Who slaughters but could have done otherwise, is not excused.
Murder is not excused, only because it happens on a smaller scale than the murder on a greater scale. Murder is murder.
RE: THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".
it seems to boil down to
when a powerful group murders
it's heroic
You must be talking to someone else, not to me.
I neither "dismiss" murder as "systemic tragedy" nor do I see anything heroic in one group killing the other.
what disturbs you in my answer, if so?
what do most people mean by "murder"
generally speaking "unjustified killing"
what do most people mean by "unjustified"
generally speaking "it's ok to kill people we don't like and NOT ok to kill people we do like"
Do you ask me, what I myself think of murder?
do you believe "murder" is "unjustified killing"
and if so
what do you think qualifies as "unjustified"
I believe what the law says about murder.
As I understand the legislation here, it defines murder as ‘a wilful and intentional killing’. I look it now up.
Quoted from the penal code:
In order to be able to justify something as murder, I would need to have the the aspects of murder to see fulfilled. If you give me a case - like you did with the story of Nat Turner, it's what I have withdrawn from it. IF it's true what had been said.
"willful and intentional" also applies to executioners and soldiers and cases of "self-defense"
"low motives" is quite vague
"maliciously or cruelly" could easily apply to executioners and soldiers and cases of "self-defense"
Of course, the law is never exhaustively formulated; it can't. It has always exceptions to its rules.
Since it's cases which are under trial, the cases deliver the context.
Do you want to talk about something specific? I am not getting towards what you might aim.