I'm prevaricating, I suppose, but murder has a fairly specific definition and
killing an enemy combatant in war does not qualify. You could even argue that
it is pre-emptive self defence as that opponent has been charged with the duty
of killing you. What we are talking about is state sanctioned killing, avery
different thing. It is not defined as a crime and so there can be no 'mens rea'.
Rights are given to you by society and are not 'inalienable' - they can be
removed by your society as a punishment. Thus the right to liberty
(incarceration) and the right to life (capital punishment, civil war,
rebellion). The morality of this action is where the argument lies. Abortion is
a much more subtle argument as it is a balance between the rights of the mother
and those of the child confused by the level of foetal development - a blend of
philosophy, morality, theology and biology. Morally equivalent - no.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium:
revised edition -
http://blur.by/19Hb8or
The TLR Compendium
http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
On 11/12/2013, at 3:18 AM, Bill Barber wrote:
> My previous post spoke of the realities of war. This thread has now become
> one dealing with the morality of war. Let me stir the OT pot a bit by saying
> there are those who say what we are talking about is state sanctioned murder.
> In that realm, are not war, capital punishment and abortion moral
> equivalents? Is each of these not a state sanctioned murder? Bill Barber
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|