The reason I post this question is because it is one of the two main issues prevalent throughout my life. The first one, which is why I am here in the first place, just isn't something I want to discuss yet. The second, the topic of this post, is something I have experienced. I think the root of it is not the moral question of killing in of itself, but war.

Without writing a biography of myself, and why I came to this question to begin with, I have killed another human being before. The story and circumstances themselves are moot, the physical and emotional scars I carry with me til the end of my life. I do not regret it completely, but I do have regrets. I am not disallusioned because I had no allusions in the first place. I have had to work out the moral justification on my own, such as it is, but the scars remain.

Me, age 12, helping my grandfather drywall: "Grandpa, what was it like in World War II and Korea?"

Grandpa: "Son, it didn't make any more damn sense than your daddy's war."

I do not want this to be a subject on Iraq, as that war has special meaning to me because I was a participant. And this topic is in the philsophical section, not political. The subject is the moral question of war itself. I once had a young lady, going to college, who told me I was immoral for being in the military. I did not pay her much mind, I don't think she knew better. But another time an old man came up to me and told me "your war is a mistake"...that did, as he did know better. My primary motivation has always been to protect you, and the path I went on was my choice alone. No one tricked me into joining in the first place.

I have regrets, but I can never in a million years take back what I did. But I was not going to let him take my life. My country's policy put me there in the first place, and I was an instrument of that policy. I followed willingly but not blindly. I have never cared for medals.

If your stand is that war itself is a moral travesty, and unjustified in ALL or MOST cases; I only ask that you consider the following. Whether we live by the sword or not, we wish to live in relative freedom and peace, and enjoy the fruits of a free society. With that the case, and knowing full well that others around the world still have swords and have no qualms about using them, with little need for words...there has to be people from those free societies that must carry a sword, and use them if necessary in defense. Sometimes, depending on your point of view (say, as with the Romans), that defense means war on others who never attacked us because they present a danger to us, others, and their own people (such as Germany in two wars: they never attacked us). If you take the moral high ground, that war is wrong and refuse to participate, perhaps even admonish those who do, but believe we need to be protected: why did you leave it to me to fight alone? Why must I bare the burden of that unspeakable act, while you remain in your proud unblemished tower, free of harm or reproach?

Some people do not believe in nations, ergo the need for wars or armies. Alternatives in a world of nations and armies?

By the way, this is not a set-up. I don't wish to attack anybody's viewpoint. I only wish to learn the viewpoints of others, and perhaps cast aside dogmas I have in my own life...and this issue is not something I my self have truly worked out yet, and probably will not ever completely. Killing is, and hopefully always will be, a despicable and deplorable act...but nonetheless an act that I committed and must live with.

Chris

Well, I can only speak for myself here.

I was in the military a few years ago, and my brother still is, for now... he's also been out to Iraq.

My own view is that, while I agree that being a pacifist doesn't stop you getting attacked by those who aren't, that there's a big difference, in terms of motivation and morality, between a reactive war and a proactive war.

I think that a reactive stance, waiting for someone to actually do something, is more morally justifiable than a proactive stance, taking out everything and everyone that could theoretically pose a risk at some point in the future.

I know this isn't about politics, but to illustrate my view, just look at the initial support for the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan by the global community as opposed to the lack of support for the campaign against Saddam Hussein and his percieved weapons of mass destruction. One was reactive, and, it could be argued, justified... while the other was proactive, a threat that could exist at some point, and needed to be dealt with before anything 'bad' happened.

In an ideal world, war would be unnecessary, and there would be no need for protection. But this isn't an ideal world. And as such, conflict is largely inevitable, possibly due to the desire by some for power at any cost, and partly, I suspect, because of an inbuilt evolutionary instinct to display the notion that 'might is right', and the person/group/nation with the most strength gets to call the shots.

The thing I've noticed, though, particularly in my little corner of the world, is that a lot of people, particularly younger people, don't join the military out of a desire to fight for an ideal. They join because they get paid well, they join because it offers them a way out of poverty, they join because they believe they'll be respected within society, get to travel and see the world. What they don't consider is that the world they'll get to see is one so totally different from the one they picture. And as a result they are mentally unprepared for what they have to face.

I respect your view, Chris, and it's one that my brother shares. I asked him once why he joined, and he said simply "Because the people in those towers could have been my family. I want to stop it happening to anyone else."

But I do believe there's a difference between fighting to preserve your way of life and freedoms, and fighting to force other parts of the world to share your way of life and your freedoms, whether they want it or not. It's one thing to remove a threat because they wronged you and could do so again, but another to remove a threat by making them become like you.

I don't think war, in itself, is wrong. War is neutral. The people who declare wars, the policy makers... they can be wrong, and often are. The people who fight wars... they follow orders.

As I said at the start, that's just my philosophy.

Got any easier questions?  I need to use a lifeline.  Can I phone a friend?

I'm off to work before too long, but its only three days (12,12,16 - a forty hour week in 3 days) and I'll think about and get back to it on Tuesday.  Its not like its an easy answer.

I'm not so sure that there is a right and a wrong anymore.

I get angry at ideas and sometimes frustrated with people, but judging anyone is pointless. Particularly for me. People do what they do. I can never understand their motivations. Judging people's motivations or their actions is pointless too.

I have no issue with a good soldier. A good soldier is one with a conscience. But I wouldn't want to associate with a bad soldier - one who gets off on having destroyed people and things.

I think it is rude to tell a soldier that their war is wrong.

I think this is a legitimate answer, but I sometimes confuse myself.

QuoteI'm not so sure that there is a right and a wrong anymore.

It does not matter about right or wrong only the consequences of your actions.

I believe there are no consequences for me to deny war. My one self will make no difference and the action will occur anyway.

In my mind, I see either no violence, or a complete violence. No in between. Like when the Romans would destroy an entire city killing everyone just to teach a lesson or out of retribution for some slight.

The consequence for me to accept that war is reasonable is that I would then believe it's okay to destroy a city because it has become a nuisance. The consequence would be a darkening of my soul.

I'm not speaking about other people. Just myself.  I certainly do not project this feeling upon other people.


[edited to remove a useless preamble]

As much as I would like for the world to be a different place, sometimes violence, and sadly sometimes killing becomes necessary. But the only time I think it is ever justified is in defense against direct, immediate threat, either in defense of yourself or another. So like Leiandra, reactive vs. proactive.

On a personal, individual level, if you can run away, do that first. If that's not an option, then try to talk your way out of it. If the aggressor isn't listening, use the minimum amount of force you can to subdue hir WHEN you are attacked. If in the course of that defense you accidentally kill hir, or are forced to do so in matching force against force, you can't be blamed for it.

I don't believe in retributive force either - once the immediate threat has been removed, pursuing vendetta for whatever reason is just not justifiable. That does not mean just sitting around and waiting for next time; prepare better for next time while you try and reason with them.

On a national level the same philosophy applies, at least as far as I am concerned. If a community of people is threatened by violence, as in attacked, they have a right to defend themselves with the minimum of force, and they have the right to make the preparations to do so effectively. But aggressive as opposed to defensive violence because of a perceived threat that might occur in the future - that I cannot agree with. And while some preparations can be justified in the name of defense, like short range missile batteries and defensive installations and whatever else (I'm no strategist ), others, like long range tactical nukes and killer satelites and the like - the only thing one is ever going to use that for is to kill another group of people far away from you. Making those sorts of preparations only leads to a more dangerous world, because everybody else fears what you will do with your weapons and so they develop their own.

Socrates always believed that you do yourself greater harm by committing a wrong than by being done wrong by. I know that might not seem the most practical stance to take, but we can only strive for a better world by setting a better example.

The key to all of this is being well prepared, because the better prepared you are, the less force you will need to apply to deal with a threat - compare the difference in how a skilled Aikidoka will deal with violence as opposed to a minimally trained fighter. Almost certainly the Aikidoka will deal with the threat more quickly and with less actual damage being done to everybody involved. Personally, I have practised some form or another of martial art since the time I was five, and while I HATE guns and mourn the day they were invented, I intend to learn how to use one the moment I have some money to go for lessons and have a more stable legal identity. (I'm in process with name change and all the rest at the moment) I don't ever want to own a gun, but I do want to know how to use one should the need ever arise.

The way America used to be, the ideals of being able to defend yourself properly, against foreign aggressors as much as your own government, enshrined in its constitution by the right to bear arms - That is what I believe in, and that is the clearest message you can send that you are not going to be attacking others, but that they would be ill-advised to attack you. The only amendment I would make is that the right to bear arms would come along with the duty of learning how to use those arms effectively, and of learning how to defend oneself.

The surest way to make a group of people less vulnerable is to have every individual in it be less vulnerable.

~Simone.

QuoteI believe there are no consequences for me to deny war. My one self will make no difference and the action will occur anyway.

Then you do not believe in the butterfly effect. I refused to fight in Vietnam, the war ended, funny coincidence.

QuoteIn my mind, I see either no violence, or a complete violence. No in between.

Now if only prisons worked that way.

Although I don't agree 100% with his position on war and such; I do kind of like Theodore Roosevelt's way of doing things. You build a strong military but then use negotiation backed by the threat of force, then you don't actually have to fight (until you add in irrational leaders and such into the mix). War is inevitable, and as T.R. put it; striving for peace at any cost doesn't work and still ends in war, just with more suffering (It's was as if he was foretelling the beginning of WWII.)

On the other hand I don't think that can be justified unless your own country is being invaded. So, I guess I'm kind of inconsistent. I don't know what to think, but there's my 2 cents.