Difference between Killing and Murder

[The_Mark]

Broadly, murder is intentional and/or planned killing when not in defense of other lives.

[Sir Moody]

1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?

2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?

5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?

6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

1) No that is accidental

2) No this is either Manslaughter (un-intentional killing) or negligence

3) Manslaughter

4) Self Defence

5) ... how could this be murder?

6) Murder

Murder is defined as intentionally killing an innocent or defenceless person

manslaughter is unintentionally killing an innocent

everything else is killing for a reason (soldiers and self defence killings fit here)

[Scurvy]

6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

Was the soldier ordered to kill women and children? If he was then it doesnt really count as murder...

[Sir Moody]

Even if he was ordered its a war crime and as such he is guilty of murder

[macsen rufus]

Was the soldier ordered to kill women and children?

Nuremburg defence won't wash -- still murder, orders or no. But his superiors are ALSO guilty of the murder for issuing those orders.

[Stig]

I would say:
Murder you kill someone who isn't able to defend himself.
Killing you kill someone who is able to defend himself AND poses a threat at the same time.

These are rough examples. You could say someone with a gun in his hand is a threat, but imo only if he aims at you and is pulling the trigger. Generally speaking all killing in war is killing. But personally I would call the bombings of Guernica, Rotterdam, Warschaw, Dresden, etc murder.
Murder is when you walk into a school and start shooting around. Murder is My Lai, or Sebrenica. Most of the killing can be considered as murder imo, but there are example were you can call it killing.

Writing this was very confusing btw

1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

as for these:
1. Killing, accident
2. Killing, tho he's more guilty then the man at the waterline
3. since he's drunk Murder, it isn't allowed to be that drunk
4. Murder, Gun arms are not allowed
5. Killing, it's war, soldiers are trained to kill and die
6. Murder, since these were defenceless people

[Somebody Else]

5. Killing, it's war, soldiers are trained to kill and die

Last I checked, there weren't any lessons in dying...

[Stig]

Last I checked, there weren't any lessons in dying...

Yeah you don't have to learn dying, it's pretty easy they say
I meant that they know they can die doing their job, unless you're Dutch ofcourse, any proper Dutch soldier resigns from the army if he's about to be send into war

[ajaxfetish]

I would say:
Murder you kill someone who isn't able to defend himself.
Killing you kill someone who is able to defend himself AND poses a threat at the same time.

as for these:
1. Killing, accident
2. Killing, tho he's more guilty then the man at the waterline
3. since he's drunk Murder, it isn't allowed to be that drunk
4. Murder, Gun arms are not allowed
5. Killing, it's war, soldiers are trained to kill and die
6. Murder, since these were defenceless people

I'm a little confused because you lump the first 2 examples in as killing, though they don't fit your definition of killing (ie, you kill someone who is able to defend himself AND poses a threat at the same time. How were the kid and the person burned by the fire posing a threat to the man digging the hole or the smoking teens?

Also, #4 you call murder because 'Gun arms are not allowed.' I do not know what you mean by this. Is it a local law where you live that you're referring to? A larger ethical standpoint? If so wouldn't that make the soldiers' killing in war also murder, if they used guns to do the killing? Does this mean self-defense from rape using a knife to kill the man would have been just killing, whereas the gun made it murder? Very confusing statement.

Ajax

[Somebody Else]

As I see it, the morality of going to war is not the responsibility of the soldier, it is his conduct within the war. So, if the war is judged to be unjust at the end of it (ie. they lose) then the soldier is not guilty of a crime - he went to war, and perhaps killed someone perfectly legally. However, if he forced a PoW to bomb up a magazine for him, he's guilty of a war crime, even if his CO ordered him to.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Even if he was ordered its a war crime and as such he is guilty of murder

That stuff about obeying orders making you murderer (and the superior quite often being considered innocent) is pretty odd really, considering that the man giving the order has all the power to issue the order and threaten to kill the lower ranked if he doesn't obey the orders. As such, the superior has a much greater responsibility and must have more reponsibility for the actual atrocity. Whether the one obeying orders is innocent or not is another matter which I won't discuss here, but at least shouldn't the superior be considered worse than the one who executes the order, because by holding his position of power he commits not one but 2 sins:
1. murdering the victim - he knows the victim will die when he issues the order, because the private is afraid of getting shot if he doesn't obey, and if the first private refuses and he shoots the first private, he asks another, etc. and he will statistically be almost 100% sure that the victim will die. It's only a matter of wordplay that would make him innocent of the murder
2. he puts the private into a position where he can choose between murdering (maybe also being arrested and punished if they lose the war), or being murdered. Causing such a dilemma, such fear, and forcing another man to get a third man's life on his conscience is no doubt a sin.

so no matter what happens the superior who gives the order will be responsible for ruining not one but two lives (or possibly even more if he has to massacre several privates who refuse to obey orders).

[Sir Moody]

The superior is guilty of a war crime too (in this case ordering it) so all parties involved would be guilty

[Major Robert Dump]

you can't have manslaughter without LAUGHTER!!!!!

[Rodion Romanovich]

1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?

2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?

5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?

6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

1. accident. Some people would say proper messages could perhaps have been taken to avoid it, but if the person didn't know about it, then he can't be blamed in any way. If he knows about it, but it costs time and money to cover up the hole so nobody can fall down, then according to averages measured in society in industrial production, people think it's unethical if covering up etc. cost less than $200,000,000 per person that died if you didn't cover up, i.e. a human life is on average worth $200,000,000

2. if they saw it starting to burn when they threw the cigarette, and didn't try to stop it or call the firemen. While I believe you have no duty to actively do good things, if you cause something bad you have a duty to actively compensate it, otherwise you're evil (how evil depends on how much damage you caused, obviously).

3. if you can't drive properly while drunk, or keep yourself from driving when you get drunk, you shouldn't drink. You shouldn't be given a second chance on this one - if you've committed this you should be forbidden from ever drinking again, and punished each time you're seen drunk outside your own house as if you had run over someone while drunk.

4. self-defense, however in law it must be thorougly established that it was rape and not a normal intercourse during with she shot the guy before the woman can be considered innocent.

5. killing in war is a form of self-defense if you look at the situation in itself, but if you fight in a war that is unjust, it's definitely a form of murder. You're however pressured to it in order to get your wage, or pressured to it by conscription. The judgement all comes down to whether the war is justified or not. If it's justified, you're pretty much innocent. If it isn't justified, you're comparable to the man who kills someone because someone else forces you to do so (and whether that is a sin or not is different according to different viewpoints). It all comes down to whether the war in itself is justified or not, and in general is carried out in a way such that it'll achieve a political objective that'll improve the life for many people in the future. If a justified war is fought with massacres and massmurder, then it becomes unjustified because the defeated will not tolerate the outcome, and keep fighting back, starting revenge wars etc., in which case a stable peace can't be met. Because of the difficulty for a regular private to assess this situation, the judgement must be based on what information the soldier had at his disposal when he choose to fight or not fight. Certain news seldom reach the soldiers at the frontline until the end of the war, so the judgement must be milder in practise than in theory.

6. murder