"Thou Shalt Not KILL?"

I was talking with a colleague who knows Hebrew more than I (i.e. he knows Hebrew and I don't) about the Hebrew meaning of the term "kill" in the Ten Commandments. I was curious if there were a good English equivalent of the term, since I either hear things like, "It says, 'Thou Shalt not Kill,' therefore, pacifism" or "Thou Shalt not Murder," hence manslaughter is permissible.  But I hear much more of the former.  I don't know how many times I've heard from the more pacifist crowd, "Thou Shalt not KILL" (even from professors who should know better) which take the verse to prohibit all killing.  Of course, if it prohibits killing in general, that's a prohibition against killing fish, bugs, and plant life.  This, of course, is absurd, since the Old Testament in surrounding contexts permits (and sometimes commands) some killings.

His response:  "[The Hebrew word] is ordinarily restricted to use with humans as the object.  It seems to be used for both voluntary and involuntary killing, so the commandment seems to be urging care not to kill as well as simple prohibition of murder.  In the culture of the time, of course, there was a whole class of sanctioned killing (capital punishment, war) that would not have been included here."


My response: There doesn’t seem to be a good, single English equivalent word, then, at least that I can think of off the top of my head.  “Kill” is far too broad.  “Manslaughter” is too narrow (it includes reckless killing but excludes intentional killing like murder.)  “Murder” is too narrow (since it includes only unjustified, intentional killing of an innocent.)  “Homicide” is too broad (since there are justifiable homicides in self-defense, etc.)    

However the legal term “negligent homicide” seems pretty close, though it’s a lesser offense than murder, so it’s still inexact.

The Latin Vulgate is “Non occides.”  Roughly, don’t kill/slay (but can mean don’t murder in certain contexts).  It might be broader, though, than “interficio.” This is speculation, but if “occides” has a broader semantic range perhaps the Vulgate use had some influence in the choice of the English word "kill." 

On Citizens not Assassinating Abortionists

Terrible Irony

Abortions kill innocent humans.  Now suppose an abortionist knows that he is killing innocent humans.  Such a person deserves to be killed.  Justice (prima facie) permits the killing of the abortionist--at least by one who has legitimate authority to do so.
Ordinary citizens sometimes kill murderers and do so permissibly.  If a school shooting is taking place and an ordinary citizen with a gun finds that the only reasonable way to stop the senseless killings is to shoot the mass murderer, the citizen is within his legal and moral rights to do so.  In fact, as I have argued more than once in this blog, justice (and love) in some cases seem to demand it.

Why then shouldn't ordinary citizens take matters into their own hands and kill abortionists?  One reason, of course, is that to do such is illegal.  One will go to jail.  But are there moral reasons beyond the pragmatic reason of not going to jail?

What if a citizen finds himself in an abortion clinic where the abortionist is about to "crush" and "crunch" a baby, in part to pay for some shiny new rims for her Lamborghini?  Is the vigilante not justified, whereas the person who stops the school shooter is?  Why is the vigilante not justified?

I think he is not.  Here is a sketch of an argument in support of that thought.  One reason for thinking not has to do with the fact that abortions are a systemic practice and abortions are legal (at least some) given legislation passed by a legitimate governing authority.  One has a moral duty to abide by criminal laws promulgated by a morally legitimate political authority, where abiding by such laws does not commit one to doing something that is unjust (on the very reasonable assumption that legitimate governments sometimes pass unjust laws).  In killing an abortionist, one only prolongs the time it will take for abortions to occur--killing an abortionist in a society like ours will result in a dead abortionist as well as dead babies.  There are plenty of other abortionists who will step in to take her place.  In addition, killing an abortionist is not like killing a school shooter in the act of shooting.  Abortions are planned out in advance and do not take place randomly in the eyes of the community.   There are other means one could take to stop the abortionist.  In fact, there are much better means which do not involve killing another human. 

Killing another human being should always be the last resort when it comes to stopping other killings.  Assassinating an abortionist sends a signal to the community that the government is not the final authority (this side of Luna) in matters of life and death.  To do such promotes anarchy against one's government; and the best arguments against anarchy focus on showing that anarchies cannot protect the rights of people more generally better than the government.  The vigilante lacks the moral authority to take lethal action, but acts as if he is a morally legitimate authority and that the government is not.  The same cannot be said for the person who stops a random mass shooting--for one, he has the legal authority to do so from a morally legitimate government.

But what if the U.S. government is not a (morally) legitimate authority, as some anarchists, libertarians, and Marxists have argued?  What if the U.S. government has de facto but not de jure authority?  Then the above argument would need modification.