Serial killing, does the reason why one is killing really separate the fact that one is killing dozens upon dozens of other humans?

If I can wade through the thickets of the convoluted language, I think I agree completely with your sentiment this time.

It depends on the moral code you choose. Morality isn’t an absolute thing – it’s invented.

If you have a morality system where killing is bad, then killing a killer before they are about to kill, might be thought to be better than killing someone who is unlikely to ever kill anyone, because it might result in less overall killing.

However, as you wrote, the usual moral distinction used in mainstream non-pacifist thinking, is that the government-led killers are allowed by law and considered needed or expedient or the lesser of a variety of evils, or are protecting a nation or its interests from a threat, and that that is a choice made at various levels (in the US, by a combination of legislative, judicial, and executive decisions). Of course, even this rationale gets much less clean when one’s government becomes more and more corrupt…

A Buddhist morality might tend to disapprove of any killing, but it might also consider defensive choices to be passable.

There are an arbitrary number of other moral systems which one can choose or invent, which will have different things to say about it.

I am not entirely sure what your topic is here. Are you mainly against the U.S. military justifying killing other people? Or is it just military personnel in general?

I think a line is crossed when someone ENJOYS killing, anything, for any reason. Being forced to kill a human or an animal for personal survival is not the same thing as feeling euphoric over the act. Sooo…if a sniper actually gets off on killing and sees his kills as trophies to be admired, likes to keep little reminders of how many notches are on his killing belt, well….yes, no difference than a serial killer.
I do not believe in glorifying killing of any kind.

@Zaku It depends on the moral code you choose. Morality isn’t an absolute thing – it’s invented.
That is the rub, whenever I try to point that out to people who derive their morality from men, it is presented as something innate and those who deviate from it are debase, evil or something like it, that acts and thoughts are not just what they are.

However, as you wrote, the usual moral distinction used in mainstream non-pacifist thinking, is that the government-led killers are allowed by law and considered needed or expedient or the lesser of a variety of evils, or are protecting a nation or its interests from a threat, and that that is a choice made at various levels (in the US
How one decides to delineate snipering for national interest of personal thrill, the act is the same, at some point you have to dehumanize the prey; the person in the crosshairs. How one makes peace with themselves knowing that nearly every pull of the trigger someone dies, I cannot fathom.

@LDRSHIP Are you mainly against the U.S. military justifying killing other people? Or is it just military personnel in general?
No, snipers have been used by nearly all nations in their military in modern warfare, the 20th century equivalent to the long-range archer. I don’t know how other nations view serial killers, but here in the US it appears they are exceedingly wicked or debase because they have a thing for killing people who pose them no harm, like the Beltway Snipers. But for a person that gets up every day with the intent to line someone up, pull the trigger and end their life, because the government dispatched them, they are not seen as evil, even though they are basically doing the same thing, just for different reasons.

@Coloma I think a line is crossed when someone ENJOYS killing, anything, for any reason
Does dehumanizing your victim to make it easy to pull the trigger on them better? One may not enjoy the killing but they are not going to be sick to their stomach and lose their lunch knowing each time they pull the trigger someone’s head ex-lodes like a melon or their heart is shredded like pol pork, they have to in part desensitize themselves that they are actually taking lives. I am sure there is a difference when you can see the person leaning around the corner firing at you, or charging you on foot, they see you and you see them, but when you see them and they never even had the chance to fire back or duck, it has to be fundamentally different.

One difference between a sniper and a serial killer is that the serial killer chooses their own targets while a sniper has their target(s) selected by their superiors.

Another difference is how targets are selected. Snipers may have a little discretion in certain instances, but not much; even when they do have some leeway, it’s limited to targets matching a certain set of parameters, such as “enemy combatants who are endangering civilians or soldiers of my affiliation”. But for the most part, their targets are selected on the basis of strategic (or, rarely, tactical) value. By contrast, serial killers are pretty much random, and generally don’t really have a reason (beyond entertainment) to kill their target.

One thing that is overlooked here is that the military actually frowns on those who enjoy killing. I know a Vietnam Vet who was denied reenlistement and a second tour because, when asked why he wanted to re-up and go back, he answered (and I quote), “To kill more fucking gooks!”. It may come as a surprise, but even in wartime, the US military doesn’t tolerate that sort of bloodthirst.

Like police and many medical people (especially EMTs and anyone who works ER), snipers may develop a morbid sense of humor in order to cope with the life-and-death nature of their jobs. And snipers may take pride in hitting their target as it requires considerable skill to do what they do. Sure, a sniper doing their job well may mean making people’s heads explode, but you wouldn’t hate a baseball player just because they had a .478 batting average, would you? It’s not wrong to take pride in doing a difficult job well.

Another thing that is conveniently glossed over is the concept of “greater good”. Understandable since, in 2015 America, that concept is considered either fallacious or blasphemous, but look at it this way; if you can kill one person and that death prevents multiple deaths in the future, would you rather get a little blood on your hands, or would you spend many more lives in order to preserve your perceived moral superiority?

All killers are the same. All killing is the same.
The only difference is motive, and it is a trivial difference.
The difference between a soldier and an hitman/assassin is that the latter is honest about why he does it.

There’s a difference between killing out of necessity and killing out of personal enjoyment. That’s why the state can/could sentence someone to death while an individual is not allowed to. The state is, by definition, an institution above the law.

@ragingloli A Soldier is also honest. At least in the US, members of the armed forces swear an oath to obey all lawful orders of their superiors. When their superiors order them to kill, they do so, and the way our society is, it’s usually lawful. What is so dishonest about taking an oath and then living up to it?

They are both killers for hire. The so called “oath” is just part of the charade.

@ragingloli I will grant you that both the soldier-sniper and the serial killer are killers, and any true pacifist would recognize that. However, the serial killer is usually killing out of some psychopathic personal need, where the sniper’s motivation is usually more altruistic, for a cause she or he truly believes in.

”where the sniper’s motivation is usually more altruistic, for a cause she or he truly believes in.”
And that is the dishonesty, because he lies not only to the world, but to himself.

Bottom line, some dangerous humans need to be eliminated for the greater good. How ‘bout a hit man for serial killers, now that would be in the best interest of the greater good.
I’m all for live and let live but…if a grizzly bear is tearing my door down I am going to shoot it inspite of my overall love for all animal species.

@ragingloli So…. only nihilists and sociopaths are honest?

Snipers are sometimes necessary. The main reason for snipers is to spread terror in the enemy. Most U.S.snipers are honest moral people doing a job they’d rather not do. When a person enjoys the job they must be relieved because they have become serial killers. It’s like “Catch 22”. If you like the job you will not be re-enlisted, if you don’t like it they will try to coerce you into staying.