The definition of murder was "manipulated" around the time of the second world war to include the world "unlawful".
Find an old dictionary (circa 1930) and look up the definition of murder. It mentions only a "premediated killing".
This is an unpopular opinion, especially with the "perpetual war" that we have to endure, but if you kill another person regardless of the justification, even if it's your job, or they wronged you, then you are a murderer. That includes the people who perform the executions and all soldiers. Putting a label on it or changing semantics doesn't make it ok.
(This was downvoted immediately obviously by a supporter of murderers)
That is interesting, but "murder" has a clear definition in 2011, and I don't think that using the 1930 definition in 2011 clarifies communication.
Of course, there are valid moral points to be made here, but if you want to make those you should make an ethical argument, not just play semantic games. (Please don't, it's way off topic on HN.)
I won't go further than to say that when semantics are change by politics, we all lose. Legitimising murder in the name of war and justice is a slippery slope.
"An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind." (Ghandi).
It's sometimes necessary to use violence in order to create disincentives for it, and discourage others from engaging in it.
Ghandi is a good guy and all, but he isn't always right:
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. - Ghandi, 1940
1930 was not the first time murder and killing were made distinct, by a long shot. One ancient example is Mosaic law, which forbids murder, yet commands capital punishment for certain crimes (including murder). Actually, I'd bet that your point of view is a very modern one. Can you cite an ancient source for it?
There is a lot of unjustified killing in the world, I'll grant you that. But all killing is murder? I can't agree. If you see a suicide bomber about to blow himself up in a mall, and you kill him, saving everyone's lives there, I would not call that murder. I would call that heroism.
This was down-voted because you attempted to express your opinion as a fact. If you look at even older religious texts, you'll find that murder is not condoned while capital punishment and war are considered justified.
I think I lean towards your opinion ... capital punishment leaves me with a lot of questions, but I also think there are cases where it's clear-cut. I guess I'm thankful that I'm not the one dripping the poison into prisoner's veins.
The definition of murder was "manipulated" around the time of the second world war to include the world "unlawful".
Find an old dictionary (circa 1930) and look up the definition of murder. It mentions only a "premediated killing".
This is an unpopular opinion, especially with the "perpetual war" that we have to endure, but if you kill another person regardless of the justification, even if it's your job, or they wronged you, then you are a murderer. That includes the people who perform the executions and all soldiers. Putting a label on it or changing semantics doesn't make it ok.
(This was downvoted immediately obviously by a supporter of murderers)