The Ethics of War and the Struggle Against Terrorism - Lackey

"Blindness" entires have been delayed indefinably. Probably during Spring Break I will finish.

1. Varieties of Pacifism

Lackey provides a good point here, he states that normal pacifists believe that killing is wrong, but will not judge or impose their beliefs on someone else. Lackey says that this philosophy does not consider morality at all. He says that for something to be a moral principle, the person must state that their beliefs should apply to everyone. I agree with this statement, however I feel that a person can be understanding of someone else's difference and still believe that they are wrong, but a wishy-washy stance on an issue - especially on something like murder and war - is not permissible as a moral philosophy.


2. The Prohibition Against Killing
(a) The Biblical Prohibition

Finally, someone who challenges some of the religious contradictions in the Bible. How can God tell us not to kill, but tell others to do so in his name or whatever. I doesn't make any sense which is why I am very skeptical about following the teachings of the Bible. Also, Lackey mentions that the teaching of the Bible are religious laws and not moral law, but I think that it is difficult to distinguish the two. Many people consider their morals to pass through the teachings of religion which would bring no separation between the two. I would suggest that the difference lies between acting out of the words of a text and acting out of reason or some form or moral reason. That is, that we do things that only make rational sense. Can we kill whenever and whomever we want? No, that would not make any rational sense because we would not have a society any more.

(b) The Sacredness of Life
Ah yes, another excellent point. I like this guy. I would have to agree with him in that if you must kill someone to save the lives of others - or oneself - then it must be necessary to do so. I am a strong believer that death is a final option and that things should be allowed to be discussed and negotiated so that no one has to be killed. However, there are some that can not be negotiated with and I find these people to be inherently evil. In that case, if that person must die so that another shall live, I can see where it may be permissible.

(c) The Right to Life
Sometimes people kill others to secure the right to life. This is a contradiction in and of itself.


3. Antiwar Pacifism
The Killing of Soldiers
I am not one to blame the victim, so I will never agree that it is the soldier's fault for being killed. I would argue that it is the German's fault for the death of the Russians and of the the German soldiers. Here I am not blaming the German soldiers, but the commanders that ordered the invasion.

The Killing of Civilians
I think we need to understand that if you fight a war, innocent civilians are going to be killed - it is war. Civilian deaths are unavoidable and, yes unintentional, bu they are going to happen. You can't fight a war without it and that is why war is so horrible. I see no difference morally between a soldier's death and a civilians, ever human life is sacred. Wars are not only fought by soldiers.

The Balance of Good and Evil in War
This is obviously a very hard argument. As Lackey pointed out, it is immoral either way, but the blame would be placed elsewhere. That doesn't make it right though. I have a strict moral belief that there are times when one must kill in order to protect of the overall good from evil. If the question is either allow Nazi troops to occupy of the country and the world or kill them all to stop them by doing so, I would agree with the latter. There are some evils in this world that must be stopped so that the good in this world may survive. The problem is that what is good and what is evil is subjective.