In ethical terms, how does killing an enemy combatant in war differ from murder?

Answer 1

In direct, personal, terms it doesn't differ at all. The intentional taking of human life is murder, clear and simple.

All that happens is that we have conjured up the fallacy that if one does it as an individual is responsible it is a crime, frequently punishable by the forfeit of the perpetrator's own life.

In the case of police or military murders we have neatly passed the personal responsibility on to the state, and they, of course, do not consider themselves culpable in the same way that an individual is....in fact they do not consider themselves culpable in the slightest.

At the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, in the aftermath of WW II the allies tried to create a set of rules, that later formed the basis of extensive additons and modifications to the Geneva Conventions. These, effectively, made the waging of aggressive warfare illegal, and literally a 'War Crime'.

This means that, in the exception of direct, defensive, actions this type of killing is, legally, murder. However, by the cunning expedient of proposing the idea of a 'pre-emptive' strike, implying that it is a 'defensive' action, the United States government and it's 'allies' ( read lackeys ), claims legality in it's appalling and undoubtedly murderous assault on the millions of innocent Afghani and Iraqi people.

It's still murder.

Answer 2

It is difficult to answer this questions since the context is somewhat sketchy. First off, how are you defining murder? If you are defining murder as killing someone unlawfully, then it is different because the law system that governs the the soldier is ordering the soldier into a situation where the soldier might have to kill someone. If you define it as, "purposely killing someone when your life is not in danger from that person," then it is different because, presumably, both sides are attempting to kill each other hence the soldiers are fighting for their lives. Ultimately, the difference comes because their is a higher authority that is directing the soldier. This is the same ethical distinction that differentiates state sanctioned executions with murders. In murder and individual is taking it upon themselves to decide whether another human being has the right to continue living. An execution on the other hand, if sanctioned by the state, is the conclusion of a set of preordained circumstances that were established outside of any emotional or personal bias. Thus, it isn't an individual taking away a life, it is the state.

Answer 3

Killing an enemy combatatant in war is good for the economy, and a good economy means better healthcare which means fewer people on your side die which is saving lives, which ethically is a good thing, providing you don´t kill too many of the other side, but we are talking about just one isolated instance of killing an enemy combatant in war, so many lives saved against one being spent is ethically actually a positive thing. We are up ethically if we kill other people to save many more peoples lives. So if we need to, we can kill as many people as we want, and still be ethically sound.

-George w. Bush

Answer 4

Well, for a start both participants are killing knowingly. The difference being the fact you are in a warzone and as such are permitted to kill the enemy. Although on the other hand the murderer could of murdered the deceased as they thought the deceased was athreat to them, yet this would be viewed ethically incorrect. Ethically atleast I suppose both are wrong yet in reality murder in a non warzone is the worser of the two, as they are not defending there country and people.

Answer 5

In ethical terms, it's a murder performed by the guy who sent the soldier to the front. But each case is different. There are moments death can be avoided. What really counts is not ethics or moral. It is the effect in the soldier's mind. Read Dr. Weiss' books on the subject.

Answer 6

Read all the answers above and amazed how easy influenced we are! The majority of us are so suspicious and doubtful when they're told "God loves you", and absolutely naive when they are told that something or somebody is a threat and you have to kill it in "self defence". Who ever knows in all those last time wars which part was an aggressor and which one - self defender? And this uncertainty comes with every war. Any kind of it, I think, is some kind of a chess game, in ethical terms. It is a game, and a murder is the rule of that game.

Answer 7

There is self-defence and murder.
There is war and war-crimes.
Anyone unable to tell the difference (not pointing fingers at a particular country), is called a psychopath.
You kill either because you have to, or to save yourself and those you love.
The laws are different between civil and military, but the morals are not.
I don't mind pacifists, an equal balance between those who are prepared to fight and those who are not is good for all. It's just that pacifists (and more often 'hawks') tend to forget this.

The term 'enemy combatant' does not exist for the purpose of this answer. We are bound in law to protect prisoners-of-war.
Those who we are SURE terrorise civilians for political ends, should wake up to the SAS (not badly trained police) at 4 in the morning.

Answer 8

Obviously, you posed an interesting question. In my opinion, you don't give enough direction. For example, some may believe it unethical to execute another, but then you create the eye for an eye situation, you are getting close to religion or a righteous belief, for better or worse (in this subject).

I would pose one question to those that think it's unethical to murder whether civil, or for justice: What would you want to happen to someone that raped your 8 year old baby sister, and then swung her around like a bat against a steel pole until she died? See what I mean.

On the other hand, what good does it do to kill a murder after the act has already been committed? You assume that it will make no difference if the convicted murder spends eternity in prison, but preferable to death.

When you put that together with war, you bring in a whole new set of circumstances... Why would you think it's either ethical or unethical to kill someone that is trying to kill you! So, I say again: I don't believe you give enough direction in your question.

Answer 9

In a time of war the government of the county at war makes a declaration that allows there soldiers to kill in the name of that country.
There are specific rules of engagement that the soldiers follow and if they kill without complying to these rules they can be prosecuted for murder.
All that is well and good however there ethical issue is that killing in the name of a government is no different than killing for god or money.

Answer 10

War ethics demand that you kill the enemy in other to stay alive and fight the next enemy. In every day murder, you do not need to murder the other person in other to be alive yourself.