It's similar to the UK and its education regarding the atrocities of the empire. Or also conversely the way that Japan has dealt with its atrocities in the Second World War, i.e. mainly ignore them, at least in schools. So I'm not really angry at people not knowing much about that unless they have an interest in history in one way or another.

We seem to have drifted in the conversation from the actions of the participants to the moral and legal definitions of the people who ordered the actions.

I'm asking whether the pilots who dropped the bombs should be considered murderers. If soldiers who gun down civilians, as opposed to other soldiers,
are murderers then logic would imply that the flight crews who bomb civilians are as well.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
We seem to have drifted in the conversation from the actions of the participants to the moral and legal definitions of the people who ordered the actions.

I'm asking whether the pilots who dropped the bombs should be considered murderers. If soldiers who gun down civilians, as opposed to other soldiers,
are murderers then logic would imply that the flight crews who bomb civilians are as well.

I think you could make that case very reasonably.

I hope the irony of eThneoLgrRnae shouting Allah in one of his posts describing an ISIS terrorists as murder because of civilians dying but not the nuking of major Japanese cities because "collateral damage" isn't lost everyone here.

Honestly on the topic of murder I hate how we don't classify military exchanges as murder. I know from a historical point of view leaders and commanders need their soldiers to feel as guilt free as possible otherwise suicides among soldiers would sky rocket.

It's why the Crusades were a "Holy" war. It's why we come up with every conceivable reason to for humanities wars to be justified.

It's why propaganda is such a major military tool.

I would personally say the Nazis attacking Poland was murder. The soldiers may have justified as just war but they still attacked a group that didn't attack them first.

Originally posted by Newjak
I hope the irony of eThneoLgrRnae shouting Allah in one of his posts describing an ISIS terrorists as murder because of civilians dying but not the nuking of major Japanese cities because "collateral damage" isn't lost everyone here.

Honestly on the topic of murder I hate how we don't classify military exchanges as murder. I know from a historical point of view leaders and commanders need their soldiers to feel as guilt free as possible otherwise suicides among soldiers would sky rocket.

It's why the Crusades were a "Holy" war. It's why we come up with every conceivable reason to for humanities wars to be justified.

It's why propaganda is such a major military tool.

I would personally say the Nazis attacking Poland was murder. The soldiers may have justified as just war but they still attacked a group that didn't attack them first.

Murder is usually used in an emotive rather than a descriptive way. Essentially, if you morally agree with the killing, then it is killing, if you morally object to it then it is murder. Not a very useful application of words, imo.

Apologies, I'm going to quote myself:

Originally posted by Scribble
Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat is murder"😉. Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.

Honestly, we'd be much better off just using 'murder' as a legal term, and using other phrases for acts of killing we find immoral: slaughter, abominations, evil, whatever suits your fancy. Otherwise 'murder' just ends up meaning anything anyone wants it to, and thus becomes mostly meaningless, just an emphatic qualifier without substance.

The soldiers invading Poland may not be all murderers by a legal definition, but certainly those partaking in the mass killings of civilians could be described as such, and could also have been tried as that if there had been political will by the allied powers. The question really is what legal framework you accept.

Originally posted by Scribble
A fair point, but at that point, what isn't murder, other than self-defence? Is all war murder? Why use the term 'murder' rather than just 'killing'?

Murder is usually used in an emotive rather than a descriptive way. Essentially, if you morally agree with the killing, then it is killing, if you morally object to it then it is murder. Not a very useful application of words, imo.

Apologies, I'm going to quote myself:

In both of these generally-accepted uses of the term, the soldiers invading Poland are not murderers. Their justification for killing is that they are soldiers who have orders, and that's an excuse, too. The reason for those orders are because Hitler wanted to dominate Europe. Military domination is a pretty widespread justification and excuse for killing, and that makes it warfare/combat, not murder.

Honestly, we'd be much better off just using 'murder' as a legal term, and using other phrases for acts of killing we find immoral: slaughter, abominations, evil, whatever suits your fancy. Otherwise 'murder' just ends up meaning anything anyone wants it to, and thus becomes mostly meaningless, just an emphatic qualifier without substance.

Obviously murder carries a much stronger reaction in the minds of people.

I would also think it an interesting topic of discussion that just because someone has justified killing ie combat so it's not legal murder does that make it any better?

Originally posted by Artol
The soldiers invading Poland may not be all murderers by a legal definition, but certainly those partaking in the mass killings of civilians could be described as such, and could also have been tried as that if there had been political will by the allied powers. The question really is what legal framework you accept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade

There is an incredible and essential film called Come and See that details in loose fiction the many war crimes committed against the Belarusian populace by the marauding German military, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in WWII. It's heavy going, though.

But yeah, this is part of the reason we have war tribunals and the like. Not that they always work; I consider Bush Jr. and Tony Blair war criminals for their part in the Iraq war, but they'll never see the dock, sadly.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair.

Obviously murder carries a much stronger reaction in the minds of people.

I would also think it an interesting topic of discussion that just because someone has justified killing ie combat so it's not legal murder does that make it any better?

Contained within that question is also the thorny issue of capital punishment, too...

Originally posted by Scribble
Why do you assume everyone you have a conversation with is trying to guilt you, troll you or enrage you? awebrow

God, you're so touchy, lol

He's a snowflake.

Reducing innocent civilians to being murdered as "collateral damage" is laughable.

Originally posted by Scribble
I completely agree. Many German units were infamous for their brutality and wholesale slaughter of civilians. One example is the Dirlewanger Brigade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade

There is an incredible and essential film called Come and See that details in loose fiction the many war crimes committed against the Belarusian populace by the marauding German military, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in WWII. It's heavy going, though.

But yeah, this is part of the reason we have war tribunals and the like. Not that they always work; I consider Bush Jr. and Tony Blair war criminals for their part in the Iraq war, but they'll never see the dock, sadly.

That is a whole topic in itself, for sure, and a very interesting one. Many pacifists take a hard line and say all killing is immoral, for example. A lot of its comes back to how one sees the sanctity of life, I think.

Contained within that question is also the thorny issue of capital punishment, too...

I used to consider myself a hardline pacifist but I had a hard time reconciling the no violence at all aspect with some scenarios I just couldn't cope with. For instance if I saw someone being attacked I would in fact violently interject myself into the conflict to help the person.

So now I more align with the idea of violence to protect myself and others ie survival. I mean obviously any stance will also have moral grey areas but that's where I try to stay. Mostly because I do want to hold life in high regard but I also understand nature as an order to it that also includes violence.

That being said I think humans are in a unique vantage point where we can kind of bypass that and come up with more creative solutions and violence should be a last resort for us.

All this to say though is I don't believe in capital punishment. Besides the negative impacts the death penalty has on various participants of process I think it's one of those things that speaks to the culture itself.

Originally posted by Newjak
Capital punishment is an interesting one.

I used to consider myself a hardline pacifist but I had a hard time reconciling the no violence at all aspect with some scenarios I just couldn't cope with. For instance if I saw someone being attacked I would in fact violently interject myself into the conflict to help the person.

So now I more align with the idea of violence to protect myself and others ie survival. I mean obviously any stance will also have moral grey areas but that's where I try to stay. Mostly because I do want to hold life in high regard but I also understand nature as an order to it that also includes violence.

That being said I think humans are in a unique vantage point where we can kind of bypass that and come up with more creative solutions and violence should be a last resort for us.

All this to say though is I don't believe in capital punishment. Besides the negative impacts the death penalty has on various participants of process I think it's one of those things that speaks to the culture itself.

I'm kind of torn on issues such as capital punishment. I'm always in the process of working out how I feel about that one in particular. Where I'm at right now is that if the crime is horrific/severe enough, and there is absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty, and they show absolutely no remorse or ability to be rehabilitated, then I'd leave capital punishment open as an option. For me, the prison system should always be one of rehabilitation and not 'punishment', so if rehabilitation and reintegration is not possible, there isn't any reason for the person to live. I also think people with severe enough charges who are found unequivocally guilty should be allowed to choose death.

I'm not sure, though. I know that's a controversial stance, and it's not one I'm going to die on any hills for. We don't have capital punishment in the UK and I'm certainly not going to lobby my government to reinstate it. More of a thought experiment for myself, to figure out a larger understanding of human life and its 'sanctity'.

I'm against capital punishment myself, it's immoral.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, I think absolute pacifism is a terrible and usually immoral stance to take. It often just results in more suffering being spread throughout the world.

I'm kind of torn on issues such as capital punishment. I'm always in the process of working out how I feel about that one in particular. Where I'm at right now is that if the crime is horrific/severe enough, and there is absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty, and they show absolutely no remorse or ability to be rehabilitated, then I'd leave capital punishment open as an option. For me, the prison system should always be one of rehabilitation and not 'punishment', so if rehabilitation and reintegration is not possible, there isn't any reason for the person to live. I also think people with severe enough charges who are found unequivocally guilty should be allowed to choose death.

I'm not sure, though. I know that's a controversial stance, and it's not one I'm going to die on any hills for. We don't have capital punishment in the UK and I'm certainly not going to lobby my government to reinstate it. More of a thought experiment for myself, to figure out a larger understanding of human life and its 'sanctity'.

I think the thing that really undermines capital punishment for me is that enough data exists to show the negative impacts on those involved in the process other than the murderer.

For instance executioners have long had high suicide rates associated with their profession. Those who must witness the murder are also generally negatively effected mentally. It can even cause additional suffering to the family of the victims.

There is also data that showed innocent people getting killed by capital punishment. I think this is an instance where it's okay to say it's not worth it if we lose one person because there is a more humane way of handling it.

So for me I kind of shy away from wanting capital punishment. I prefer the idea of two kinds of prison systems. One more dedicated to helping those rehabilitate that focus on those most suited to still be strong contributors to society like what you mentioned. The other being more suited for separation of those individuals that are too dangerous to the greater public. I don't know if they need to be harshly 'punished' as part of that system that's a different topic to me.

Originally posted by Newjak
I can respect that stance.

I think the thing that really undermines capital punishment for me is that enough data exists to show the negative impacts on those involved in the process other than the murderer.

For instance executioners have long had high suicide rates associated with their profession. Those who must witness the murder are also generally negatively effected mentally. It can even cause additional suffering to the family of the victims.

There is also data that showed innocent people getting killed by capital punishment. I think this is an instance where it's okay to say it's not worth it if we lose one person because there is a more humane way of handling it.

So for me I kind of shy away from wanting capital punishment. I prefer the idea of two kinds of prison systems. One more dedicated to helping those rehabilitate that focus on those most suited to still be strong contributors to society like what you mentioned. The other being more suited for separation of those individuals that are too dangerous to the greater public. I don't know if they need to be harshly 'punished' as part of that system that's a different topic to me.

Yeah, I definitely mean "absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty" in the most absolute sense, there have been too many people executed wrongfully even just in the modern era alone. Although with increased forensic technology, combined with confirmed confessions, there could be occasional cases that are completely undeniable.

I think the larger point that you've illustrated is that capital punishment is nowhere near a clear-cut issue, and that there are so many variables to take into account that simply not having capital punishment at all is generally the safest stance to take.

It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's a good point, and is definitely a good and rational argument against capital punishment. It comes down to needing a 'hangman', and that's a pretty heavy position to find yourself in.

Yeah, I definitely mean "absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty" in the most absolute sense, there have been too many people executed wrongfully even just in the modern era alone. Although with increased forensic technology, combined with confirmed confessions, there could be occasional cases that are completely undeniable.

I think the larger point that you've illustrated is that capital punishment is nowhere near a clear-cut issue, and that there are so many variables to take into account that simply not having capital punishment at all is generally the safest stance to take.

And you're right with modern day forensic evidence to make it much more certain but still it's would always be on the back of my mind.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets.

Basically according to eThneoLgrRnae as long as Americans are the ones killing civilians its not murder.