Is there a moral difference between war and murder?

Question

I've frequently heard it say that killing someone (even a civillian) in war is somehow more morally justified than killing someone in peacetime.

How is this so? Does the fact that they were done in a war context partially excuse Milosevic's massacres of Albanians? Or Saddam's gassing of the Kurds? Or the nuclear attacks on Japan?

Where is the moral difference?

Guys, read the question properly before answering.

People here seem to have the idea that all wars are fought for a just cause.

Sorry, but that simply isn't the case. Most wars are fought for greed and money, often from both sides.

Answer 1

This is the best moral delimma I've seen on this forum...

Here's my take: Killing is wrong. Governments using religion or other means to justify killing is wrong. But, if I were out in the woods with my shotgun, and happened upon someone harming a child, I would kill them myself without regret. It's a difficult thing, these morals...

Is there a difference between war and murder... not in my mind. But... there are circumstances (rare) where I would kill.

Answer 2

For me, yes there is a moral difference.

For a combatant to kill another combatant this is pretty clear (again at least for me) that it is not murder.

When civilians get involved it gets hazier.

Again for me, I see that it can be necessary to go after strategic targets close to civilians. If every reasonable precaution is taken to minimise civilian deaths then it is a necessary evil. I would not like to be the one to have to balance civilian deaths against the importance of a target.

What is not acceptable to me is the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The Blitz, the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the dropping of the atomic bombs on major population centers, the massacre of Albanians by the Serbs, the massacre of Palestinian refugees by the Lebanese Christians (while the Israelis stood to one side), the gassing of the Kurds and the massacres of the Marsh Arabs, and lots and lots of other examples throughout history - these are all instances of mass murder to me.


The other thing for me is that the war needs a good justification. Britain's declaration of war against Germany was justified. Germany's invasion of Poland was not.

Answer 3

Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (“Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” by F. P. G. Guizot in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

Answer 4

The moral difference has been debated for centuries. Essentially, it is seen that the loyalty one owes to leaders require you to follow orders to "protect" your country. The soldiers who follow those orders are therefore not as morally corrupt as are the leaders, who may be making war for less than stellar reasons.

However, the rise of democracies makes such issues ever more suspect. If a democracy is the aggressor (as is the US in Iraq), then the leadership technically is the people who elect the President & the Congress. In that case, everyone who voted to elect these leaders bears some moral responsibility for the war deaths.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 5

Everyone has their own set of "morals". For many people, war is a good excuse to murder, and they don't consider it "immoral". I think that's a pretty huge cop-out, personally. Those with murderous tendencies will find a way to satisfy their blood-lust, whether they wield the weapon themselves, study it and/or go into a profession that requires looking at lots of pictures of crime scenes, or take any number of other options.

Answer 6

Yes, there is a difference!

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of life. In war there are rules of conduct that abide by law. Even in a war though there could be a Murder if it is done UNLAWFULLY.

Those who serve their country in war and take life of the enemy in the service of their country are abiding by the laws of their country and it is not murder.

Answer 7

I get so angered when people say they are killing in the name of war.

The only reason to kill in war is to defend oppressed people and your own home. Even then, there is no excuse for killing innocents -women, children, elderly, and men who don't fight you. Even the trees and animals shouldn't be harmed.

Fight only the soldiers who are trying to kill you.

500,000 people died in the first day of Iraq bombing.

Something to think about.

Answer 8

War is self defense, murder is not. Just like there is a difference between someone getting killled or someone being murdered.

Answer 9

Yes, just as there is a moral difference between murder and execution. And not everyone will agree.

Answer 10

its either kill or be killed .. they are trying to stay alive.. its not like it was their choice to go out there and serve in the war .. no one would want to go through such a thing ..

------------

I hope all of you who say *murder is murder* .. still stand behind our soldiers .. they are sacrificing their lives for us .. and 1000s have already died .. for us