The difference between killing and murder

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

In this thread the discussion is centered around physically ending another person’s life with your own hands and trying to distinguish between ‘killing’ and ‘murder’. That’s the concept I’m focusing on at the moment.

The morality behind the other ways of ending a life can be discussed in another thread.

Nice try, but no cigar.

We recognize that when two people hold up a liquor store and one of them kills the cashier, they are both guilty of murder. And the driver of the get-away car is as guilty as the pair that entered the liquor store. Adolph Eichmann was a murderer, even if he never killed a Jew with his own hands.

I repeat, there are many ways to take human life. One way is to encourage those who are bent on terrorism by giving them the idea that we will fold due to internal pressures.

 

[Milliardo]

vern humphrey:

We recognize that when two people hold up a liquor store and one of them kills the cashier, they are both guilty of murder.

I think it bears to point out that in such a case, it’s not that easy to say it’s murder. If there was an intention to rob and kill, then it’s murder, as it was premeditated. But if the intention was to only rob, but for some reason they had to kill, then it would fall as homicide, since there was no initial intent to kill, but there was probable cause to kill.

And the driver of the get-away car is as guilty as the pair that entered the liquor store.

Not as guilty as the one who killed. Or put another way, his sentence won’t be as grave as the one who shot.

Adolph Eichmann was a murderer, even if he never killed a Jew with his own hands.

Eichmann did have provisions to kill though, and made plans for it, so he is a murderer in that regard.

 

[thistle]

Milliardo:

I think it bears to point out that in such a case, it’s not that easy to say it’s murder. If there was an intention to rob and kill, then it’s murder, as it was premeditated. But if the intention was to only rob, but for some reason they had to kill, then it would fall as homicide, since there was no initial intent to kill, but there was probable cause to kill.

Not as guilty as the one who killed. Or put another way, his sentence won’t be as grave as the one who shot.

Eichmann did have provisions to kill though, and made plans for it, so he is a murderer in that regard.

I’m not American so I don’t know if each state has its own definition of murder or if there is one definition for the whole country (that would make more sense).
Anyway I found this from one state:

(a) Murder of the first degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree - All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

That says that its still murder even if it wasn’t intentional.

 

[Milliardo]

thistle:

I’m not American so I don’t know if each state has its own definition of murder or if there is one definition for the whole country (that would make more sense).
Anyway I found this from one state:

(a) Murder of the first degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree - All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

That says that its still murder even if it wasn’t intentional.

Well, I’m not American either, but I would say that is too vague, especially third degree murder. I think the focal point is still first degree murder–that it’s intentional, and that third degree murder still has an intent to kill, though to a lesser degree. That’s how I see it.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

We recognize that when two people hold up a liquor store and one of them kills the cashier, they are both guilty of murder. And the driver of the get-away car is as guilty as the pair that entered the liquor store. Adolph Eichmann was a murderer, even if he never killed a Jew with his own hands.

Wrong.When two people hold up a liquor store the one who kills the cashier can be charged with murder.
The other, and the driver, can be charged with accessory to murder.
It is not the same legally.
Nor is it the same morally.

Stick with the discussion on hand…the OP wrote:

I took this approach with my friend saying that there is a distinction between murder and killing, and that killing in a just war and being the executioner in a just application of the death penalty is not murder.

So we expand this to an unjust war or unjust application of the death penalty. Is killing in these situations murder? Can a person, in good faith, participate in a military action that they and their leaders believe is just, but is in fact objectively unjust? Are they committing murder?

We’re not talking about bank robberies. We’re not talking about killing someone’s reputation or lifestyle through other means which ‘effectively’ kill their life, though they are still walking and breathing.

We’re talking aobut the taking of a life - where a human physically dies at the hands of a soldier or an executioner. Which is killing and which is murder? Is there a difference? If so, what is the distinction?

I really would like to read your thoughts on the matter as it appears you’re really onto something but your argument gets lost because it strays off topic.

 

[Ender]

YinYangMom:

The commandment states “Thou shalt not kill”. Is there a distinction between justifiable killing and intentional killing with regard to the commandment?

Yes, there is a distinction between the two and the Church is very clear about it. The commandment should not be understood as a prohibition against any killing but specifically about murder.

[2261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2261.htm’) Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

The Catechism also specifically states that killing in self defense is not precluded by the prohibition against murder.

[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

Killing in war is also not precluded by the fifth commandment.

[2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Ender

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

YinYangMom:

Wrong.When two people hold up a liquor store the one who kills the cashier can be charged with murder.
The other, and the driver, can be charged with accessory to murder.
It is not the same legally.
Nor is it the same morally.

The above post started to show that Catholic morality distinguishes between killing and murder. When Jesus summed up the commandments, he always cited #5 as prohibiting murder, for that is what it actually says. Our “Thou shalt not kill” is more of an easy shorthand than an accurate representation of the injunction. Basically, murder is the deliberate taking of innocent life. Killing is the taking of life. Killing can be morally acceptable when done in the proper circumstances and/or with proper authority.

For example, one may kill in self-defense so long as one is trying to use proportionate means to repel an attack. The object is to try not to kill if possible, but killing in self-defense is considered to invoke the principle of double effect: the intent was to protect oneself, an undesired side effect was the taking of the aggressor’s life.

Another instance of acceptable killing is the use of the death penalty. This killing requires not only sufficient grounds but also proper authority. For instance, if I came across a notorious perpetrator of genocide I would not be justified in executing him simply because I am sure any court that got his hands on him would do the same. Only the state has the authority to execute (see Rom 13).

One more most common instance of morally licit killing is killing in a just war. Not only is it morally acceptable to kill an agressor in war, the state (and those who serve in its military - note, another instance of proper authority) has a DUTY to wage war when war is justified. I bring this up because you talked about how you would not (or would hope not to) kill anyone if it could be helped. But in cases where you have a duty to defend others, it would be sinful NOT to respond with lethal force if that were necessary to repel an attacker.

I don’t think it’s entirely clear to say there are instances where individuals have a moral duty to kill (because that leaves out the nuance of ensuring proportionality of punishment/defense), but that’s basically what it boils down to. If a policeman or soldier stands by while others are killed, he may not have murdered them but he bears guilt for their deaths. Aquinas deals with just war not under the virtue of justice but under the virtue of charity. To fail to use force when necessary is above all things to fail to love.

 

[YinYangMom]

Andreas Hofer:

The above post started to show that Catholic morality distinguishes between killing and murder. When Jesus summed up the commandments, he always cited #5 as prohibiting murder, for that is what it actually says. Our “Thou shalt not kill” is more of an easy shorthand than an accurate representation of the injunction. Basically, murder is the deliberate taking of innocent life. Killing is the taking of life. Killing can be morally acceptable when done in the proper circumstances and/or with proper authority.

For example, one may kill in self-defense so long as one is trying to use proportionate means to repel an attack. The object is to try not to kill if possible, but killing in self-defense is considered to invoke the principle of double effect: the intent was to protect oneself, an undesired side effect was the taking of the aggressor’s life.

Another instance of acceptable killing is the use of the death penalty. This killing requires not only sufficient grounds but also proper authority. For instance, if I came across a notorious perpetrator of genocide I would not be justified in executing him simply because I am sure any court that got his hands on him would do the same. Only the state has the authority to execute (see Rom 13).

One more most common instance of morally licit killing is killing in a just war. Not only is it morally acceptable to kill an agressor in war, the state (and those who serve in its military - note, another instance of proper authority) has a DUTY to wage war when war is justified. I bring this up because you talked about how you would not (or would hope not to) kill anyone if it could be helped. But in cases where you have a duty to defend others, it would be sinful NOT to respond with lethal force if that were necessary to repel an attacker.

I don’t think it’s entirely clear to say there are instances where individuals have a moral duty to kill (because that leaves out the nuance of ensuring proportionality of punishment/defense), but that’s basically what it boils down to. If a policeman or soldier stands by while others are killed, he may not have murdered them but he bears guilt for their deaths. Aquinas deals with just war not under the virtue of justice but under the virtue of charity. To fail to use force when necessary is above all things to fail to love.

That’s pretty much how I understand things to be.
Don’t know if that helps the OP with the conversation he was having with the other fellow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Milliardo:

I think it bears to point out that in such a case, it’s not that easy to say it’s murder. If there was an intention to rob and kill, then it’s murder, as it was premeditated. But if the intention was to only rob, but for some reason they had to kill, then it would fall as homicide, since there was no initial intent to kill, but there was probable cause to kill.

They had to kill? Someone came in and held a gun to their heads and forced them to kill?

When Michael Jordan’s father was killed, the killers were classed as juveniles, and couldn’t be interviewed on TV. But kids in the same juvenile detention facility they had just been released from could be interviewed. At the end of the interviews with these young criminals, the interviewer noted that not one of them had expressed any regeret for the murder committed by their friends. So he asked “What you say to Michael Jordan?”

One of them replied, “I wouldn’t say nothin’ to him. It’s his fault.”

The interviewer said, “How in the world is it Michael Jordan’s fault his father war murdered?”

And the punk said, “If he hadn’t given him all that money, they wouldn’t have had to rob him.”

Is that what you suggest – that if someone has money they have to rob him? And if he doesn’t submit – or they just think he’s not submitting – they have to kill him?

Milliardo:

Not as guilty as the one who killed. Or put another way, his sentence won’t be as grave as the one who shot.

All the participants in an armed robbery are agreed to use a deadly weapon in the commission of a major felony. They do this knowing someone might be deliberately and feloniously killed.

Milliardo:

Eichmann did have provisions to kill though, and made plans for it, so he is a murderer in that regard.

In what regard was Adolph Eichmann (who was in charge of the “Final Solution” – the Holocaust) not a murderer?

 

[Milliardo]

vern humphrey:

They had to kill? Someone came in and held a gun to their heads and forced them to kill?

I don’t get this–what is exactly the point here?

All the participants in an armed robbery are agreed to use a deadly weapon in the commission of a major felony.

Depends; are all the participants armed? If not, then the one who has the gun and shot has the gravest responsibility. It would be unfair to have them all accused to have weapons when only one had it.

They do this knowing someone might be deliberately and feloniously killed.

Again, depends on the motive, and depends on the situation. That is why we have courts that decide these things, so as to evaluate the crime done.

In what regard was Adolph Eichmann (who was in charge of the “Final Solution” – the Holocaust) not a murderer?

I never said he wasn’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Milliardo:

I don’t get this–what is exactly the point here?

You said;

But if the intention was to only rob, but for some reason they had to kill, then it would fall as homicide, since there was no initial intent to kill, but there was probable cause to kill.

If you weren’t apologizing for them, implying that somehow they were forced to commit murder, why say “for some reason they had to kill?”

Milliardo:

Depends; are all the participants armed? If not, then the one who has the gun and shot has the gravest responsibility. It would be unfair to have them all accused to have weapons when only one had it.

No. Killing a victim in the course of a felony is murder, and all those involved in the commission of the crime are guilty.

Milliardo:

Again, depends on the motive, and depends on the situation. That is why we have courts that decide these things, so as to evaluate the crime done.

The motive is to rob – a felony. The method is by deadly force. The expression of that force is murder.

Milliardo:

I never said he wasn’t.

Then you admit a man who never personally kills can be as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger or who dumps the chemicals into the gas chamber?

 

[Ham1]

It seems that this thread is running all over the place with the discussion of a variety of scenarios.

The difference between killing and murder is clear. Killing is a human act and murder is a moral act. On is of the moral species and one of the natural species.

Killing in and of itself is neither good nor evil. Quite simply, the act requires more information in order to be judged by right reason as a moral act. The principal conditions that are a part of the object of the act must be examined in order to judge the object good or evil. In this case the act of murder is the human act of “killing” with the condition of “an innocent human being” as a part of the object of the act. This condition renders the act of killing disordered and intrinsically evil.

The addition of another condition to the human act of “killing” can yield a different result. For instance, if we add the condition of “an unjust aggressor,” the object is of a moral act that is good.

To bring this back to the OP’s idea that killing in a just/unjust war and moral culpability…There is a bit of subjectivity in the application of whether an individual is committing sin by fighting in a war. Since the object of killing in a war is not in and of itself evil the sinfullness is largely determined by the person’s intention and knowledge. If the person judges a war to be just when in reality it is not his knowledge is compromised and, if it is through no fault of his own, his culpability for the act is greatly lessened and even eliminated. This does not mean that acts in themselves are good or evil depending on the individual, but rather that the sinfulness of the act is subjective to the individual.

Hope this helps to clarify a bit…or it may be even more confusing!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Killing a human being is one of those acts that carries a presumption of wrong-doing. Yes, there are circumstances which can justify (even morally impel one) in killing a human being – but absent such special circumstances, killing a human being is wrong.

 

[Ham1]

vern humphrey:

Killing a human being is one of those acts that carries a presumption of wrong-doing. Yes, there are circumstances which can justify (even morally impel one) in killing a human being – but absent such special circumstances, killing a human being is wrong.

That’s not really true. “Killing a human being” as an act begs more informtion regarding the principal conditions of the object in order to make a moral determination.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ham1:

That’s not really true. “Killing a human being” as an act begs more informtion regarding the principal conditions of the object in order to make a moral determination.

It is true. Killing a human being is presumptively wrong (just as, say nursing a baby is presumptively right) and can only be justifed if special circumstances exist.

 

[Ham1]

vern humphrey:

It is true. Killing a human being is presumptively wrong (just as, say nursing a baby is presumptively right) and can only be justifed if special circumstances exist.

Then you are saying that sometimes it is okay to do something wrong (killing a human being) for a good reason. In other words, the end justifies the means. This position is incompatible with Christian moral theology. There are no circumstances which make intrinsically evil acts good. This type of reasoning is specifically addressed in Veritatis Splendor by JPII. It is the same type of reasoning used by Curran and McBrien to justify contraception, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts and abortion. It may seem common sensical in the example here but it leads to a moral quagmire.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ham1:

Then you are saying that sometimes it is okay to do something wrong (killing a human being) for a good reason. In other words, the end justifies the means.

No. I am saying “Killing a human being is presumptively wrong (just as, say nursing a baby is presumptively right) and can only be justifed if special circumstances exist.”

Ham1:

This position is incompatible with Christian moral theology.

Since that isn’t my position, it isn’t relevant.

Ham1:

There are no circumstances which make intrinsically evil acts good. This type of reasoning is specifically addressed in Veritatis Splendor by JPII. It is the same type of reasoning used by Curran and McBrien to justify contraception, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts and abortion. It may seem common sensical in the example here but it leads to a moral quagmire.

Again, since that isn’t my position it isn’t relevant to this discussion.

 

[Ham1]

So, to be clear, are you saying that the object “killing a human being” is evil?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ham1:

So, to be clear, are you saying that the object “killing a human being” is evil?

To be clear, I am saying that the act, “killing a human being” carries a presumption of wrongdoing.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

Then you admit a man who never personally kills can be as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger or who dumps the chemicals into the gas chamber?

See? This is why I could never volunteer to carry a weapon whereby my use of that weapon would depend upon another human being. I know many here disagree, but I don’t see the difference between the culpability of Hitler ordering his soldiers to kill for what he perceived to be justifiable reasons and Bush ordering our soldiers to kill in Iraq for what he perceives to be justifiable reasons.

Now it’s obvious Hitler’s motivation was out of hatred, and it’s obvious Bush’s motivation is not out of hatred, but I honestly do not understand Bush’s motivation enough to determine whether or not the order to kill is ‘just’. But that’s an entirely different thread.

**I’m not debating whether or not the Iraq war is just. **I am only stating there is obvious disagreement about it. There is no clear ruling by the vatican that Bush was justified in attacking Hussein therefore the issue is not cut and dry. I would not want to kill anyone on an ‘iffy’ ruling. I would need to be absolutely certain the orders I’ve been given are moral by God’s law, not by our governments.