Homocide, War, Murder, and Their Distinctions

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story, and posed three questions related to the subject matter of that story. The first query was whether or not the US government should apologize for past misdeeds. The other questions were "Are killings justified if they might achieve a greater good?" and "Is there a difference between a person killing a person, and a government killing a person, or set of people?" My responses to all three questions are below.)

First, to answer the first question posed: yes, the US government should apologize for atrocities committed by the US government, even if they were committed 40 years ago.

As for the more in depth, philosophical question... I believe that the six commandment is absolute. "Thou shalt not murder." Now, that response actually begs the question a bit, because the real question here is, "Which homocides are murder, and which aren't?" We know, for instance, that we are supposed to defend the poor and fatherless (presumably those least able to defend themselves) as per Psalms 10.

Vengeance, on the other hand, is the Lord's alone (Deut. 32:35, Romans 12:19, Hebrews 12:30, etc.). There is some room for further inquiry here, however, since Psalm 149 does talk about God's people carrying two-edged swords so as to execute God's vengeance upon the heathen (v.6). (Also note Luke 22:36 on defensive preparedness.)

The question remains: is it acceptable for a Christian to kill someone in a non-defensive manner? First, let me clearly define "defense." According to Dictionary.com, to defend is to "make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm." So, in its purest form, defense may be considered the repulsion of an attacker, i.e., from one who would inflict harm on one's self, or upon the person of another, or, finally, upon one's property.

This last bit, the defense of property, cannot, in my view, warrant homocide without mitigating circumstances, such as a deadly weapon's use in the thief's taking of said property. The famous passage about an "eye for an eye" is, contrary to popular interpretation, clearly a limitation on punishment to those punishments which fit the crime, so I feel pretty comfortable saying that we as Christians are not to shoot people for, say, stealing popsicles, or, heck, even televisions.

With the property question out of the way, the question becomes, "Under what circumstances may I righteously kill someone in defense?" Because no man knows the hearts of other men, save God, then no man can be seen as righteous when he engages in a preemptive attack. We cannot know the intent of others beyond what they tell us, and what we actually see them do. Therefore, a man's arming of himself cannot be cause to kill him, although this prescription may change if the man arms himself after he declares, "I am gonna get my gun and kill you!" In such a case, the offender, even if he meant to joke but was unclear, may be seen as having exposed himself to bodily liability through his actions. So the standard comes down to some sort of "reasonable belief" on the part of the defender that his life or limb may be in danger.

What then of government killings? I think that this is relatively easy to answer. There is no such thing. An individual (or in some exceptional cases, several individuals) always commits the act necessary to effect the killing. The real question is whether or not an individual is permitted to kill an innocent at the whim of the state (i.e., politicians). My answer, as a world-hating, God-fearing Christian must be an emphatic "no." There is no reason to believe that a murder committed "in the line of duty" (read: "on the job") is less reprehensible than a personally-motivated killing.

Most important to me in this discussion is the issue of collateral damage. This concept can only be justified by a consequentialist ethic, such as utilitarianism. The scriptures, remarkably (actually, not so remarkably, given their divine inspiration) anticipate such ethical farces as utilitarianism. Romans 3:8 clearly declares that it is antithetical to God's law that we should say, "Let us do evil, that good may come".

If, then, we are forced to abandon the consequentialist analysis of right and wrong, we are left with a much easier system of judging right from wrong. We no longer must painstakingly attempt to predict the outcome of a particular action in order to determine its moral status. If the action is wrong in and of itself, it is wrong to perform--finis! We are, frankly, left with the obvious system here. We are to abhor those acts which are not in keeping with God's law (the law, as far as this anarchist is concerned). The taking of innocent life, even for a "good cause," is not permissible. The theft of property, even for a "good cause," is not righteous.

In summation, (1)no, the "greater good" cannot justify a killing, (2)and no, there is no qualitative difference between organized killing and unorganized killing. Although, as to this last point, the scriptures do reflect a holy disdain for warlike peoples, stating (through David), "scatter thou the people [that] delight in war" (Psalm 68:30b).