War and murder morality

Moral difference between war and mass murder

October, 2015. Following the keen following of the Aljazeera news with a special feature on the Syrian crisis two colleagues engaged in a conversation. This was after the conclusion of the news feature, a discussion ensued in the office auditorium; there was a heated argument between two students. This is was in response to the recent trends in the world and the continuous attacks that were being launched at Syria on the protagonists and antagonists of the government. With the two world superpower sides taking different sides of the divide, the students sought to know the moral justification of this. This is where one side support the pro-government forces whole the other is busy supporting the antigovernment forces. In this, the students engaged in a conversation seeking to know the difference between the two.

what is morality according to you?looking deep in thoughtOliver:

Queen: according to me, it is the difference in the perception of an individual as to what is right and what is wrong. It is the internal understanding and control of an individual to undertake certain tasks that are considered to be right or wrong in a society.

Oliver: according to me, I would not differ much with your definition but different societies have different things which to some are morally right while to the other they are not. So the difference is that not all things which are morally right to one community are morally right to another.

That is very true. There exist several moral differences in the undertakings of the activities of different communities. It is good for an individual therefore to understand the norms and moral issues of a community in order to be able to live in harmony with the people there.nodding in acceptance sure.Queen:

Oliver: how would you differentiate between war and mass murder under the same case of morality? According to me, war is when the government forces or union forces are in combat with resistant groups or countries forces which are not in support of for example some of the policies that are being put in place.

But I just hate war. I only wish that it can end. The sufferings that it brings along with it to all parties are just unimaginable. People losing their loved ones and the maiming and injuries that they have to endure are just unimaginable. Shaking his head and appearing to be deep in thought. However, I would define war as a situation where disagreements in the policies that are enforced by a government that is in power are not honored by all people resulting to rebellion. This rebellion results to divisions in the forces for example. This on the other hand may further on result to war. War in this case would be as a result of differences that may exist in opinion of different parties to a given matter in hand. Pausing and sighing for a while. I have noted the wording of your statement. You have defined war as a situation where forces from different sides engage in combat due to the existence of differences in their perceptions of the different matters at hand. According to me, my definition would not differ much from yours. interrupting.Queen:

Queen: I also have the same opinion as you in regards to war. It is an act that I do not in any way support. I once had a distant cousin who went to take part in war. It was so sad that at his young age, he did not get to come back from the war. Separated from his family and his friends and only two years into his young marriage, his life was cut short due to the war. I wish also that there was a way in which the conflicts can be solved without getting to a point of engaging one another in war. War should not be in any way an option to the people. Just thinking about how his young son will grow to think of his dad. Whether he was brave to go to war or not caring enough to leave him at a young age of one? The explanations that the mother will have to give the child when he asks would be so unbearable for her. This is so intense for them. If there was a way that this would have been alleviated, it would have been better for the two parties. This would be through such things as mediation between the parties, which would make them to arrive at a consensus without getting to the point of war. It would have resulted to the saving of many lives.

. I am sorry for the loss. He must have been a good man. War and murder according to me are on the same side of the divide. The level and the brutality that is in both cases are just not imaginable. But murder is different in that it is the killing of an innocent person due to no act of war or due to some differences not necessarily war. Mass murder can be therefore defined as the murder of many people due to their political stand or their affiliation to a different side of the government or side. Mass murder according to me is equivalent to genocide. A good example that I can give of this is the murder of the Jews by Adolf Hitler. The brutality in them is just so inhumane. Another good case is the Rwandan genocide, in which more than one million people died men, women and children. This is so sad. The outpouring of lives, the draining of blood and the maiming of people is a sad ordeal which I am sure we can all not imagine or wish to be involved in. this is the best representation of mass murder of the people. They are both acts that should be prevented at all costs. touched by the passageOliver:

Queen: I am so touched by the references that have been pointed out. My definition of mass murder will not differ from your definition. It is the taking of human life which is innocent with no just reason. With this, mass murder can be described as the killing or people with no justified reason whatsoever. This is therefore an undertaking that involves the maiming and taking of innocent lives, just like you have said due to the racial background or other reasons that are not in line with those of the one ordering for the deaths.

How would you classify the current happenings in Syria? Are they an act of war or is it just a case of mass murder from the parties that are taking part in it?appearing to be deep in thought.Oliver:

. The Syrian case is a very complicated case. I personally have no idea as to the reason behind the small country making such headlines and attracting much support from the military heavy weights such as the United States, Russia and the European Union. I am not aware of the reasons behind the so much attention that it has been accorded. According to me, the case of Syria is a combination of both war and mass murder. It is not once that we have heard of drone or air attacks on innocent civilians converging on a place. This is outright murder of innocent civilians. The fact that at the time of the attacks they are not in any way armed is such as a disgrace to the perpetrators of the attacks. So disturbing is the lack of humanitarian support from the people. War in this same case is witnessed when the Syrian forces which are loyal to their ousted president crash with the militants and the rebels who are against his regime and rule. This is war due to the fact that both are armed to the tooth. War therefore according to me is a crash of armed parties due to some conflict of interest. On the other hand, murder is the killing of innocent unarmed people who are helpless. This is done in a bid to silence them or to prevent them from such things as joining the forces. shaking his head in disbeliefQueen:

Oliver: I get your point. But according to you, is there any moral justification for way and mass murder?

Queen: according to me, that is a straight forward question with no clear answer beckoning. Morally, it is not right to take the life of another person leave alone the person being unarmed. The both acts are therefore in a way not moral in any aspect to speak of. However, the reason behind the acts of war may include such things as the protection of human life. In this therefore, the government forces or union forces can engage certain rebel forces due to their involvement in the creation of terror related cases and the killing of innocent civilians. This is in a way a just cause for the deaths of the people. Despite this being nit moral, there is some good in the elimination of a couple of people who are involved in the murder of many others and also in the creation of terror related fears. However, I differ with the case of mass murder. There is no moral justification in the killing of innocent civilians. What is saddening in this is that the most affected in such a case are harmless women and children. There is no way a person can justify the killing of so many innocent lives that are in all aspects. Their falling to a different race, tribe or community being something that is beyond human control is not a reason to justify their murder. There is therefore no moral justification for the mass murders of innocent civilians.

I get your point. According to me, I think that it is morally right to take one life in the saving of thousands or even millions more. This is an act that is for the future good of the society. Thus, through the elimination of several bad characters or terrorists from the equation will result to better and peaceful living for the local community. This is the case for the terrorists. The killing of some of them is perceived to be a success. This is mostly due to the fact that some of them have nothing to lose and in some cases go ahead on suicide missions where they are not afraid to die and would not even mind claiming several hundred more lives to die with them. However, in the case of murder, there lacks a good supporting ground for the undertaking of the heinous acts. There is therefore no justification for the mass murder. In the past, some people have undertaken the process of killing innocent lives such as young boys to prevent them from the joining of resistant forces but this however is not morally right. shaking his head in acceptance.Oliver:

century. The conflicting parties should therefore find a solution to their problems amicably without taking the war alternative. This will aid in the preservation of human life and the values that we have acquired and used over the recent past. th century according to me has the ability to wipe out mankind from the face of the earth. But all I hope is for the best. I believe that it’s the best time for dialogue to take precedence. I would not like to see us engage in other world wars as was the case in the early and mid-20thQueen: based on the recent trend of events, I am even getting anxiously afraid of what will happen next. I am not sure whether it’s my fear or what, I per see a looming third world war crisis. With the United States taking their side and the Soviets taking theirs, I am sure that there is looming trouble. The military weaponry and ability that has been developed over the 20

Oliver: I also hope for the best. It is also the high time that the world powers should man up and stop any acts of the taking of innocent lives. This can be done though taking action on the perpetrators of such activities. This can be done by such organizations with power over the nations such as the International Criminal Court or the United Nations. This will aid in making the activities of some of the people who have been reckless over the past to be under check. Though the inappropriate loss of life, it will be easy for the people to live their lives peacefully. On the case of wars, I am sure that there are other better conflict resolution mechanisms. Arbitration and mediation are some of the many other means that can be used. The losses of life that occur on both sides in a war have no justification. They all have families which would be grateful with them being alive. The military men have families which they can stay with rather than take part in the wars. The wars have also emerged as a means of using very much tax payer’s money in the purchase and development of the equipment, the salary to the service men and other costs that come with wars. This funds can be channeled elsewhere which can be to the better of the society and the economy. So I would propose that if there is an option that is available in terms of resolving the conflicts that exist among the parties. Then it’s the high time that they should be put in place for the better of the world at large.

Queen: I second you on that. It’s the high time that the governments should wake up and look for alternatives to engaging in war.

. . Shaking their handsOliver: good to talk to you

Queen: same case here. See you later. Thanks


. Boston: Little, Brown.On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and societyGrossman, D. (1995).

.There will be killing: A novel of war and murderHart, J. L., & Rupprecht, O. (2014).

.Mirrors of war: Murder and violent crime: a relationship between war and violent crime, Buffalo, New York, 1900-1976Schaich, W. L. (1980).

. London: Routledge.War and society in Early-Modern Europe: 1495-1715Tallett, F. (1992).

. (1975). London: Croom Helm. War and society

. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.War and moralityWasserstrom, R. A. (1970).

. Amsterdam: Rodopi.War, virtual war and society: The challenge to communitiesWilson, A. R., & Perry, M. L. (2008).