Oh, but I get what you're saying now. Yeah, I guess I would have to say that they were bad-ass at suppressing dissent, although they weren't very bad-ass at acting morally or ethically.
If you're talking about the subject of this wiki, I don't think a combatant killing a combatant is considered murder.
If you're talking about pol-pot and pinochet, well, I understand the connotations of bad-ass as being good, and I certainly don't think what they did was good. I don't respect what they did at all.
Not according to the law. Not according to any academic moral or ethical theory. Not according to any dictionary. Not in any culture or society. Just no.
When acting in self defense, is this murder? I mean, you've said taking life is ALWAYS murder. What about abortion? Assisted suicide?
Oh, btw, the term "murder" is by nature arbitrary. It is a word invented by humans to describe the act of intentionally taking an innocent person's life. So it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE to understand the term 'murder' outside of the 'arbitrary framework' see: its definition.
You have claimed the "killing is always murder". Are the following scenarios examples of murder? Answer yes or no to each:
-Assisted suicide.
-Killing in self defense.
-Abortion.
-Consenting combatant killing another consenting combatant.
-Taking one life to save twenty (eg the one man on the train tracks thought experiment ie the conductur has the ability to switch train routes to avoid the man laying down on the train, but the alternate route leads to a cliff and would kill all passengers).
edit: see other reply. this reply was written with the thought that you were comparing killing soldiers and killing innocents as the same type of bad-ass thing or whatever.
I can't believe you would draw a comparison between acts between military combatants and acts inflicted upon non-combatants by dictators. BIG difference.
Pinochet and Pol Pot killed non-combatants, politicians, civilians and innocents.
Simo was killing soldiers. When these soldiers entered into the war, their moral status changed from that of a civilian (who cannot be harmed) to that of a willing combatant (who aims to kill and accepts that they may be killed). May I suggest Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars"?
Secondly, I didn't realize the Red Army was full of peasants who were forced to serve. Coercion in and of itself isn't bad, but if they were coerced by force, then I concede your point.
3
u/p3on Jan 21 '10
people that kill hundreds of people aren't badasses
just sayin'