The Difference Between Kill and Murder
Just as force can be violence but force isn't necessarily violence, so too can to kill be to murder, but to kill isn't necessarily to murder.
Killing can be morally justified, while murdering is a moral violation.
Kill
Kill = to end a life.
The word tue/tuer in French which means to kill, comes from Latin tutor: I guard, protect, defend.
This points to the root of the understanding of kill vs. murder.
To kill (tue in French) derives from guard, protect and defend. Killing is not murder when it's done to guard, protect or defend oneself or others, whereas murder is not. This is the causal root understanding of the difference between kill and murder.
The words tell us what the difference is, but society has lost the meaning and confuses the two, saying killing is immoral, killing is a crime, etc. There are times when killing is justified (i.e. killing is made right). Self-defense is that time.
Defense against an aggressor (kill) vs. initiation of violence (murder).
Murder
Murder = unlawful killing
In which law is it unlawful? Moral law. There is such a thing as lawful killing in moral law.
When the principle of nonaggression and nonviolence is disregarded and is violated, that is an unjustified use of aggressive force. Like when someone violates and tries to end another's life, the principle of self-defense is allowed to use force to end that unlawful violence and violation, and use whatever force necessary to end that violence.
This can mean that the violent violator is going to be killed, if need be, under this moral law of self-defense. They are breaking the mutual respect, order and law of nonviolence, to do no harm, and so they shirk their own right to not be harmed because they seek to do harm to another. Someone can take the necessary means to protect, guard and defend themselves or another against a violent aggressor that threatens to murder them. Just and lawful use of force to harm another via killing vs. unjust and unlawful use of violence to harm another via murder.
Murder is a form of killing, but it is immoral, as there is no right to do so and is a wrong. The nonaggression and nonviolent moral law is violated by violence. Self-defense takes place as force and not violence, and is a right and not a wrong.
Murder is initiation of violence by taking another's life who had caused no harm to anyone, did no aggression or violence towards another being. Killing is a causal response (self-defense) to an effect and violation brought against another's will (violation of nonaggression and nonviolence).
This is the difference between moral lawful killing, and immoral unlawful murder.
One is always allowed to defend their own innocent life, or the life of another innocent, when someone tries to violate that life. This is a natural right under moral law. It's not something to be done lightly, but it is something that can be done rightfully, and is not a wrong.
There are no rules when someone violates and breaks the rules of the principle of nonviolence and threatens to take the life of an innocent (did no harm, unjust aggression, or violence to another).
Source
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50.
In my opinion you have hit the nail right on the head in this post. The truth is this concept comes right out of natural law or what happens in the real world. A lion must eat and therefor will attack a Wilder beast, but he is not assured a meal and in many cases dies as a result of the attack.
The truth is a person doesn't actually have a choice in the matter when attacked. They either defend themselves, or die according to the dictates of natural law. In recognition of this fact along with the recognition that the closer you design your social cultural traditions and yes rules to the dictates of natural law the more comity, peace, and security your society will have and also the more wealth will it accumulate.
This is the reason people become members of a society. When the society stops protecting its individual member's it looses the advantage gained by membership. Since one can only be a member if they consent, and consent can be withdrawn even if the enforcers say otherwise it is incumbent upon the members of society to insure membership benefits. This is exactly what one is talking about when they say the vested interest of a individual is parallel to the society as a whole. When there is no vested interest for the individual the society is no longer viable.
Or the society is redefined to include only the elite who continue to have a vested interest in the system, and meanwhile everyone else, not partaking of society, find themselves in some level of slavery to it. I think society of this sort can be viable so long as the slave system maintaining it can be kept in balance.
The problem with keeping it going is that it is imbalance incarnate. Life flourishes under spontaneous order. Dosn't matter if your talking about a blade of grass or an human being. Put artificial order in the mix and life begins to wither. This is because necessary for life happens in that spontaneous fashion. The end result will be death for all life. It works the way it was created to work or it doesn't work.
To keep society with one another is itself artificial because we have to choose to do so or be compelled to. So I don't see that what you're saying just now can be true.
In cattle when they form a society we call it a herd. In humans when they congregate we call it a society. Humans do not need to be compelled to form societies. The fact that in many cases violence is used doesn't necessarily prove it to be a necessity, and I think the war and destruction of both our cities and the earth is actual evidence that the artificial order is bad for life.
I'd like to think we are not cattle. We are human after all.
We are not cattle, but we do have the same social instinct to gather together and live together violence or no violence.
That's beside the point.
By artifice we create the human world. The only spontaneous part is that we create. What we create on the other hand is always contrived, in some way necessarily accidental but always not initiated by Nature (unless there is no spark of divinity in the human being).
Why did you disagree with me three days ago?
Good points :)
Yeah you had a great post with Good Points being the logic and reason for it being a great post.
Exactly...great post :)
I had a discussion once with someone about murder, that held on tightly to the definition of murder in the law framework/dictionary not in the Moral law frame work.
I gave my short definition
I said this because in my opinion there are million of murders committed within the legal framework that till this day would not be called murder because they would be described as lawful killing.
Yeah, legal "law" is not logical like moral law ;)
What if a police officer kills someone.
That someone was going to tell someone else about the police officer's drug dealings. The dead person was set up by other officers to try to get information on the drug dealings.
Since the first police officer was just protecting himself from life devastating consequences of being found out,...
was it murder?
Police officer did the harm, murder, not justified moral killing. Survival and self-preservation does not dictate what is moral.
Thanks for pointing out the difference. Though I knew the difference between lawful and unlawful as in self defense verses intentional taking of a life outside of self defense, I truly thought the words had synonymous qualities. Often we are lax in our speech and that is where confusion enters in. Sadly there are those who take advantage of this opportunity to promote a controlled agenda of limiting rights and liberties based on the wording of propaganda. I appreciate the work you do in spreading the light of truth and learn from you. Blessings @krnel.
Glad to provide clarity on the words we use to describe things in reality ;)
if you kill defending yourself from an aggressor you killed with justification, but if you kill for revenge or pleasure it is very different this is an unjustified murder, but in the same way justice is sometimes unfair and you pay with all the weight of the law, for killing an aggressor that seeks to hurt you .. !!
Revenge to kill someone who murdered someone innocent, is not murder in moral law as I see it. An evil act of taking someones life created a -1 debt in a balance sheet. To remove that person from existence and settle the debt is allowed, although there are other options that can be chosen. I still view it as legitimate to deal with the debt someone incurred by murdering someone else. They abdicate their right to no be harmed by harming another, the right not have their life taken when they take the life of an innocent.
How do I dive into this topic, well let me start by asking who is liable to die? Every living human can be killed, so the circumstances surrounding the death can vary. The difference between killing and murder can be summed up by saying in both sense a live is lost, the grammar is different but still indicates the same mischief.
A life is not, but not for the same reason. Evil deeds carried out by people should not be permitted, and anyone has a rightful duty to stop them from harming an innocent, otherwise an innocent loses their life as opposed to a harmful violent person.
In Germany it's handled like this:
Killings:
As a soldier you do your duty.
As a civilist:
Unfall (accident) you did not intend to kill someone.
Totschlag (killing) is when you kill someone in affect.
Mord (murder) if you planned to kill someone.
Notwehr (self-defense) when you killed someone in order to protect yourself (allowed if appropriate)
You can plan to kill evil people who harm others, I don't view that as murder. It's morally lawful to end evil being created into existence by people who continue to create evil into existence.
As my definition of the word murder is like in Germany "the planned killing of a human being" i would still call it a murder. The question is, if murder can be ethically lawful and right under specific circumstances like you describe it. And I am totally with you - it can. It's about the negative connotation of the word murder that makes debating about it so difficult. That's where the term self-defense jumps in. But the problem with the word self-defense is: it is too specific about who is protect from greater harm by doing the planned ethically appropriate killing: "self", while in most cases it is others, or the whole world you protect by doing it. The problem is: There is no word for a planned ethically right killing/murder in order to protect others/the whole world, or is there? @krnel
Righteousness? LOL. I don't think there is one specifically.
The force of words, their power cannot be underestimated.
really good job
Generic comments could be mistaken for spam.
Tips to avoid being flagged
Thank You! ⚜
Never seen this kinda information to explain these two related concepts.
simply want to thank you for this great effort!
You're welcome.