# Morality Issues and the Military



## Pusa (22 Jul 2007)

Hey forumites,

Although I just signed up, I've been reading a bunch of topics and I've got to complement the community here. Being emigrated and still in high school, I don't directly know anyone in the CF (the closest instance is a classmate in the Cadets) so I never had a real good view of how the men and women in service were like. Compound that with the fact that I live in Vancouver, where one of the loudest voices is that of anti-war rally participants, and I come to shamefully admit that my previous view of the army was somewhat skewered. Reading through this forum, especially the _Why Did/Are You Joining the Armed Forces??_ topic, I found that I share a lot with those serving our country via the CF. I love camaraderie, the possibility of making a real and lasting difference, the country in which I live and the ideals and attitude it represents, and, of course, I have a perverse love of playing working with complicated toys mechanics. Especially expensive ones.

I've always considered a career in the armed forces a viable and honorable path. Here comes the wrench in the works: I am, by philosophy, nonviolent. Hell, I killed a mosquito a few days ago and felt terribly guilty about smooshing the tiny, non-sentient pest that was bound to cause me days of discomfort. Due to the aforementioned atmosphere I grew up in, I've come to believe that tenets of the Canadian identity which I value the most, such as acceptance and free exchange of opinion (among other things ), can't be promoted through the smoking barrel of a gun. I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative. Still, I'm sure I'm not the first to have a dilemna like this. What are your thoughts?

(PS I just imagined an official Canada Un-Armed Forces sitting in the sand, playing guitar and doing other typically Commercial Drive/Art Gallery stairwell activities in the desert.)


----------



## McG (22 Jul 2007)

http://www.opme.forces.gc.ca/engraph/courses/timetable/ps402_e.asp


----------



## Roy Harding (22 Jul 2007)

Pusa said:
			
		

> ...  I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative.
> 
> ...



Me either.

Unfortunately - many times there IS no alternative.  It may be alright to be non-violent in Vancouver - but believe it or not, most of the world isn't like Vancouver.

Good luck to you.


----------



## Trooper Hale (22 Jul 2007)

Good post buddy. Others here i'm sure will explain their views with far more experience then me but i just really want to take my hat off to you and your honesty in posting what you did.
Killing or hurting something is never something most of us would cold-bloodedly do. The forces teach us, i think more then any other occupation, that our actions can have shocking and terrible consequences. My dad is a buddhist and finds what i do to be a real challenge for him to accept, but he knows it isnt just violence we practice and we dont jump on a plane, fly around the world and kill people because we've got nothing else in our calender for 6 months. We mostly do it because we believe in helping others and in making the world a better place, as naive as that sounds.
Theres plenty of careers in any military that dont involve combat. I know plenty of guys who i'd call non violent types. If your into helping others express their opinion, become an engineer so you can build a school that will help them learn to read and write. Drive a truck so you can deliver them books, join ordinance and give them supplies.

I'm still a jube, a new guy, and i know two things, that i've been in long enough to know i don't know anything and what we do overseas is not all about violence and death, its about helping people and nations finally throw off weights of others and stand on their own two feet. Violence is not something Canadians or Australians seek out.
I'm looking forward to reading some of the other responses your post picks up.


----------



## mysteriousmind (22 Jul 2007)

Basically I"m not violence, I think that there is always a way to avoid it. but If have to do it in a crisis situation, and I'm wearing my uniform, then I am no more a mere individual, Ill do what I have to do for the sake of my country.

The army members are not all blood thirsty psychopat torturer executioner. Allot have similar point of view as yours. 

I honestly think that Philosophy  takes little space in you when its time to react under fire and you or your team are getting fired at. Hopefully I will never live it. but... When the going gets tough, the tough gets going


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jul 2007)

Pusa said:
			
		

> Hey forumites,
> 
> Although I just signed up, I've been reading a bunch of topics and I've got to complement the community here. Being emigrated and still in high school, I don't directly know anyone in the CF (the closest instance is a classmate in the Cadets) so I never had a real good view of how the men and women in service were like. Compound that with the fact that I live in Vancouver, where one of the loudest voices is that of anti-war rally participants, and I come to shamefully admit that my previous view of the army was somewhat skewered. Reading through this forum, especially the _Why Did/Are You Joining the Armed Forces??_ topic, I found that I share a lot with those serving our country via the CF. I love camaraderie, the possibility of making a real and lasting difference, the country in which I live and the ideals and attitude it represents, and, of course, I have a perverse love of playing working with complicated toys mechanics. Especially expensive ones.
> 
> ...



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not trolling, although that was my first reaction when I read your post. I am a Christian priest (Anglican) in the military and as such a non-combatant, however, the people that I minister to in uniform all sign on for "unlimited liability." In other words, this is the ARMED FORCES not the peace corps, or DREE or a missionary outfit. All soveriegn nations have to have the ability to control/ enforce the rule of law and their way of life both internally and externally....we have a police force for internal and an armed forces for external. Those Forces must be capable of applying as much force as needed in order to gain the needed result....if nasty people threaten than an escalation of force is needed to make the bad people go away.
The way of life we enjoy in Canada and especially in Vancouver has been bought at a precious price...the blood of our soldiers. If you want to play guitar in the desert join a commune.
(BTW I was a serving Navy Officer before I took Chaplain training so I'm not speaking out of a position of safety....and if my comrades were wounded or dying on the field of battle I would be the first to leap over the berm.)


----------



## Brockvegas (22 Jul 2007)

Pusa, first of all, welcome. Second, thanks for plugging one of my first threads 

Anyways, while I do not personally have an issue with resorting to forceful ways when required as you do, I do understand your situation. That being said, the CF still may not be out of the question for you. From your post you seem to be a well spoken individual, and I would venture to guess you do fairly well in school. There are many non-combat trades that require educated individuals, and ALL TRADES are a necessary contribution to the CF as a whole. You may even want to look at RMC as an option.

Just my .02,
Brockvegas


----------



## Meridian (22 Jul 2007)

However, my additional 0.02 is that every trade in the CF supports every other trade, and, particularly in the Army, Combat Arms.

The RMS Clerk in the rear not doing their job ultimately may mean that you don't have the Inf soldier up front using his/her weapon.  It's all interrelated... it's why they call the Forces one big family/team.

This means that if you are really having moral/philosophical issues, I don't think (IMO) that you would be able to sidestep them by pretending that being an RMS clerk in the army has any less involvement in violence than being an Infantry soldier.  You may not be firing the rifle (And even as an RMS clerk, you could be asked to at any time) but you are directly or indirectly supporting those who do.

This is actually something that I've been throwing around in my head for some time - actually what really started me thinking about it was a Leadership & Ethics workshop back at Prep Year where half of the class came up with some pretty crazy situational answers for what they would do in X scenario.  It clearly isn't an easy answer type thing.  On one side, it is clear that all war will not go away tomorrow, and no matter how much left-wing dreamers and schemers want to rant on about it, it will never force failed or failing states to put down their weapons and go to tea.   This doesn't mean the left shouldn't keep trying for their dream, or that diplomacy should never be attempted, or that some guy shouldn't sit with his guitar out in a field.   But it does mean we need to realize that that field may be covered in landmines, and the landmines don't give a crap about left-wing ideology, and they were certainly planted by someone who doesn't.

I have always relied back on the principles discussed in most Constitutional Law classes or in Poli Sci 101.    
Government exsits to hold the monopoly of force in any society; in doing so it ensures the safety, security and long-term viability of that society. 
Everything else our Government does is secondary to that.   We are lucky to live in a country that by in large is territorially secure, at least with respect to current plausible external threats other than terrorism. This does not mean everyone should believe that no work has to be done to keep it that way.


----------



## Kiwi99 (22 Jul 2007)

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as non-combat trades.  Soldier first, trades second.


----------



## TN2IC (22 Jul 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> Drive a truck so you can deliver them books, join ordinance and give them supplies.




I'm guessing you never been in a CLP?  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jul 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as non-combat trades.  Soldier first, trades second.



You are correct...Army centric...but correct. The Navy always say Sailor first and tradesman second....All CF personnel except the Padres (Chaplains) are required to do weapons training each year and all trades are subject to posting into a theatre of operations where they would be expected to use their weapon if so ordered. Even medical personell carry weapons and would be expected to defend themselves or their patients. There is no such thing as a noncombatant trade. As I stated earlier this is the Canadian ARMED Forces.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Jul 2007)

Pusa said:
			
		

> I've come to believe that tenets of the Canadian identity which I value the most, such as acceptance and free exchange of opinion (among other things ), can't be promoted through the smoking barrel of a gun. I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative.



Interesting post.

While IHS will see you as a provoking troll, I'll take you at face value, a young kid whose been fed a lot of misinformation about the CF. 

 First, this is the type of comment that a lot of people living sheltered lives say.  However, one day, whether you are in the CF or not, you will face a decision.  Do I let myself be killed/seriously injured/mentally scarred for life, or do I do everything I can to avoid that?  This tends to remove a lot of timid 'deer in the headlight' people from the gene pool.  Its up to you whether to call it violence or strong self-preservation instincts. 

 Despite what people may have told you, being able and willing to kill others is not a prereqisite, nor is willingness to use a smoking gun.  Like police officers, a significant number of the CF has never fired a shot in anger, and some are hard put just to fire a weapon at all after basic training.  

 Finally, I grew up in Victoria and Vancouver and Im back living here for the last two years.  There arent as many anti-war protestors around as you indicate, unless you are spending too much time at the universities.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Interesting post.
> 
> While IHS will see you as a provoking troll, I'll take you at face value, a young kid whose been fed a lot of misinformation about the CF.
> 
> ...



I said I was giving benefit of the doubt that she wasn't a troll...that's why I answered. However since that time I notice that she hasn't bothered to participate in the topic she initiated so my first thought about her being a troll is probably correct.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Jul 2007)

IHS, I wasnt criticizing you, only taking a different approach.  But, yes, looks like you were right, it was a troll...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2007)

My Grandfather was a conscientious objector in WWI, yet he served as a stretcherbearer in that conflict, carrying out one of the most dangerous tasks in that conflict and I am very proud of him for it. However in our modern very small military, the number of non-combat roles are few and far between.

You say you have difficulty killing, that is fine as one should never take a life needlessly or thoughtlessly. However how deep does your convictions go? Would you kill to stop someone from harming someone you love? It is easy having strong convictions will sipping a latte in Vancouver, not so easy when you are fighting for your life or someone else’s. 

As it is, the one thing that gives the Military it’s power to achieve something is the willingness of it’s members to enter into combat and risk killing or being killed for a common purpose that has been given by the people of this country. Without that the military is meaningless. If you can not come to terms with the thought that you may have to harm someone or be harmed, then you have no business in the service.

 Unless of course you wish to join as a doctor or a Priest. Both of those roles require their own sacrifices. If you wish to be a pacifist, then you must accept the consequences of that path, as one cannot be “sort of a pacifist” you either are one or a hypocrite. If you are trolling, then you should look at yourself and understand how pathetic that choice is.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> IHS, I wasnt criticizing you, only taking a different approach.  But, yes, looks like you were right, it was a troll...



Seen....I didn't take it as criticism just wanted to make it clear that I suspected her but gave her benefit of doubt. no worries.


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> My Grandfather was a conscientious objector in WWI, yet he served as a stretcherbearer in that conflict, carrying out one of the most dangerous tasks in that conflict and I am very proud of him for it.



Colin,
just finished going through Tug of War, yet again(looking into Whitaker's "implied contract with the Government of Canada argument). There is a very nice descriptive of the stretcher bearers (RHLI) and the conscientious objector status. It seems several were awarded rather high decorations for gallantry despite being labelled as cowards or zombies. One in particular recounts his run in with a NCO who never went overseas upon arriving at the docks in Halifax without a rifle.


----------



## Fusaki (23 Jul 2007)

Col Grossman did a bit on "The Judeo/Christian view of killing" in On Combat. I just got through the book a little while back so maybe I can share a bit of what I was able to pick up.

Grossman starts by telling the story of Alvin York, a young Quaker in WW1. During his basic training, York passed it up his chain of command that he did not think he would be able to do what was asked of him due to the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". One of his officers took him aside and explained the other side of the story. 

"Well, York went on to receive the Medal of Honor by acting with great valour and killing many enemy soldiers. At a critical, crucial moment in our nation's history, when he was needed, Alvin York was on the battlefield with his heart and mind prepared for combat." (Grossman, p343)

Most modern translations and all the original Hebrew translations are not interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but as "Thou Shalt Not Murder". This is a key distinction between the lawfull and unlawful use of lethal force. The Bible refers to King David as a man after God's own heart, despite the praise his people gave to him: "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7 King James Version). And David only got in God's bad books when he murdered Uriah (II Samuel Chapter 11). See the difference? When Jesus said "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" he was speaking to Peter who had drawn his sword (unlawful) against the Roman Guards (lawfull) who came to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:52). A soldier does not "live by the sword" he lives by his duty to protect his home and Country.

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrathupon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4)

And Jesus said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

Personally, I'm not a very religious guy, but I still think Grossman's research is pretty interesting. I'm sure that In Hoc Signo would have something to say on this subject as well.

And my own .02...

This is something you need to deal with before you join the army. Remember, its not just your *** on the line. A soldier's lethality on the battlefield can determine not only his own survival, but the survival of his buddies as well. While the thought of taking life may weigh heavily on your conscience, its better then the guilt of knowing you could have done more to prevent the death of a friend. You need to decide that if you're going to get all messed up, its going to be from dishing out the punishment - NOT taking it. Understand that one day you may need to look through your sight and squeeze the trigger as fast as you can locate the enemy - and do it again and again until the threat is gone. You won't have time to make spiritual peace with yourself right then and there, so you'd better do it beforehand.

The soldier's authority to bear arms is balanced by the responsibility of delivering lawfull, lethal force at crucial times. Its heavy crap, so don't take it for granted.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jul 2007)

Thanks wonderbread....yes I am aware of the Hebrew translation and of course the story of Sgt York....great film too. I once had a guy come to me for counselling on this subject...he was Baha'i but wasn't too sure about all this too. As he was an Aero engine tech i didn't think there was much chance that he would be called on to kill folks but as I stated in an earlier post we all sign for the "unlimited liability" and universality of service. He did get out a few years later but I'm not sure that it was due to religious conviction. It was around the time of the first Gulf War and the possibility of Tac Hel being deployed was on the table.
Heck we have clearance divers here in Halifax who are in the sandbox right now......who ever would have thought they'd be doing that stuff.....and before anyone asks me why they need divers there...think about what they do when they search the harbour floor and the bottom of ships.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Jul 2007)

> _Edit to remove info for PERSEC reasons._



I think there's already a thread going on this... cant think of the title at the moment...


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jul 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Heck we have clearance divers here in Halifax who are in the sandbox right now......who ever would have thought they'd be doing that stuff.....and before anyone asks me why they need divers there...think about what they do when they search the harbour floor and the bottom of ships.



Scraping barnacles?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jul 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Scraping barnacles?



yeah yeah that's it! :


----------



## armyvern (24 Jul 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> yeah yeah that's it! :



It was a gooder though!!  ;D  He's kidding!!


----------



## Staff Weenie (24 Jul 2007)

Here I thought they were diving for spare change thrown from cruise ships......

On topic - I'm actually quite glad that people do debate this issue here. And, I'm also glad that Canadians at large show concern about the absolute finality of taking a life, and the need to ensure our country never undertakes such action without serious thought. I'm also tired of all the 18 year old wannabe ninja-sniper. False bravado is plain foolish, and if they think it's that easy to look through the scope and kill somebody, then they're probably due for a head-check.

Being in the Health Services, I've had quite a few troops who really want to serve Canada, but just can't see themselves in an offensive role. Some quit, especially once it's made crystal clear that they must defend their patient, their unit, and themselves. I've also watched many others come to realise that there is indeed a time and place where one will need to use lethal means to protect our country and values.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2007)

This is one of those topics that many find hard to understand. It's also one of those topics that ANY who are considering joining the CF and those who are members of the CF should seriously consider.

Society in general tells us throughout our entire upbringing that is is abhorrent to kill or to cause harm to others. Get into a fight in the playground, and you are told that that is wrong. You should turn the other cheek. Killing is bad. Many religions state that if you kill, you may very well end up in hell.

Most people who join the military do not do so with the expectation or desire that they will have to kill someone.

But those who serve need to put a lot of those moral issues and upbringing to the side once they join. You see this from the first time you fire your weapon, at a target shaped to simulate a charging enemy soldier.

As a member of the military, you need to be aware that in a conflict, any action you take, duty you perform, or order you give may very well, either directly or indirectly, cause the grievous harm or death of another human being. Wether you are the infantryman with the enemy in your sights, or the vehicle tech who fixed the vehicle that carried the soldiers to a TIC, or the clerk who pays the members, you have played a hand in the action.

While you may go your entire career without first-hand dealing of said situation, you are a part of a large organisation that is prepared to kill.

This isn't done for the sake of just killing. As mentioned, there is a time and a place for any sort of action. But we must be prepared to take that action, and to take that action at a moment's notice, without having any ingrained moral issues causing hesitation, as that may come at a cost of more lives.

If an individual is unable to come to terms with this due to their moral beliefs, they should not join, or stay in the military. There are many different ways to honourably serve ones country and people without actual military service.

But if you cannot, in good conscience, perform acts that may be required of you in the military, you should not be IN the military. Not trying to be callous here, just realistic.


----------



## MG34 (24 Jul 2007)

It's all fine and dandy to blab on about the sancity of life and how you can do no harm...blah blah blah The fact is if you join the CF with these beliefs you are an idiot.Everyone is expected to do their duty and not let down the team,if the unit is involve din combat that means killing the bad guy if you see him first so as to stop he/she/it from harming a team member,you watch their backs they watch yours. If one link in this chain fails the team fails.There are numerous instances of padres, nurses etc having to pick up a weapon and join into the fight,so no trade is immune from having to some day  killing the enemy.
  I find all forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life, and do not tolerate them as a rule, I find it to be the ultimate cop out, a means of shirking one's duty to their country or in some cases community.
  BTW it is not socially abhorrant to kill the bad guy or enemy it is your duty when called upon to legally perform it, murder of an innocent is a different story.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Jul 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> It's all fine and dandy to blab on about the sancity of life and how you can do no harm...blah blah blah The fact is if you join the CF with these beliefs you are an idiot.Everyone is expected to do their duty and not let down the team,if the unit is involve din combat that means killing the bad guy if you see him first so as to stop he/she/it from harming a team member,you watch their backs they watch yours. If one link in this chain fails the team fails.There are numerous instances of padres, nurses etc having to pick up a weapon and join into the fight,so no trade is immune from having to some day  killing the enemy.
> *I find all forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life, and do not tolerate them as a rule, I find it to be the ultimate cop out, a means of shirking one's duty to their country or in some cases community.*
> BTW it is not socially abhorrant to kill the bad guy or enemy it is your duty when called upon to legally perform it, murder of an innocent is a different story.



Bravo, well said!(especially the bold)


----------



## FascistLibertarian (24 Jul 2007)

> I find *all * forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life



So Mennonites disgust you?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2007)

I am willing to respect a pacifist who is totally willing to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs and those beliefs affect everything they do. I just can’t stand the ones who “cherry pick” the benefits and ignore the costs of that belief.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am willing to respect a pacifist who is totally willing to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs and those beliefs affect everything they do. I just can’t stand the ones who “cherry pick” the benefits and ignore the costs of that belief.



+1!


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2007)

Agreed.

While I don't personally agree with Pacificism, I can respect their beliefs. My problem is when they a) are agressive pacifists who think those who don't believe in it are horrible people or b) choose to disregard their beliefs, and put themselves in situations where their beliefs will conflict with their duties, and then expect people to understand and allow them to shirk their responsibilities due to their beliefs.


----------



## MG34 (24 Jul 2007)

The unfortunate result of a "hard core" pasifist is that someone else will have to step in to accomplish what they refuse to do.

As for the Mennoites: At least they supported the war efforts during WW1 and WW2, I don't agree with their principals and beliefs but they do serve a purpose, unlike a spoiled teenager or 20 something that takes up the cause of pasifism because it's in fashion or a way to shirk there responsibilities.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> unlike a spoiled teenager or 20 something that takes up the cause of pasifism because it's in fashion or a way to shirk there responsibilities.



I will definitely give this one to you MG. Living in Ottawa, you tend to come across a lot of University students who've taken this up as a rallying cry, because it's a thing to do....Even though it's their first year away from Mom and Pop, or they're still living in a comfortable suburb with a 2 car garage, with their folks paying for everything.

But I do like to think that many pacifist, wether we see them as misguided or not, do have their own viable reasons for their beliefs. And can practice their beliefs because of us, and so many of those before us.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (24 Jul 2007)

There is no such things as absolute morality.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> There is no such things as absolute morality.



I tend to lean more towards situational ethics, where the morality of an act depends on the context of the act. We all know right and wrong, and I figure if you try to stick to the right of things, you should be allright.

Course, I also like, if it feels good do it. Even if you shouldn't  

But as we all know, everyone has their own beliefs.


----------



## smitty66 (24 Jul 2007)

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that Des is speaking about morality issues!


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2007)

smitty66 said:
			
		

> Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that Des is speaking about morality issues!


 ;D

I was wondering how long it would take someone to pick up on that....of course it'd be you, Smitty. I guess you've seen some of my moral judgement firsthand.


----------



## smitty66 (24 Jul 2007)

I was waiting patiently for someone to say something...... finally couldn't resist!

All joking aside, I personally have no problem with someone who has an aversion to violence. That's their call. If they feel like serving their country or community, there are lots of ways to do it. Firefighters, paramedics, and medical professionals just to name a few. I do however have a problem with people who to quote the phase used earlier "Cherry-pick" the time and place to voice their desire to abstain from conflict after taking the "Queen's Shilling". If you sign on the line, you had better be prepared for the possibility.
My 2 cents.

Cheers


----------



## xena (24 Jul 2007)

Intriguing thread, considering that it seems to have been started by a troll.   :

I'd say I have to second what Colin has already said, in that even though I don't agree with absolute pacifism, I respect it, and I respect the people who will follow it through to it's conclusions (ie. people who won't call the police if someone breaks into their house because the police carry firearms & would use force).  I know it sounds retarded intellectually differently abled, but I have met people who _*have*_ that conviction.  They are *darned few*, but they exist.

I am conversely repulsed by those who conveniently select ("cherry pick" - good term!) portions of whole belief systems to compile their philosophies and scrupulously avoid the consequences of their "convictions".  I am amazed at how many "pacifists" I encounter who have increasingly bizarre definitions of the term.  I recently encountered one where a pacifist was one who did not "oppress" anyone - the use of force was okay, as long as it wasn't "oppressive" (ie. the police are okay, but the military isn't).  What a load a ....

Some pacifists are the most angry, and intellectually violent people (they try to argue you into agreeing with them and react emotionally when you point out the flaws in their beliefs) I've ever met.  Not all though...


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2007)

>There is no such things as absolute morality.

Yes there is.  Start with this rule: always pursue the greater right and avoid the greater wrong.

It is always wrong to lie, to kill, to cheat, etc.  The idea is to always adopt the least wrong when faced with no wholly right alternatives.  Note that a choice between right and wrong is not a moral dilemma.  When someone contrives a situation in which "it's OK to do <wrong>", what is really (or should be) meant is that the <wrong> is the least harmful alternative.  The main point of ethics is really just to spell out guidance (values) and rules for resolving dilemmas, particularly when the course which might reasonably be chosen by an individual conflicts with a social imperative (professional duty).

The phrase "morals are a choice" doesn't mean that one has the power to decide what is right or wrong.  It just means one has the power to decide whether to act rightly or wrongly.

Both means and ends should be considered.  Intentions matter, but are not an excuse for ignorance or laziness.  People have a duty to explore the likely and possible consequences of their actions.

A soldier has no inherent moral authority greater than any other person to harm anything or anyone except in self-preservation.  All such authority is delegated from and determined by the interests of the society a soldier serves.  (Whether any social organization has any moral authority to delegate the power to kill and destroy in the pursuit of anything less than self-preservation or the preservation of third parties is an interesting question, to which I suspect the answer is "No".)  The soldier must be willing and able to accept and exercise that delegated authority (eg. possess "killer instinct" or at least "martial spirit"), all the limitations on the exercise of its powers (eg. laws of conflict), and the consequences of personal liability.


----------



## Fusaki (24 Jul 2007)

> I find all forms of pacifism to be a disgusting way of life, and do not tolerate them as a rule, I find it to be the ultimate cop out, a means of shirking ones duty to their country or in some cases community.



I'm reminded of this quote:

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

-Robert A. Heinlein

Both MG34 and Heinlein are bang on. Reaping the benefits of our country while stating that violence is always the greater evil is not only hypocritical - its *parasitic*. Pacifists not only lack the courage to risk themselves for the sake of the group, but they twist their moral philosophy and perception of reality to the point that they think it is the noble thing to do. Simply by accepting this idea as "OK" is a degradation to our society. It shows complacency towards those who want the authority of self-determination without the responsibility that comes with it. In the end, complacency kills.

The world is a scary place. We should have dumped the dead weight yesterday.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2007)

The fact that pacifism can survive in our culture is a sign that we have something worth fighting for. Not all pacifists are useless, the very committed ones are generally also deeply involved in the community helping others and taking risks. Like my grandfather, he stood for his beliefs but still carried out an important and useful task for the community. A culture that is made up of purely warriors will be unbalanced and eventually doomed, just as a culture of all pacifists would be. The tough part of having a successful culture is striking a useful balance between the parts in order to be more than the sum of those parts. The balancing act is always shifting depending on the internal and external pressures on it.


----------



## Fusaki (24 Jul 2007)

> Not all pacifists are useless, the very committed ones are generally also deeply involved in the community helping others and taking risks. Like my grandfather, he stood for his beliefs but still carried out an important and useful task for the community.



I don't agree that your grandfather was a true pacifist. He might have thought so, but as a stretcher bearer in WW1 he was supporting the war effort. He helped to ensure that those who could no longer fight made it back home to their families, and he also helped to ensure that those who could heal enough were eventually able to make it back in the trenches. Calling him a pacifist is like calling the #2 on a C6 a pacifist. While he may not have pulled the trigger, the war would not have been won without those in jobs like his.

Just because someone is not at the pointy end of the spear does not make them a pacifist. Firefighters, teachers, bus drivers, and car salesmen can all understand that violence is sometimes necessary. A pacifist refuses to accept this fact.


----------



## xena (24 Jul 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> It shows complacency towards those who want the authority of self-determination without the responsibility that comes with it. In the end, complacency kills.
> 
> The world is a scary place. We should have dumped the dead weight yesterday.



This is where I will point out differences in certain types of pacifists.  There are the "protest anything they can" types who use this philosophy as a cop out.  As for them, I agree with you Wonderbread.

But when it comes to people who have serious religious beliefs (for example, the Anabaptists who apply the "turn the other cheek" Bible passage literally), who apply them to their lives as consistently as they can, and have served their countries as best as they could within that framework of their beliefs, and who have died for their beliefs, it is hard to call them dead weight or complacent.

In the end, it's this type of freedom we fought for and are continuing to fighting for.  It's an incredibly poor freedom to only be allowed to think the way someone else does.  We all should have the same freedoms - even the idiots.   ;D

As I was typing, Wonderbread, I saw your response to Colin.  We're getting in to the various "types" of pacifism here.  We might all need to take a reading break, and come back to this after some research.  Just my thoughts though...


----------



## Greymatters (24 Jul 2007)

Although its usually a bad thing to get in between two opposing viewpoints, I find myself there... 



			
				SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> There is no such things as absolute morality.



I would say there are few things for which there is an absolute morality, but it does exist for some concepts. 




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It is always wrong to lie, to kill, to cheat, etc.



And I would have to disagree with this.  I think the concept of morals and ethics is being mixed together here...


----------



## MG34 (25 Jul 2007)

We can learn much from Heinlein:

    * Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.

    * Correct morality can only be derived from what man is — not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be.

     * A "pacifist male" is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described "pacifists" are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger.

     * A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,    act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (25 Jul 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> We can learn much from Heinlein:
> 
> * Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.
> 
> ...



Man I'd better get off my duff.....I can"t do all those things on the list....anyone seen my copy of "Planning an Invasion for Dummys?" ;D


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jul 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> * A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.



Ii would be a very small group of people who would have done all these things...


----------



## MG34 (25 Jul 2007)

Yup, but if everyone could  we would be better off for it ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> We can learn much from Heinlein:
> 
> * Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.
> 
> ...



So far I haven't butchered a hog, although my cousin has a hog farm so it could happen.

I have "planned" an invasion, not sure how successful it would have been

I sing like a cat in heat so writing a sonnet ain't going to happen

No immediate plans on the dying bit 

Doing ok on the rest.....


----------

