Is there any moral difference between killing on purpose or killing on accident?

[el_bryanto]

Poll question: Is there any moral difference between killing on purpose or killing on accident?

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

1. They are both morally reprehensible, but they are nevertheless distinct. n/t

[Oregone]

2. How different is running someone over in a car from driving drunk and fast in a pedestrian area...

...and hitting the wrong person on accident?

[noamnety]

3. depends how you define "accident"

Shooting a weapon in an urban area and hitting someone with a stray bullet is sort of an accident, but it's the result of a deliberate action with a known risk.

Same with drunk driving, it's a decision to take a known risk.

Same with wars, where it's a given that most of the victims will be innocent civilians.

Same with sanctions.

[el_bryanto]

5. So war is the equivelent of murder? n/t

[Deep13]

11. The only reason it isn't is because it's not unlawful.

Murder = unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Malice for the purposes of murder = intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily injury, unintended death during the commission of a felony (felony-murder), acting with a wanton recklessness that manifests itself as an extreme indifference to the value of human life (depraved heart).

Now for the victims of aggression, war amounts to self defense. It's pretty hard to make that case in what we are doing.

[iris27]

12. War is begun with the full knowledge that people will die as a result of your actions.

So, yes.

[noamnety]

17. I'm saying you can't claim it's an accident if killing civilians is a given.

If we know nowadays that the current statistics show that 90% of the casualties of a war action will be civilian, it's not accurate to label that an accident.

"According to Lt.COL. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeu´s counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq the US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qaída leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. That´s a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral."
-- http://andersfogh.info/2009/10/26/on-civilian-casualties-in-afghanistan/

[anonymous171]

19. Yes, unless it is waged in self-defense and as a last resort. nt

[Dangerman]

16. Agreed.

[xchrom]

4. Why would you post such useless poll? Nt

[Goldstein1984]

6. The "soldiers killing children" question is telling

One would think that the question might simply address the obvious moral distinction between killing a child intentionally and killing a child when one had no idea a child might be killed.

In the case of soldiers looking children in the eyes, or the back of the head, and pulling the trigger, I would argue it is pure murder with all the moral implications.

If a person thought were shooting at a legitimate combatant, and only discovered later that it was a child, then it would be accidental with all the moral implications of an unintentional act.

If a person remotely piloting a Predator drone, and the commander in charge of making a decision to fire, launched a missile at a target with a high probability of containing noncombatants without regard to whether there were non-combatants present, I would say there is hardly a difference between knowing they are present and failing to determine whether they a present.

Finally, if the military purpose is obscure and the war is illegal or unjustified to begin with, then I would argue that every death is a war crime.

[el_bryanto]

9. It was intended to be telling - but the assumption around here seems to be

that most killings in war are the second to last - they don't bother to find out whether or not civilians are around, they just start blowing shit up. That couple with the fact that it is unlikely that DU would support any war at any time, is problematic.

Bryant

[Dangerman]

14. When soldiers pull the trigger on people...

They are morally responsible and they are just as guilty as their commander in chief.

We did the exact same thing in Vietnam and the people called us "babykillers".

We now live in a world of video games where the line between "enemy combatant" and civilians are blurred.

[Goldstein1984]

18. Absolutely.

[Deep13]

7. Accidents are something that just happens despite ones best efforts.

Negligence is not an accident. Recklessness is not an accident. Neither is creating a situation where fatalities are likely.

[anonymous171]

8. Tossing a bomb at a terrorist and accidently killing a child in explosion is different

than running over a child in your car because you were reading your favorite book while driving. One is collateral damage, and so not really an accident at all, while the other is a true accident, in the sense that you had no intention to kill anyone and were just being an idiot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[BlooInBloo]

13. Uh, why do you think we have the words "on purpose" and "on accident"?

[iris27]

15. Ugh...it's BY accident. n/t

[noamnety]

20. linguistic detour

"According to Barratt's study, use of the two different versions appears to be distributed by age. Whereas on accident is common in people under 35, almost no one over 40 says on accident. Most older people say by accident. It's really amazing: the study says that “on is more prevalent under age 10, both on and by are common between the ages of 10 and 35, and by is overwhelmingly preferred by those over 35."

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/on-accident-versus-by-accident.aspx

[OHdem10]

21. Intention is what makes it murder.

An accident is just that, an accident. The person did not intend
to kill.

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Really?

Are you really that confused as to the difference?

[Odin2005]

23. WTF? They are TOTALLY different ethically.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Of course- though some accidents are more 'accidental' than others

At one end of the scale, you get the totally unforeseeable unpreventable accident. At the other, you get situations where the accident was not intended, but a person deliberately put him/herself in a situation where accidents are likely to happen (e.g. drunk driving).

[IndianaGreen]

25. If you drop a 500 pound bomb on a house in a village to get at some bad guys

the bomb will also destroy nearby homes and kill a lot of innocent people.

Some will play cute games and say that they only meant to kill the bad guys, but the point remains that they should have never dropped that bomb on a populated area, or been in that country in the first place.