You’ve identified where the distinction lies, but missed the reason why there is a distinction.
It is entirely appropriate to take different actions against an agent vs. a force of nature. One can’t deter nature, and nature shows no intent. Agency matters. The most dangerous threats to humans are other humans.
(Except for aging, about which people are particularly crazy, but that’s a special case.)
It’s not just that. A lot of our ethical injunctions need to be suspected during wartime, thus it makes sense to be suspicious of attempts to make use of this loophole by expanding the definition of “war”.
You’ve identified where the distinction lies, but missed the reason why there is a distinction.
It is entirely appropriate to take different actions against an agent vs. a force of nature. One can’t deter nature, and nature shows no intent. Agency matters. The most dangerous threats to humans are other humans.
(Except for aging, about which people are particularly crazy, but that’s a special case.)
In what sense? Other humans are certainly not very high on the list of top causes of death.
They are somewhat high on the list of top black swan events, however.
Not as in “murder” but as in omission or acting in self-interest (and tragedy of the commons).
It’s not just that. A lot of our ethical injunctions need to be suspected during wartime, thus it makes sense to be suspicious of attempts to make use of this loophole by expanding the definition of “war”.