Originally Posted by
Aimless
No, I get that, I'm just wondering how individual members of this forum decide whether or not a given civilian death in wartime is okay.
Let's say that the person is innocent of any crime, has not voted for the rulers, and was not engaging in any dodgy activities at the time of death. If a soldier had killed that person in either of their countries, in peacetime, it would probably have been seen as murder of some sort (eg. through negligence). In the context of war, it's not murder.
How do we arrive at that position? Is murder morally defined, legally defined, or both? Which definition takes precedence?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote