Murder Is Murder Is Murder?

Well, I cant really, except for pointing out that Paul Hill ended up killing not the actual people carrying out the abortions, but people who were pro-choice activists, who happened to be volunteering as "clinic escorts".
Also in my state, if a woman seeks an abortion on her own, it is OK and legal, yet if the woman were to, say, get in a fight in, say, a bar, get hit in the stomach and suffer a miscarraige, then, the person who hit the woman in the stomach gets charged with some form of a murder charge. My question is this - why is the fetus treated, in the legal sense, as a person when the woman is assaulted, but, as a non-person when the woman chooses to have an abortion? None of my pro-choice has been able to give me a satisfactory answer yet.

Interesting thoughts. Yet, I have a question for you, Michael. Do you believe democracy is the best political system out there? If so, why in the world would you encourage people to blatantly disregard those laws? Also, is retribution the example set by Jesus? As believers should we kill all sinners causing the deaths of others? How would witnessing work then? Is murder the only sin we could kill people for?

The difference that is classically made is that the right of rebellion, the right to take up arms against your government only exists in tyrannies. You are justified in killing the political leadership but only if you can't vote them out. If Paul Hill were unable to politically organize and change the law, his actions would have to be judged under a different standard. He'd still be wrong but for other reasons.

Sid: I think you're mistaken. Hill killed an abortion provider, and his armed security guard. I agree that it's difficult to count an unborn child as a person in one context, and not in another. I wrote about that here.

Megan: disregard the "retribution" angle; would Hill have been justified if his motivation was to prevent countless future murders? I don't believe that it was Hill's place to take vengeance on anyone for their past actions, but the real conundrum is whether or not he had a moral obligation to take some action to save the lives of the people that would certainly be killed in the future. (At the logical extreme, suppose Hill killed the doctor while he was in the process of performing an abortion.)

Further, Democracy is pretty good, sure. But no government that allows and encourages the murder of children is all that great, right? Are you saying that Democracy is so good that we should wink and nod at the murder of children in order to respect it?

TM Lutas: You're getting tied up in the larger picture, but consider the specific instances. Don't view either Sharif or Hill as "rebels" against some government, just look at the fact that they tried to kill a mass murderer who was willing, able, and committed to killing lots more in the future. Saying that Hill could have worked to change the law is fine and good, but what about all the babies that would be killed in the meantime? I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Nazi Germany was a democracy too, and people could have worked within that system to end the Holocaust, right? Sure, some people would get killed during the wait, but that's ok?

Interesting point, Michael. I suggest that one should never wink at anything. It's a gesture reminescent of creepy uncles and not really suited for use in public.

On a more serious note, how, then, do you think the government should handle a case like Paul Hill's? Also, wouldn't the more logical thing to do be for Christians to rise up and get the laws changed? I, for one, don't advocate holding to government authority when it clearly is against God's word. Yet, I tend to think it would be best then to change that government instead of merely working against it.

The distinction I think lies in the relationship of the actor (Sharif or Hill) to the victim.

In Sharif's case, Uday could reasonably be viewed as a threat to his life. Sharif is a Shi'ite. As such, Uday and the rest of his family were constant threats to his life. They may not have been imminent threats, but they were threats nonetheless. So, to a degree, Sharif's attempt on Uday's life could be viewed as a form of self-defense. I may be reading too much into his motives here, however, as the self-defense argument requires projecting the general threat of a group onto an individual and that's something not addressed in the article.

Hill, on the other hand, was under no threat from the abortion doctor. There was no reasonable assumption that could be made that the doctor would come after Hill to take his life. In no way, save religiously, was Hill threatened by the doctor.

I think it might be that sense that Sharif was acting in a form of preemptive self-defense that makes his feel somewhat justified while Hill's was not for the very reason that there was no self-defense involved.

And as for the Nazi Germany being a democracy: so was the Soviet Union, so was Iraq, so is Cuba. A rubber stamp democracy is not the same as a functioning democracy. This is not Nazi Germany. The Holocaust could not have been prevented by democratic means then, because by the time it started the country was a democracy only in name; a tyranny in practice. The US is still, for the most part, a functioning republic. Hill could have attempted to work through the system, but he instead chose a more violent path.

Will more die to work through the system? Unfortunately, yes. Is that ok? No, even one unneccesary death is wrong. Democracies and republics are slow to change, but is there a better alternative?

So if Sharif had been a Sunni, or even better, if Sharif has been a Ba'ath party member who was not personally in danger from Uday, it would not have been ok for Sharif to try to kill him?

America is supposedly a functioning democracy, as you say, and yet people have been fighting for 30 years to stop the murder of unborn babies. How long do you think it's necessary to fight within the law before resorting to violence is ok? How many babies must be killed before it is clear that democracy has failed? Is 30 million enough?

Had either of your two scenarios related to Sharif been true, you probably would not be wanting to justify the attempt on Uday's life. In those two cases, the attempted murder would then be perceived as a political assassination attempt instead of an act of self defense. You may have still approved of the act, but you would not be calling it attempted justice.

How long must you work within the law before resorting to violence? That's a personal judgement and I'm not willing to say X is the threshold that cannot be crossed.

I never said we are a functioning democracy. I said we are a functioning republic. That makes for a big difference in a case like this.

The people do not decide whether or not something is legal or illegal, they only get to decide who the people making that legality decision are. If you want to change something, you have to work to influence the decision makers.

In the case of abortion, the pro-choice side has done a better job of influencing those decision makers. I'm seeing the pro-life side making strides towards effecting actual change through the system, but they still have work to do.

If you want to change the abortion laws, you work on (legally) changing the opinions of Congress and in particular the Senate (due to their power to confirm the federal judges). This can be accomplished either through lobbying or through the election process.

At any point, you are certainly free to reject the laws of society to pursue your own beliefs, just as Paul Hill did. And in doing so, you risk the wrath of the very society you have rejected. And if enough people do so, we will devolve into a state of anarchy.

And then, when the society is reconstituted, what do we replace the failed republic with?

Chris: "Had either of your two scenarios related to Sharif been true, you probably would not be wanting to justify the attempt on Uday's life. In those two cases, the attempted murder would then be perceived as a political assassination attempt instead of an act of self defense. You may have still approved of the act, but you would not be calling it attempted justice."

Sharif's circumstances were irrelevent to me, I only mentioned those alternate scenarios because they seemed important to you. Even if Sharif has been Sunni or Ba'ath, killing Uday would have been perfectly justified.

Functioning democracy or republic, immaterial in this instance. Either way, killing abortion doctors is illegal, there's no disputing that.

Are you saying that everything that's illegal is ipso facto illegal? I don't buy that. Some laws are unjust, and the whole crux of this issue is whether or not the laws that protect abortion providers are unjust themselves.

You asked for a distinction between the action of Salman Sharif and that of Paul Hill. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Sharif did have some circumstantial basis for self defense whereas Mr. Hill did not.

Would he have been justified in his assassination attempt had he been Sunni? I believe so. You're correct in that the circumstances don't change the fact that the attempt on Uday was morally justified, they only change the justification for it.

As for your second issue, there are some laws that are unjust; there are laws that need to be changed. But there is a system in place for changing them. The fact that a law says something is illegal does make it illegal, yes. It does not make it just or right.

So you believe the laws protecting abortion providers are unjust. Okay. I personally am on the fence on this issue so I have no strong opinion one way or the other.

But are you suggesting that someone engagaed in what is currently a legal profession should have any less right to life than you? Are you suggesting that the pro-life side should engage in vigilantism? Should otherwise normal citizens take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner of people that they view as murderers?

If you don't like the law, work to change it through the system. If the system isn't working for you, work to change that.

Murdering abortion doctors does nothing to actually rectify the unjust law or the slowness of the system. It only works to polarize the issue, making rational discourse unlikely to impossible.

How does that help the pro-life cause?

I'm not suggesting that anyone engage in vigilantism, I'm just saying that I can't figure out a reason why it would be morally unacceptable to do so.

I'm also not worried so much about advancing a "cause" in the abstract, as much as in protecting the lives of actual human beings. Working through the system is fine and good, but the babies being murdered are actual living people, not just intangible hypotheticals to be debated over. It may not really hit home emotionally, but that's the fact of my belief. Arguing that it's ok for them to be murdered based on some principle of democracy or legality just doesn't hold water.

"Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

The moral aspects of the thing are not at issue, really. Self-defense, or the defense of an innocent other, can justify any degree of homicidal violence. (If you doubt this, you've never thought the matter all the way through.) The trick is getting whoever's judging you to see things in that light. Depending on circumstances, that can be quite a task.

The reason we exhort others not to take the law into their own hands is not that it's wrong, but that it's messy. Once the law is corporatized by the institution of government, the judicial system must undertake to judge every act which might conceivably be a violation of law. In other words, it must put the vigilante on trial and compel him to justify his actions. So, in a society with an adequate judicial and penal system, nothing is gained and something -- the resources the vigilante must use to defend himself against the charge that he himself is a criminal -- is lost.

Of course, there are societies without adequate judicial and penal systems, where "adequate" means not merely "effective and efficient" but also "trustworthy and uncorrupted." And there, vigilantism is not merely acceptable, but morally required.

Michael Williams - You suggest I forget the larger picture. But it's only the larger picture that provides the context necessary to distinguish between the acts. Society exists, and by existing constrains us from acting as we might otherwise act without blame.

What makes it noble to kill the wayward tyrant while it is execrable to kill the wayward president? In the latter case, society has provided an alternate method of correcting the problem. Paul Hill had alternate methods to resolve the issue without violence and chose not to use them. Going to the violent solution first is simply not moral.

"Going to the violent solution first is simply not moral."

First? The political process has been the chosen method for three decades, and has cost 30 million lives.

And Uday was far more "wayward" than any American president I can think of. If an American president did what Uday had done (and would continue to do so), gunning him down in the streets would be justifiable as well.

I like Francis' quote from Heinlein.

Understand, I generally feel the same as TM Lutas does. The problem is that I can't morally justify it.

Let's say your were visiting a reproductive clinic and you agree to keep an eye on a baby while the mother steps out to smoke a cigarette. While you're waiting some guy makes a delivery of a funny styrofoam container. You ask him what's in the container and he answers that it is 4000 fertilized human eggs cells.

Anyway you continue waiting, wondering where the mother is, when there is a large explosion causing a sudden fire. You only have few seconds to act, forcing you to make the choice of saving the 4000 fertilized eggs or the baby. There is not time to save both. Which do you save? The 4000 eggs or the living breathing baby? Justify your answer.

Some of the strongest and most passionate advocates for the life of the unborn are people who were former abortionists or owners of abortion clinics (it is a business after all, not a "service"). Who's to say that God didn't have a plan to change this "doctors" heart and use him for His good purpose. When we make the choice to kill another human we are saying "my plan for this person is better than what God might have planned for their life". We have to trust God and remember that His ways are not our ways, and let Him choose when a persons life is over.

Jonag: I disagree. God specifically endorses capital punishment, for instance. And as Heinlein said, "Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do." (Thanks Francis, I love that.)

Lurker: that's a deceptive question. It presents a false choice -- choosing whether to save someone from death from external circumstances is not the same as deciding whether or not to actively cause their death. That's a topic philosophers have debated for ages with little conclusion, so I'm not going to let you take their equivalence as an assumed truth.

Michael,
It's a pefectly valid question, even if answering is difficult for you. The situation being discussed here bares directly on what makes a human being. Questions like the one I provided are tools that can help us think about this.

If it were a choice between saving 4000 babies versus 1 baby, the situation would be difficult, but the answer would be easy. What is so difficult about my question?

It's not that your question is "difficult", it's that I feel it has no bearing on the situation at hand. I'm not going to concede your assumption that having to decide who to save from external threats is equivalent to deciding whether or not to actively threaten.

So I'm going to refuse to answer because if I do, you will change the subject and start talking about my answer rather than the topic at hand. If you can some how link your question to the topic, then I will answer it, but I doubt you will be able to do so, since many philosophers have tried, unconvincingly.

"Jonag: I disagree. God specifically endorses capital punishment, for instance."

Just curious, Michael, but what, exactly, makes you say that got endorses capital punishment? Do prefer to follow the Old Testament on this issue and not the New? If so, why?

(that 'got' should have been God. Sorry.)

If you'd like a NT reference, check out Romans 13.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Michael,
Please allow me to approach an answer from 2 sides. 1) The side that the 'philosophers' haven't been able to address for centuries, 2) how it relates to your original question...

1. What is the moral difference between someone being wrongly killed versus allowing them to wrongly die? Obviously, one could improve or degrade one's own morality, by commiting murder, or not, or buy saving a life or not. But wouldn't the same goodness be gone from the world, if someone chose to murder, or not to save? And wouldn't the same goodness remain in the world if someone chose not to murder, or to save? The scales balance. Symmetry.

2. You are asking if it is morally equivalent to assassinate a murderous dictator or an abortion doctor, based on the number of future 'murders' that could be avoided. The underlying assumption is that abortion is equialent to murder. So, your question can't be resolved until it has been determined under what circumstances this can be confirmed or denied.

Since you very likely knew this when you posted your question, I'd thought I'd oblige and give you the argument that you were really looking for. My question is just a feeble attempt at engaging you in a dialog toward that end.

Since this topic is very sensitive and I have no desire to offend, if it turns out that you don't care for this type of discussion, just say the word and I'll go away.

Sigh.

1. Yes, that's the common arguement that's made. No, it is not sufficiently convincing to close the case. See, for example:
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000414.html

2. Yes of course, my point is that if abortions of convenience are murders, then it must logically be acceptable to kill abortion doctors. That's the conclusion that I can't escape, and I don't think all the posturing by pro-lifers serves any good purpose other than keeping the peace, such as it is.

Many people have, through these comments, tried to convince me that even if one accepts the premise that abortions are murder, it still isn't ok to kill abortion doctors. But I'm not convinced; it seems pretty clear to me, despite the fact that I don't want it to be so.

The distinction is based on common societal mores and beliefs. Although Pro-Lifers may believe with consuming passion that abortion is murder, and thus an abortion doctor is a murderer, that belief is not universally shared in American society... in fact roughly 50% of the American population disagrees with the very premise.

Contrast this with Uday Hussein, who, even by Arab standards, was considered unconscionably brutal and murderous.

Advocating the murder of abortion doctors is essentially adhering to a private morality. Sure there is a significant subset of the population who may agree with you, but there is an equally significant subset that does not. The attempted assassination of Uday Hussein is uncontroversial, precisely because of the near unanimous agreement that he "needed killin".

Would it have been moral for somebody who opposed the war in Iraq to have assassinated President Bush based on a sincere belief that the war would kill innocent Iraqis?

Ah but Matt, morality doesn't derive merely from popularity. If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? &c. That's the essential basis of the "but we're a democracy!" argument that I've already rejected, for many reasons explained above.

Of course it doesn't, but you asked for a distinction between Sharif and Hill. I can only assume your question was "Why does everybody think it's OK for Sharif to have tried to kill Uday but it wasn't OK for Hill to have killed an abortion doctor?" If you were looking for another distinction please clarify.

Besides, you really haven't addressed the point about law and private morality. When do your personal beliefs, no matter how sincere or truly held, justify you breaking the law?

Again, would you have supported the assassination of Bush by an anti-war protester who truly believed he was saving innocent Iraqi lives?

I'm rather disturbed by what I see as your condoning of murder when it suits your religious and political beliefs and would like to see you clarify your position. I generally enjoy your blog and writing, and I tend to agree with most of your positions, but this post seemed beyond the pale.

Good point Matt, that is a distinction, just not one I happen to agree with. Since I'm mainly trying to convince myself, I discounted it.

The rest of your question hinges on whether or not you believe there are such things as absolute right and wrong, external to anyone's personal beliefs or opinions. I do, and so it's easy for me to answer your question.

One should never break the law merely because the law violates your personal beliefs. The question you should ask is, rather, "is breaking the law justified when the law violates what is objectively right?"

If you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, then this question will be nonsensical to you, and we will be discussing entirely different things, at cross-purposes.

I haven't condoned murder. It may be a technicality in your mind, but what I'm trying to determine is whether or not Paul Hill's actions were murder, or not. Emotionally I feel they were, but I cannot support that logically.