Question When is the act of killing children 'evil' and when is it not?

[applelover]

Do you think that it is interesting how certain events result in a violent public reaction compared to others?

For instance when you break it down Philpott killed 6 children by accident in an attempt to achieve his goals. He is rightly found guilty of manslaughter. There is public outrage fuelled by an intense level of media attention. Collective discourse determines that Philpott is evil.

However this story is also in the news:

Up to 12 civilians - 10 children and two women - are reported to have been killed and six women are believed to have been injured in a Nato air strike in eastern Afghanistan.

Again if you break this down the pilot has killed 10 children by accident in an attempt to achieve his goals and those of NATO.

There will be no criminal sanctions taken against either the pilot or NATO. There will be no public outcry of anger. The incident will be described a collateral damage.

Disclaimer

I am simply asking a question and have reached an opinion myself. I'm playing devils advocate and so please don't come at me with righteous Daily Mail fuelled indignation as you do not know what my opinion is?

 

[steveo]

Well the nato airstrike was obviously intended to hurt some baddies. Philpott was putting his kids at risk for his own benefit.

 

[Jam_Man]

Thats a bizarre comparison.

The pilot was ordered to attack a specific target in a war situation.

Philpott set fire to a house he knew his kids were in.

 

[h turner]

stupid comparison and thread

 

[applelover]

Hi Steveo and Jam_Man

Does that mean that state sponsored manslaughter is different from individual manslaughter? Doesn't that leave us with the following situation?

(i) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by states to meet political ends should not be considered criminal.
(ii) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by individuals to meet personal ends should be considered criminal.

 

[h turner]

Hi Steveo and Jam_Man

Does that mean that state sponsored manslaughter is different from individual manslaughter? Doesn't that leave us with the following situation?

(i) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by states to meet political ends should not be considered criminal.
(ii) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by individuals to meet personal ends should be considered criminal.

the second situation and the phillpot case its self is with the intention to perform a ridiculous act with obvious flaws and dangers attached in order to look like a good father to the court who had already established he is a violent and absusive animal who should not have custordy of his own children whilst the first situation is not in the same league.

 

[A Century United]

Hi Steveo and Jam_Man

Does that mean that state sponsored manslaughter is different from individual manslaughter? Doesn't that leave us with the following situation?

(i) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by states to meet political ends should not be considered criminal.
(ii) The accidental death of children arising out of actions by individuals to meet personal ends should be considered criminal.

How many more children will die if the Taliban are allowed to take over in Afghanistan again? How many women denied the chance of an education? How many people stoned to death for infringing the Taliban's particular take on Sharia law - or for being Gay?

It always surprises me how people (not necessarily you, applelover) with left-of-centre views, who advocate Human Rights and Equality for all, are so very squeamish when it turns out that defending those rights involves actually fighting for what you believe in? Or is it better to abandon those people (the vast majority of whom don't want the Taliban in charge) to the tender mercies of a bunch of stone-age thugs and turn one's back on them?

Your question above is simplistic and designed purely to reinforce your World-view. Perhaps you ought to think a bit more deeply about the almost impossible choices we are faced with when the World contains so many people who not only regard Nato's (in this case) efforts to avoid killing civilians as a sign of weakness, but actively target civilians as a matter of policy?

 

[applelover]

Here is the legal definition of manslaughter

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Could you argue that an air strike without adequate knowledge of who was in the area at the time is manslaughter? Does this not show a failure of duty, excessive risk etc etc?

 

[applelover]

How many more children will die if the Taliban are allowed to take over in Afghanistan again? How many women denied the chance of an education? How many people stoned to death for infringing the Taliban's particular take on Sharia law - or for being Gay?

It always surprises me how people (not necessarily you, applelover) with left-of-centre views, who advocate Human Rights and Equality for all, are so very squeamish when it turns out that defending those rights involves actually fighting for what you believe in? Or is it better to abandon those people (the vast majority of whom don't want the Taliban in charge) to the tender mercies of a bunch of stone-age thugs and turn one's back on them?

Your question above is simplistic and designed purely to reinforce your World-view. Perhaps you ought to think a bit more deeply about the almost impossible choices we are faced with when the World contains so many people who not only regard Nato's (in this case) efforts to avoid killing civilians as a sign of weakness, but actively target civilians as a matter of policy?

The legitimacy of the Afghan war is not the issue I am raising.

Hypothetically say in the near future it is proven this case involved a dereliction of duty, undue risk, and criminal culpability from NATO do you think that we would have such a collective emotional reaction to it as we have to the Philpott case?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Can't believe applelover or anyone would think these two situations have any real kind of similarity. Philpott put his own children, his own flesh and blood, people he purports to love at risk. That's why the two situations are so different.

 

[Neil_F]

I'm very far from being an expert on this, but a declared conflict such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan would be governed by the Geneva Convention. I suppose it would be possible to bring a charge of war crimes under the Convention if it could be demonstrated that NATO knowingly took action that would place civilians in danger. I'm not a lawyer though.

On the moral aspect, there is often a distinction drawn, fairly or not, between individual and state action. For example, many people would say that it is wrong for an individual to carry a knife as a deterrent against attack. Many people would also agree that it is right for the UK to deploy a nuclear capbility as a deterrent against attack.

In this case, and I don't know the details of the NATO incident, I would say that Philpott deliberately put his children at risk in the pursuit of his own objective. I don't think the lives of the civilians were deliberately put at risk, even though the end result is the same.