what is the true difference?

Question

here is the story.
you kill a regular man on the street, and you are wrong, you are a bad person and you are punished. Now if you kill a man in war, you are right, you are good and you are praised.
now for the question.

At what point in the act of killing a man does the acceptance of said action change? when both actions reach the same conclusion why is one shunned and the other praised?

ok, so far no one is answering the question.
the situation has nothing to do with "loved ones," or being a monster. it is beyond "men with shiny badges." the simple facts. both men die. the same actions bring about the same conclusions, yet hold different consequences. the question is simply about why there is a difference in consequence.
you kill a man on the street, it doesn't matter if he wronged you in some way. you are labled a murderer. you kill a man in war, again it doesn't matter if he wronged you. he is also dead and you are labled a hero. what is the difference?

in response to Temple. yes we all know one is legal and the other is not. but the question is why is there a difference.

As for fatp3ngu1n, your answer holds very little ground because would killing this supposed murderer not make you a murderer and worthy of being killed

As for Shaggy,
Quit getting all bitchy about it. i'm simply saying that you people are bringing in outside circumsances that are pulling away from the simple question. what is the difference in the two actions that create different consequences

Answer 1

Killing is not right in any case and in most religions it is frowned upon. The actual "praise" that you refer to, has nothing to do with morallity and everything to do with society. It is socially acceptable in ethnocentric circles to kill those who oppose "your people". But, in truth, it is better to die for others instead of kill. To be placed in jail for not killing others is far better for the soul, karma or whatever you would have it, than to do as you are told and kill others. Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing, and sometimes following it is instead. You should only do what is right. We all (those of us who are right in the head) know what is right and /or wrong. How do you know this? Ask those who have killed others if they really regret their actions. Not the incarcerated individuals. Those who have fought in wars and killed others. Ask them if they feel good about doing it. They will not tell you that they do if they are being honest. They likely have nightmares about it. Some have even taken their own lives because they could not tolerate the guilt. I think you do know the truth but society has clouded your mind as to its justification.

Answer 2

In my opinion, both are wrong but then again I'm absolutely against war. However, I believe that people think the limit is when the other man is fighting for a cause that causes harm to other human beings in one way or another. By doing so, he himself becomes a murderer and therefore worthy of being killed. So if I killed him I would supposedly doing the world good by ridding the world of the murderer and fighter of a cause that is evil and causes harm.

Answer 3

The soldier in war is taught that the opposing army is the "bad guys" and they are ordered to kill this fodder. They obey, therefore they are praised.

The man who kills a "regular" man walking down the street is punished because he killed without reason-- if the man is indeed regular and did not deserve it. Even if the man deserved it and gave the killer a reason, the killer is still punished because he broke the law. People can't just take the law into their own hands or it would be complete chaos.

War is simply organized chaos. Not that killing by any means is right.

Answer 4

People who pose a threat to the ones you love versus a scenario with unarmed civilians.

It's a grey area, but if it's going to be you or him to get killed, it may as well be him.

*EDIT*
OK since you're failing to make the conncetion.

WAR ISN'T THE STREETS.

There you go. War is a state of chaos where two opposing sides try to kill each other.

They'd kill you if you didn't kill them, in a war.

And if you're not going to find that a good answer, then you're just being stubborn, and you want to hear someone say "there is no difference, they are both equally wrong"

Answer 5

They are both morally wrong.The person who goes to war does not want to kill anyone .He is doing the dirty work on behalf of the Government of his country who are the real killers.If every person refused to go to war what do you think would happen,even if they were all put in jail. Do you think the Governments would take their place and start killing the enemy Governments ? . Of course not. Then guess what ?There would not be a war.

Answer 6

its late but ill give it a shot..

i think that when you kill someone on the street you are wrong because it isnt suspected and what is the reason? you are just a monster. when you kill someone in war it is supposedly for the good of the country.

Answer 7

becasue we are all idiots. i dont think it is any more moral to go shoot someone because some guy with a shiny badge told you to, than to go commit a random murder. i dont think it is any more moral, and dont respect it any more than a random shooting.

Answer 8

Excellent question.

There is no difference except that one is legal and one is not.

Think about it when you vote.

Answer 9

though both have the same conclusion they do not have the same begining.

Answer 10

No judgement is absolute.