Is an execution always murder?

[Bomb#20]

The question was: Is an execution always murder?

If the accepted definition of murder is ''the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (including executions ordered and carried out by criminal organizations, gangs, etc)'' and a government/state deems it lawful to plan the execution of prisoners and carries out these execution at a planned time (premeditated)....being deemed 'legal,' executions carried out by that government are deemed legal and cannot be defined as being murder.

So the issue becomes a question of ethics. The government of Russia, Stalin's regime, an extreme case as an example, may have considered it legal to carry out executions, so by the given definition, these were not 'murders.'

None of that follows. Based on those definitions, what follows is that the executions carried out by that organization are not deemed by that organization to be murders. This in no way implies that the executions are not murders. People can deem anything to be anything they please; it doesn't make it true. So you aren't going to answer the question that way unless you define "lawful" -- the definition of murder isn't "a premeditated killing of one human by another that the killer's boss deems unlawful". When Stalin's regime rolls the tanks in and declares itself the new lawful government of Estonia, and executes thousands of Estonians and deems it lawful, and a few meager remnants of the old Estonian government set up a government-in-exile in Oslo, and they deem Stalin's killings unlawful, who's right?

Curiously enough, citing legal technicalities, a few meager remnants of the old government-in-exile refused to recognize the new post-Soviet-collapse Estonian government, and have kept the government-in-exile in operation, claiming to still be the lawful government of Estonia. In 1991 the new internationally recognized Estonian government shot a man convicted of capital murder, after the Soviets pulled out but before it abolished capital punishment. It presumably deems the execution lawful, although any follow-ups would of course be unlawful. The government-in-exile-back-in-Estonia presumably deems that 1991 execution unlawful. Who's right?

 

[fromderinside]

All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder. The situation described sounds like homicide but not murder.

The consequences may be the same for the loss of life, but it still matters whether the loss of life by the hands of another was accidental or intentional.

Your rationale though parallel with present legal definitions makes a distinction without practical meaning. The actions of one results in the loss of life by another. Intent? Intent is there in being an violent angry person who knowingly gets excited by drinking. Intent is there in knowingly driving while drunk. Even a person working at a logging company for less than adequate wages knows he is working for someone who doesn't take safety seriously, or a near starving fisherman recruits a crew and goes out in an unsafe boat knows he's putting them in harms' way as do they.

One can't form good social intent util one admits social intent depends on good social behavior. Constructing a system based on the idea that good social behavior demands one avoids risky social intent.

So claw these distinctions about taking of life from social contracts. You risk yourself or others you are responsible.

 

[DBT]

If the accepted definition of murder is ''the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (including executions ordered and carried out by criminal organizations, gangs, etc)'' and a government/state deems it lawful to plan the execution of prisoners and carries out these execution at a planned time (premeditated)....being deemed 'legal,' executions carried out by that government are deemed legal and cannot be defined as being murder.

So the issue becomes a question of ethics. The government of Russia, Stalin's regime, an extreme case as an example, may have considered it legal to carry out executions, so by the given definition, these were not 'murders.'

None of that follows. Based on those definitions, what follows is that the executions carried out by that organization are not deemed by that organization to be murders. This in no way implies that the executions are not murders. People can deem anything to be anything they please; it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. That was my next point. What one Government deems to be a legal, and therefore a lawful execution, may not be seen as such by another nation or a different government....which may see the execution as being illegal and therefore a murder.

So what is legal and therefore not defined as murder in one nation according to the laws of that nation, may be deemed illegal in another nation, therefore consider that a murder was committed. Laws being relative to the nation state.

So what I said does follow in relation to the government that makes execution legal, but it does not necessarily relate to all governments. So, it is relative.

Being relative and inherently contradictory, execution is probably an issue of ethics and not politics or national ideology, thus an issue that transcends national and political ideologies and laws. In the big picture it's possible that all executions may indeed be murder.

 

[credoconsolans]

None of that follows. Based on those definitions, what follows is that the executions carried out by that organization are not deemed by that organization to be murders. This in no way implies that the executions are not murders. People can deem anything to be anything they please; it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. That was my next point. What one Government deems to be a legal, and therefore a lawful execution, may not be seen as such by another nation or a different government....which may see the execution as being illegal and therefore a murder.

So what is legal and therefore not defined as murder in one nation according to the laws of that nation, may be deemed illegal in another nation, therefore consider that a murder was committed. Laws being relative to the nation state.

So what I said does follow in relation to the government that makes execution legal, but it does not necessarily relate to all governments. So, it is relative.

Being relative and inherently contradictory, execution is probably an issue of ethics and not politics or national ideology, thus an issue that transcends national and political ideologies and laws. In the big picture it's possible that all executions may indeed be murder.

Indeed, it is a morally relative issue. After all, if all executions may indeed be murders, so can every person killed in a war.

 

[DBT]

The clear exception being self defence when under an immediate risk of serious injury or death through no fault of your own.

 

[fromderinside]

Have fun justifying that. Two or more people fault lurks. One person, fault existential.

 

[DBT]

Have fun justifying that. Two or more people fault lurks. One person, fault existential.

Justifying self defence? That doesn't appear hard to justify.

 

[Juma]

The clear exception being self defence when under an immediate risk of serious injury or death through no fault of your own.

So if you know that you are not guilty it is ok to kill the personell managing your death penalty?

 

[DBT]

The clear exception being self defence when under an immediate risk of serious injury or death through no fault of your own.

So if you know that you are not guilty it is ok to kill the personell managing your death penalty?

Self defence need not always entail killing, nor should it be the first option (the use of excessive force can land you in big trouble).

When dealing with the state, lawyers are probably the best line of self defence.....plus incarceration doesn't generally allow an individual, being restrained, to overpower the prison personal.

Being outnumbered and restrained generally resigns the individual to his fate.

If the odds of succeeding and escaping were more favourable, some would probably take that option.

Plus there is the issue of the personal just doing their job. It being the judicial system that failed, and the death penalty that's immoral, but the guards are only employed to carry out the orders of the state.

It's not as simple as an attack on the street or a home invasion or a breakdown in society.

 

[Juma]

So if you know that you are not guilty it is ok to kill the personell managing your death penalty?

Self defence need not always entail killing, nor should it be the first option (the use of excessive force can land you in big trouble).

When dealing with the state, lawyers are probably the best line of self defence.....plus incarceration doesn't generally allow an individual, being restrained, to overpower the prison personal.

You didnt answer the question. You specified a case when killing isnt murder. I present a countercase. So. Do you still think your case holds?

 

[DBT]

Self defence need not always entail killing, nor should it be the first option (the use of excessive force can land you in big trouble).

When dealing with the state, lawyers are probably the best line of self defence.....plus incarceration doesn't generally allow an individual, being restrained, to overpower the prison personal.

You didnt answer the question. You specified a case when killing isnt murder. I present a countercase. So. Do you still think your case holds?

I added more to my post, but you were too quick.

It is not the guards that planned your execution, but the state.

Being outnumbered and restrained generally resigns the individual to his fate.

If the odds of succeeding and escaping were more favourable, some would probably take that option.

Plus there is the issue of the personal just doing their job. It being the judicial system that failed, and the death penalty that's immoral, but the guards are only employed to carry out the orders of the state.

It's not as simple as an attack on the street or a home invasion or a breakdown in society.

The ethics of self defence is a case by case proposition, the circumstance determining the moral standing of your actions.

''By "Is it ethical to kill someone in self-defense?" I take it you mean "Is it ever morally permissible to do so?" Consider a tidy case, in which you're morally innocent and in which, for all you can reasonably tell, it's certain you'll be killed unless you kill your attacker. If it's not morally permissible for you to kill the attacker, then it must be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed: permission and obligation are two sides of the same coin. Hence, unless it's morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed, it's morally permissible for you to kill your attacker. I can't see how it could be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed in that situation, so I readily conclude that you're morally permitted to kill your attacker.''

 

[fromderinside]

Have fun justifying that. Two or more people fault lurks. One person, fault existential.

Justifying self defence? That doesn't appear hard to justify.

OK. Two fully aware persons at least one has an issue to settle with the other. Justify either killing the other.

 

[DBT]

Justifying self defence? That doesn't appear hard to justify.

OK. Two fully aware persons at least one has an issue to settle with the other. Justify either killing the other.

As there several non violent ways to settle issues or disputes without trying to kill your opponent, trying to kill the person you happen to be in a dispute with puts you in the wrong.

So if you become the instigator of violence, the attacker, the person you attack and try to kill has an ethical right to defend themselves.

But not necessarily to kill you just because you instigated an attack (excessive force), unless that is the only option, the only way to preserve his own life or others who may be in harms way.

''If it's not morally permissible for you to kill the attacker, then it must be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed: permission and obligation are two sides of the same coin. Hence, unless it's morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed, it's morally permissible for you to kill your attacker. I can't see how it could be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed in that situation, so I readily conclude that you're morally permitted to kill your attacker.''

 

[Juma]

OK. Two fully aware persons at least one has an issue to settle with the other. Justify either killing the other.

As there several non violent ways to settle issues or disputes without trying to kill your opponent, trying to kill the person you happen to be in a dispute with puts you in the wrong.

So if you become the instigator of violence, the attacker, the person you attack and try to kill has an ethical right to defend themselves.

But not necessarily to kill you just because you instigated an attack (excessive force), unless that is the only option, the only way to preserve his own life or others who may be in harms way.

''If it's not morally permissible for you to kill the attacker, then it must be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed: permission and obligation are two sides of the same coin. Hence, unless it's morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed, it's morally permissible for you to kill your attacker. I can't see how it could be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed in that situation, so I readily conclude that you're morally permitted to kill your attacker.''

It doesnt need to be "morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed" to not save your life by killing someone else.

 

[DBT]

As there several non violent ways to settle issues or disputes without trying to kill your opponent, trying to kill the person you happen to be in a dispute with puts you in the wrong.

So if you become the instigator of violence, the attacker, the person you attack and try to kill has an ethical right to defend themselves.

But not necessarily to kill you just because you instigated an attack (excessive force), unless that is the only option, the only way to preserve his own life or others who may be in harms way.

''If it's not morally permissible for you to kill the attacker, then it must be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed: permission and obligation are two sides of the same coin. Hence, unless it's morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed, it's morally permissible for you to kill your attacker. I can't see how it could be morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed in that situation, so I readily conclude that you're morally permitted to kill your attacker.''

It doesnt need to be "morally obligatory for you to allow yourself to be killed" to not save your life by killing someone else.

Isn't that what is implied by being hesitant or not willing to defend your own life or the lives of your partner or friends because it may entail killing the assailant, that the risk of being killed is preferable to the risk of killing your assailant?

 

[fromderinside]

Isn't that what is implied by being hesitant or not willing to defend your own life or the lives of your partner or friends because it may entail killing the assailant, that the risk of being killed is preferable to the risk of killing your assailant?

The point here is "two individuals fully aware". Entering into a possible escalating transaction that can result in death is anticipated by both parties. Parties don't enter into that transaction and there is no moral invention permitting it.

 

[DBT]

Isn't that what is implied by being hesitant or not willing to defend your own life or the lives of your partner or friends because it may entail killing the assailant, that the risk of being killed is preferable to the risk of killing your assailant?

The point here is "two individuals fully aware". Entering into a possible escalating transaction that can result in death is anticipated by both parties. Parties don't enter into that transaction and there is no moral invention permitting it.

That's right, neither party is morally justified when they knowingly take the option that inevitably leads to physical violence, each trying to kill the other.

 

[fromderinside]

The point here is "two individuals fully aware". Entering into a possible escalating transaction that can result in death is anticipated by both parties. Parties don't enter into that transaction and there is no moral invention permitting it.

That's right, neither party is morally justified when they knowingly take the option that inevitably leads to physical violence, each trying to kill the other.

Its just knowing that one or the other can do it to the other that makes the venture immoral. Its immoral to cross the line by either person, both persons, one or the other of the persons.

 

[jimrich]

semantics

I'm watching a documentary on Auschwitz and the speaker keeps referring to the holocaust as murder. He puts so much stress on the initial "m" that I'm worried he'll have an aneurysm. And it strikes me how this takes away from the emotional power of the documentary. The terrifying thing about the holocaust was how the annihilation of Jews was lawful, ie executions. And this isn't the first time. Most references to the holocaust typically refer to it as the "murder" of unwanted elements.

I don't know what the Nazi's laws were that gave them permission or a "reason" to kill folks they way they did but, what you are writing about is Semantics and how words can be used in almost any context to mean almost anything someone wants the to mean. This is very apparent in governmental propaganda and in the legal profession. Most politicians and ALL lawyers understand and use Semantics all the time to twist things and minds as much as possible.

So if it's not the Nazi German law that mattered for the classification, is it some higher law? What law would that be?

Probably Divine law but that's another story.

Doesn't that just make murder vs execution arbitrary? A bit like a gauge of how much you approve of the execution?

Yes, kind of like is it Execution or REVENGE? I'd say all "executions" are actually motivated by Revenge.

When I think back on everything I've read about the American executions of criminals I haven't yet heard them be referred to as "murders". It's always "capital punishment" or "execution".

Our culture is very good at playing with semantics like how it's "explained" what we did to U.S. Japanese Citizens in WWII. Cultures all have very slick ways to deceive and disguise things just with words!

Even by people who I know think that all capital punishments are wrong. So what makes the German executions special as to always warrant it being called "murder"?

Personal preferences, anger, hatred and finely tuned SEMANTICS.

 

[Treedbear]

... Most politicians and ALL lawyers understand and use Semantics all the time to twist things and minds as much as possible. ...

Not all the time. And all politicians do some of the time. And murder is simply the wrongful, intentional killing of another human being, from the speaker's point of view.