Warfare permits soldiers to kill their opponents. Gang members do likewise in turf wars. Both types of fighter claim they try to avoid killing innocent civilian bystanders. Legalities aside, what is the moral difference between them?
by 
palmagma
ANSWERS: 5
-
I wouldn't say any war grants permission, so much as causes necessitation. That being said, gangs are very similar to governments in the sense that they protect their members. Morally speaking, when a government/gang declares war, the constituents of that government/gang are ok with it (at least to the point that they've surrendered part of their free-will (the right to not participate in war) in exchange for day-to-day protections that the government/gang offers). However, the attacked parties, and civilians caught in crossfire probably aren't ok with it. An invaded country/city probably doesn't see much difference between soldiers running around killing other soldiers, and gangsters running around killing other gangsters.
-
I agree with everything Jeah wrotte, great answer. My answer will have to be that even if both parts are alike, gangs aren't as mature as the armys... A gangbanger will probably shread everything with an UZI, while a trained soldier will be much more causious. Also the army doesn't fight other contries because of lack of respect or because they moked their name in a song. The moral difference between them is that gangs committe crimes and look only afer themselfs, beeing most of the times composed by immature people. Some gangs might be better i don't know...
-
One is killing for the country and the other is killing the country. A big moral difference.
-
Morally, all conflicts depend on what the fight is about. In WW II, the fight was primarily about defeating Hitler's armies, and it's not hard to make a case that this was a just cause. Of course, plenty of bad things happen in an undertaking of that scale, but overall Hitler was bad enough to justify taking up arms to take him down. Not all wars are so morally justifiable -- probably most are not justifiable. In those cases, the war may well be about the same as drive-by shootings from a moral standpoint. The basic rule of assessing moral value is that you have to look at the widest scope of relevant concern: in a war, the scope is pretty large, and the number of things to be considered may be huge. In a drive-by shooting, the scope is much smaller and it's not too hard to come to a conclusion. This difference in scale makes it easier to disguise war as something honorable, there are more ways to hide the rationale.
-
1. War is legalize through justification why we go to war. Killing is necessary. War has its own rules. Religion allows for the killing and it it not considered immoral. 2. Gang warfare is not legal so if they kill anyone, it is a crime. Religion considers killing here immoral because there is no legal justification. No matter how you try to separate the legal part from the religious part, you can't, especially with war, because war is political.
HoboJoe RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC