Ah, well, I wasn't clear enough, I shouldn't have written murdering with its preoccupation of feeling without more explanation. What I meant is that many of these distinctions, including the distinction between killing and murdering, are dependent upon an evaluation of feeling. The difference between first degree and second degree murder is usually a distinction of intent, of how 'cold-blooded' and deliberate the crime was. Manslaughter however can be considered almost 'accidental,' devoid of intent, or "intentional," in which case it's full of feeling, rage or revenge, etc. I don't think that the gunman who kills for hire is considered more 'morally repugnant," but rather the person who has hired him, at least as far as the state dispenses the law and justice. For instance, if a man hires a gunman to kill his wife, the more morally repugnant person is the man, who by virtue of his feeling and connection with the wife is considered to have created the greater wrong, versus the hired gunman who is killing for money. And the courts will make various deals with the gunman in order to have his testimony against the husband. The plea bargain in that sense is a kind of indicator of which party is considered to be more morally repugnant, by the society in general. But basically, yes, I do think that we use feeling or intent as a mitigating factor, extenuating circumstance.
Best,
Rebecca
Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com
-------Original Message-------
From: Peter Howard <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 04/20/03 01:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fw: from the dream we are having
>
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Rebecca Seiferle wrote...
>Hence, I think the distinction between killing which
>takes on the impersonality of killing goats and murdering with its
preoccupation
>with feeling and intent. But in both cases, the defining factor is hidden
within
>the one commiting the act.
Hi Rebecca,
I don't think murdering has a preoccupation with feeling. In fact, it
seems to me that murders committed *without* feeling are often the most
morally repugnant. I mean the hired gunman, who doesn't care who he
kills so long as he gets the money, or the planter of a bomb in a public
place, who doesn't care who are the victims, so long as there's plenty
of 'em.
Curiously, the conventional morality in warfare seems to be the other
way around. It's ok to kill enemy soldiers, so long as you don't know
who they are. When it comes to killing specific people, the 'rules' seem
to become much more coy. (Though the US seems to have made two attempts
specifically to kill Saddam, recently.) It's probably at this point I
come closest to agreeing with Alison about the arbitrariness and
cultural conditioning of such rules.
Best,
--
Peter
<a target=_blank
href="http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/">http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/</a>
>
|