An individual killing another person, and a government's military killing foreign soldiers is only a "morphological coincidence"? And that doesn't strike you as gaslighting?

Is the murder exception for self-defense "gaslighting"? To this lawyer, killing is not a legally cognizable event. Manslaughter and murder, with all of their elements (of which causing death is one) and subject to all of their defenses, are crimes. If killing in self-defense isn't murder, why is killing in defense of one's group's survival wrong? At least, why would that argument be called "gaslighting." (I've seen the movie, and I don't like the current usage of the term.)

Likewise, the question of whether tranquility is the highest value may be worth some thought, but the argument that a distinction can be made in favor of a taboo that protects it but does not ban war is not dishonest.