> something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.

I don’t know that anyone thinks a state’s violence against its citizens is less immoral. It’s more that countries are more hesitant to get militarily involved in the domestic affairs of another country because it would mean essentially declaring war against that state. But in a conflict between states, an outsider can more easily support one side militarily without declaring war against the other side.

Historically there was sometimes the idea that citizens are the property of the sovereign to use or dispose of as he sees fit. A lot of historical international law had the view that states have absolute feeedom to conduct their internal affairs however they saw fit.

Luckily we have largely moved past that view.

I think as a purely practical matter, moral outrage is shaped by who controls the information space. If you are a country being invaded, you probably have an organized, well funded communication department to tell your side. If you are an Iranian protestor, not only do you not have that, you don't even have internet at all because the state cut off all means of communication.

Because the international order is fundamentally anarchic, while domestic orders are (supposed to be at least) nomic, structured by law and rights. Yes, there are attempts at creating international law, but these amount to treaties more than a structured, visible, governing law.

There is big difference between somebody starting a war to destroy you and you fight back. Vs people want to live free and their own government kills them so they can be in power.

> one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.

I don’t think that’s a particularly established moral position.

“A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”

That’s from my readings of philosophy.

But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.

>I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.

Who holds this opinion?

>But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.

All of humanity cares less about when a government uses violence against its citizens than wars?

How can you possibly make this generalization when each internal conflict is different just like every war and how difficult it is to measure sympathy

I share your opinion. There's nothing worse than a State killing its own citizens, the ones the state had pledged to protect.

But actually, the largest mass killings in history have been always performed by States against their own citizens and not by enemy states:

- Great Chinese Famine (CCP): 20-30 million dead. - Holocaust (NSP): 6 million - Holodomor (USSR): 3-5 million - Congo mass killings (Colonial Regime + Private parties): 1-5 million - Cambodian genocide (Maoists): 2 million - Armenian genocide (Young Turk / CUP) ...

The list continues, and remains mainly dominated by assassination's of the State against their own citizens. Majorly communist and totalitarian regimes.

Because the Palestinians raped and killed thousands of innocent people, causing the war.

Whereas the Iranian people just want human rights and didn’t do anything to their leaders.

Are you seriously asking this or are you just fucking with us? It’s blatantly obvious why it is different.

> I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.

Which books say that?

> What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?

Acceptable? It's more about the consequences or lack thereof, the incentives

History has shown that pretty much nothing happens to the regime unless two coalitions of countries invade from both sides simultaneously, and that's like, not going to happen