Yes. The question of whether the Ten Commandments, for example, refer to the taking of human life generally, or are limited to the _unsanctioned_ taking of life:
Main points of interpretative difference: Killing or murder
formatting link
And, of course, there's the whole "ask permission" vs. "beg forgiveness" thing.
Frank McKenney
--
There us a curious principle in human affairs according to which the
larger the number of people who can be persuaded or forced into
certain beliefs or courses of action, the more stubbornly they will
persist in them. Religious dogmas, ideologies, and wars tend, by
this principle, to develop an almost lunatic momentum, until nothing
can stop them except some equally lunatic counterforce.
-- Charles Fair / From the Jaws of Victory
Given the timescales involved it is more effective means of suppressing = is likely to be all of it. Thus not really less violent by nature, but usually having more options to apply.
Property rights are not the straightforward thing you assume them to be. Check some of the notions of the various pre-columbian Americans and some of the South Pacific, Austrailian, and African tribal ideas on the subject. Quite a few are very different from Western European ideas. =46or that matter consider the differences between English inheritance = laws and Napoleanic inheritance laws.
Didn't mean to imply that I thought they were... still, a lot of the differences in outlook on human behavior comes from what Robin Hanson calls "farmer vs. forager" mores.
Absolutely, although I'm most familiar with Amerind versions.
Ooh, good point - it's always easy to overlook Napoleonic systems.
When you put the word "sanctioned" in front of the word "murder", you are describing a null set. So my idea of "sanctioned murder" is that it is... a null set.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by it other than that.
=46irst i have of this distinction, and just stating it makes sense to = me. It also adjusted the alignment of some of my ides. I found it helpful. Thranx.
The winners write the histories, among other things...
"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? " - Robert Strange Macnamanara, "The Fog of War"
The "unsanctioned" in the term "unsanctioned murder" is redundant. I agree, it's something that, if I were more carefully editing the prose, I would have done differently.
I have read British historians who don't think that was the case.
Consider our own casualty estimates for invasion of the home islands of Japan; now add the effects of US resupply ( if not outright participation ). The Nazzies also hadn't done as thorough a job of bombing the bejeezus outta Britain as we had Japan.
We were the swing element in that war, and we pretty much picked the winner.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.