The difference between killing and murder

[Ham1]

vern humphrey:

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

Okay. What do you mean by “presumption of wrongdoing”?

Is that the same as presumption of evil? Are you using “wrongdoing” differently from “evil”? If so, how?

I’m just trying to understand this in the context of moral theology. Because it sounds like you are saying something is wrong unless certain circumstances exist which justify it. This seems troublesome as noted above.

 

[YinYangMom]

Ham1:

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.

Makes sense to me.

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.

But what about ‘ends not justifying the means’? With regard to the immoral act of killing for a moral reason? As horrid as Saddam is and was, there were still other ways to bring him down without resorting to war. And according to Catholic teaching on the matter we were obliged to follow that course through as long as it took, not until our government got tired of waiting for the desired results.

 

[Ham1]

YinYangMom:

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.

I believe that soldier’s are given a bit of “moral latitude” (bad term, I know) when there is a conflict between fulfilling their sworn duties and participating in “potentially” unjust war (particularly when one could make prudential judgement that a war IS just). Also, a case could be made that Hitler’s soldiers in regular combat were not guilty of murder, per se. The soldiers guilty of murder were those who were following orders to kill non-combatants. As far as I know, soldiers in Iraq are not being commanded to intentionally kill civilians. If they were, they would obviously be obligated to disobey.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

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.

Do you see the difference between the culpability of Hitler ordering his soldiers to kill for what he perceived to be justifiable reasons and others standing by and letting it happen, not lifting a finger to stop it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

But what about ‘ends not justifying the means’? With regard to the immoral act of killing for a moral reason? As horrid as Saddam is and was, there were still other ways to bring him down without resorting to war.

Name two.

YinYangMom:

And according to Catholic teaching on the matter we were obliged to follow that course through as long as it took, not until our government got tired of waiting for the desired results.

Which Catholic teaching obliges us to sit by and let an enemy do as he will, killing people in wholesale lots while we watch and do nothing?

 

[Suudy]

While this discussion has gone far afield of my initial inquiry, the following quote has sparked my interest.

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.

Let’s talk about the practicality of this. We can get back to the theoretical aspect in a bit.

Let’s say a soldier in the US military is part of a unit deployed to the middle east in preperation for an attack on Iraq. The soldier is told that he will part of the first wave of an attack on Iraq. In the interest of maintaining the element of surprise, the public and media are not informed, and diplomats are requested to withhold any public announcments until after the attack is initiated (including an Vatican representatives).

Since the Church has not made any official statement on the justness of the attack/war, and the soldier is given just enough information to complete his duties, is he guilty of murder if he kills any enemy combatants? What if the Church later declares the war unjust? Is the soldier, ex post facto, now guilty of murder? If the war is objectively unjust, is the soldier guilty of murder?

So, in your case, at what point will you be satisfied, according to God’s law, that the orders you have been given are moral? If you were a soldier, you wouldn’t have enough information to make that determination. If you waited until the Church make an annoucement (admittedly you stated that the Curch does not make any definite statement on the justness; Can it?), you would, in the case of the Iraq invasion, be too late. Or are you suggesting that the US military meet with the Church to determine the justness of the invasion to determine if any of its Catholic soldiers should be sent into Iraq?

Pragmatically, this is an untenable position for a soldier to take. I think you, and your family, would have to remain conscientious objectors, but more from the perspective that no war or other military action is just.

Now, from a theoretical perspective.

We still haven’t answered the question if killing in an unjust war, regardless of your knowledge of the justness of such war, is murder. My understanding of your position is that you think it is. Because of that, I think it makes more sense for you to present yourself as a conscientious objector.

 

[Ham1]

A soldier is obligated to fulfill his duties in the military. He is obligated to follow orders unless those orders cause him to knowingly commit evil.

I would submit that so long as the soldier is in the military of a just regime and is fighting war in accord with just principles (ie, no killing civilians, etc.) then the acts committed by that soldier, even in an unjust war, are not murder and are not morally wrong.

Of course, I could be wrong about that…

 

[Suudy]

Ham1:

A soldier is obligated to fulfill his duties in the military. He is obligated to follow orders unless those orders cause him to knowingly commit evil.

Aha! This leads me back to my original argument. He has to “knowingly commit evil.” Thus it is the individual’s determination, i.e. relative morality. He is not objectively committing murder or objectively innocent of murder.

Ham1:

I would submit that so long as the soldier is in the military of a just regime and is fighting war in accord with just principles (ie, no killing civilians, etc.) then the acts committed by that soldier, even in an unjust war, are not murder and are not morally wrong.

Of course, I could be wrong about that…

So the soldiers in the German military under Hitler are guilty of murder, even those that did not kill civilians, etc? Does the justness of the regime matter?

 

[YinYangMom]

Ham1:

Also, a case could be made that Hitler’s soldiers in regular combat were not guilty of murder, per se. The soldiers guilty of murder were those who were following orders to kill non-combatants. As far as I know, soldiers in Iraq are not being commanded to intentionally kill civilians. If they were, they would obviously be obligated to disobey.

I tend to think along your lines of reasoning…that’s how I’d see it too. Certainly those SS officers are far more guilty than the foot soldier on the front lines.

Someone brought up Sniper as an occupation earlier, which piqued my interest. Where would a sniper’s culpability lie when he voluntarily chooses that profession and follows the directives of his superior to kill someone who isn’t a direct threat to civilians or himself?

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

Do you see the difference between the culpability of Hitler ordering his soldiers to kill for what he perceived to be justifiable reasons and others standing by and letting it happen, not lifting a finger to stop it?

That’s a different thread. Please feel free to start one up specifically to address the morality of people who stand by and do nothing when people around them are being killed. I would think that would get a lot of posts and would prove to be a worthwhile discussion.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

Name two.

continued sactions

continued negotiations

They were **not **exhausted in and of themselves, our government grew impatient and cut off those avenues.

Which Catholic teaching obliges us to sit by and let an enemy do as he will, killing people in wholesale lots while we watch and do nothing?

Which Catholic teaching obliges any government to wage war on other governments because they abuse their citizens?

 

[Ham1]

Suudy:

Aha! This leads me back to my original argument. He has to “knowingly commit evil.” Thus it is the individual’s determination, i.e. relative morality. He is not objectively committing murder or objectively innocent of murder.

So the soldiers in the German military under Hitler are guilty of murder, even those that did not kill civilians, etc? Does the justness of the regime matter?

That’s a misunderstanding of moral relativism. The object of the act itself is objectively moral or immoral. The individual sin that is committed depends on the agent’s knowledge and consent. The object is what it is and is not relative. What IS relative as far as sin is concerned is the intention and knowledge of the soldier.

The problem here is that “murder” seems to connote the commission of a sin which then automatically requires the assessment of knowledge and intention of the individual.

Look at it this way:

Soldier 1: Kills a civilian that he thinks is an enemy combatant

Soldier 2: Knowingly kills a civilian.

The object of this act “killing a civilian” is morally evil. It is not relative. It is morally evil. Yet, soldier 1 commits no sin while soldier 2 commits a grievous sin. The “relative” difference here is the knowledge of the 2 soldiers.

As for your question on the justness of the regime, I am not so sure that it does matter. After all, you don’t hear many theologians claiming that ALL nazi soldiers who fought in the war and killed are guilty of murder. I would say that as long as the soldier conducts himself within the “moral guidelines” of warfare (ie, does not kill civilians), then he is not guilty of wrongdoing, no matter how misguided the leaders of his country may be. Now if the soldier is ordered to do something that he knows is immoral, he must obviously disobey his superior.

 

[Ham1]

Ham1:

Okay. What do you mean by “presumption of wrongdoing”?

Is that the same as presumption of evil? Are you using “wrongdoing” differently from “evil”? If so, how?

I’m just trying to understand this in the context of moral theology. Because it sounds like you are saying something is wrong unless certain circumstances exist which justify it. This seems troublesome as noted above.

Vern,

Just curious…do you have any response to this from post #61?

It’s an intesting topic and I am trying to understand what you mean by this.

Thanks!

 

[YinYangMom]

Suudy:

Since the Church has not made any official statement on the justness of the attack/war, and the soldier is given just enough information to complete his duties, is he guilty of murder if he kills any enemy combatants? What if the Church later declares the war unjust? Is the soldier, ex post facto, now guilty of murder? If the war is objectively unjust, is the soldier guilty of murder?

Exactly the questions which keep me from volunteering to serve in the military and which keep my kids from considering it as an option. They are good questions and there does not seem to be any clear answers.

So, in your case, at what point will you be satisfied, according to God’s law, that the orders you have been given are moral? If you were a soldier, you wouldn’t have enough information to make that determination.

That’s just it, I would not be a soldier if it were a matter of choice.

I am more concerned about the issue of voluntarily taking up arms to be led by another person or a governmental body. I essentially hand care of my soul over to another person and that is very risky. In marriage I give my soul, somewhat, into the care of my spouse, but that’s why courtship is necessary and trust established. There is no courtship for a solier and his officer or the current administration. Administrations change, reporting officers get transferred. I may be under the leadership of a wise and moral general one day and a trigger-happy egotistical general the next. Yes, I comprehend, I would not be committing murder under either of these people, but I am still **the **person who has to live the rest of my days and my time in purgatory with the taking of the soul of another human being in my heart. How do I reconcile myself to that?

If military service were mandatory under our government, I still believe I would rather serve time in prison than report for duty. As the mother of a 17 year old young man, my position has not changed. I don’t know what my son’s position is, as we haven’t discussed it, but if he were to choose prison over service we would support him. If he were to choose serving over prison, we’d support him. But all the more reason for me to learn as much as I can about the effects of his actions on his soul, so that I can prepare him to protect it as much as possible. He’s the one who has to sleep at night with the images of his victims in his memory. As a mother, I’d want to be able to offer words of condolence, comfort, guidance - in accordance to the teachings of Christ.

I think you, and your family, would have to remain conscientious objectors, but more from the perspective that no war or other military action is just.

That’s pretty much our position. Correct.

We still haven’t answered the question if killing in an unjust war, regardless of your knowledge of the justness of such war, is murder. My understanding of your position is that you think it is. Because of that, I think it makes more sense for you to present yourself as a conscientious objector.

Your understanding of my position is incorrect.
I believe the soldier is not guilty of murder because he is fulfilling his obligation. The OP was asking about the moral difference between killing and murder, and it seems we’ve all pretty much agreed the distinction is in the intent behind the killing. So these soldiers, while guilty of killing are not guilty of murder.

You are correct about about me being a conscientious objector.
As much as I’d like to believe the soldier would not be guilty of anything when he kills under orders, the fact remains he/she does take the life of another human being. With the commandment written as is, “Thou shalt not kill” how could he not be guilty of that when he/she has the life of that person on his hands during life and after death.

My question is how does the Church offer the soldier with blood on his hands (or a police officer, for that matter) peace and assurrance that he will not be judged at the time of Judgement for taking the life of this person(s)?

There is no war without civilian casualties. It’s one thing to be able to reconcile one’s conscience with the life of a combatant, but just by the nature of being in a war zone one opens themselve up to the high probability of taking the life of a civilian by mistake or collaterally. That’s the kicker which keeps me on the conscientious objector side. There are too many officers willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents in order to achieve their objective. It is their hands into which I would be placing the condition of my soul at any given hour, and that, I just can’t bring myself to do.

 

[YinYangMom]

Ham1:

Look at it this way:

Soldier 1: Kills a civilian that he thinks is an enemy combatant

Soldier 2: Knowingly kills a civilian.

The object of this act “killing a civilian” is morally evil. It is not relative. It is morally evil. Yet, soldier 1 commits no sin while soldier 2 commits a grievous sin. The “relative” difference here is the knowledge of the 2 soldiers.

Which brings me back to my question:

Did soldier 1 really commit no sin at all, when a life has been taken by his actions?

Is Catholic soldier 1 **required **to participate in the sacrament of reconciliation or is it optional? What sin does he confess?

I would submit he confesses the sin against the 5th commandment, XXX times, thus whether or not a soldier is Catholic a sin has been committed even for Soldier #1.

I would say that as long as the soldier conducts himself within the “moral guidelines” of warfare (ie, does not kill civilians), then he is not guilty of wrongdoing, no matter how misguided the leaders of his country may be. Now if the soldier is ordered to do something that he knows is immoral, he must obviously disobey his superior.

I’m with you on that.

 

[Ham1]

YinYangMom:

Which brings me back to my question:

Did soldier 1 really commit no sin at all, when a life has been taken by his actions?

Is Catholic soldier 1 **required **to participate in the sacrament of reconciliation or is it optional? What sin does he confess?

I would submit he confesses the sin against the 5th commandment, XXX times, thus whether or not a soldier is Catholic a sin has been committed even for Soldier #1.

Soldier #1 really has committed NO sin. While I agree that the soldier might want to mention it in confession, he is certainly not obligated to do so. I would think he would mention it more to receive counseling to help him deal with the trauma of the act. But he has not sinned. No sin has occurred. Evil has occurred but that does not necessarily mean that a sin has occurred. For there to be a sin, he must have knowingly and willingly have committed evil. This did not happen.

Many times evil things happen or are done by man with no occurrence of sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

That’s a different thread. Please feel free to start one up specifically to address the morality of people who stand by and do nothing when people around them are being killed. I would think that would get a lot of posts and would prove to be a worthwhile discussion.

It may make you uncomfortable, but it’s not a different thread.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

It may make you uncomfortable, but it’s not a different thread.

It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. I would love to participate in that discussion, but this is not the place.

 

[YinYangMom]

Ham1:

Evil has occurred but that does not necessarily mean that a sin has occurred.

Ah, now this is a new perspective for me which has made an important distinction! Thanks.

How would I go about teaching that concept to my kids (15 and 17 years old)?

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. I would love to participate in that discussion, but this is not the place.

When you brought your position on military service into the thread, you made it the place.