[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

No, the onus is on you here - when using a moral absolutist approach, how are the two acts different? Please tell me.

Is it a jurisdictional issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands is ok because Canada doesn't have jurisdiction over a Canadian soldier in Country X. If so, that would make Vince Li less morally culpable had he killed and beheaded a person in Country X, because Canadian courts couldn't take jurisdiction over the case. Using your logic, of course.

Is it an elements of the offence issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands requires the soldier to contribute to a killing with intention. If so, that would make Vince Li equally culpable only if he also contributed to the killing with intention. Except a Canadian court of law has already found that he did not have the required intention to sustain a conviction for murder. Therefore, a soldier with intent + contribution is more morally culpable than Vince Li with contribution only. Using your logic, of course.

Is it the issue of the victim's role in the killing? ex: a soldier killing a foreign soldier who is a willing combatant on the battlefield. However, by law, consent has nothing to do with this. Both under international humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions) and domestic criminal law (Criminal Code), a person cannot consent to being murdered. Therefore, a soldier killing on the battlefield is just as morally culpable for claiming a victim of murder as Vince Li is. Using your logic, of course.

So, which is it? How is it different? The exception you are carving out - and you certainly are carving one out - comes from a place of emotion and bias, not rational logic.

Where did I provide any kind of pretext about how I feel about war or the moral issues associated with it?