You misstated what I said. Murder is the taking of INNOCENT life. It is not the same as other instances where human life is put to an end. Murder is killing, but all killing is not murder. So, when the state executes a convicted murderer, you don’t have equivalence. The murderer took innocent life. The state took guilty life. Likewise, in war, you have a situation in which you are now in a position of defending yourself. You are not taking an innocent life; you are defending yourself against imminent death. Accidental killings (involuntary manslaughter) is not the equivalent of murder, as I’m sure you are able to deduce from the way the courts deal with those found culpable in such situations. The intent is lacking. Murder involves intent. It involves a willful act of bringing to an end a life that is not threatening to oneself (that’s why the case is well-argued that abortion is murder). Collateral damage might be on a higher plain of immorality, given the result indicates a disregard for the full outcome of, say, a military act (or a defending of oneself), but this, too, fails to rise to the moral equivalent of murder.
Murder is a unique act and exists in a class all by itself. It exists as a moral absolute upon which every human being who has ever lived is utterly aware is wrong. Hence, the presence of a moral absolute is established.
Sort of like theft...different circumstance, different wrongness...still theft. Not an absolute to me. I know there are some people that should be killed/murdered, even before they do something.