Draft Dodging morality

[wittgenstein]

Motivation (qualia) is central to questions of morality. For example,
Suppose, I hypnotize someone into believing a squirt gun is a real gun. I tell Joe,“It would be really funny if you squirted Fred in the face.” Joe kills Fred!
Who is guilty of murder?

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

Legality is not in the same catagory as morality (occasionally they overlap ). For example, draft dodging in the context of WW2 is cowardice. Dodging the draft during a stupid war (for example Vietnam) is OK,if done for noble reasons and not just a fear of death.

So, therefore the war crimes committed by the Allies in WWII are totally justifiable? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

 

[wittgenstein]

Nope! Perhaps my point was unclear?

 

[Linux]

Depending on the war in question (and the state in question) it might be moral to not only avoid serving, but to enter into active opposition.

Why the state in question?

 

[Linux]

Ok, so if you were drafted into military service and you knew that the war you were going to be shipped off to fight would be an unjust war. Would it be better to go fighting possibly killing innocent civilians or running away and possibly never see your loved ones or homeland ever again.
Also here are the precedent of just war:

1. 
   *]First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, “in the nation’s interest” is not just) or as an exercise of power.
   *]Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
   *]Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence

1. 
   If I know a war is wrong, then I will not fight that war. Isn’t that just common sense?

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 22,
If the conscientious objector to WW2 did not know that Hitler was evil (really stupid) his objection would not be cowardice.
I am a Unitarian. However, occasionally I have been a member of friends church (Quaker) because occasionally I have lived in rural areas.
Anyway, the Quakers organized a protest about the Iraq war. I participated. Cars would drive by and shout about how we were traitors. (Ironically, the decision for the Iraq war was vastly less then patriotic ). I wanted to engage in a fight or at least give them the finger. But, hey, I was disquised as a Quaker and that would be inappropriate!

 

[JimG]

Well given my past threads about the issue I would refuse to serve UNLESS women are included in the draft in the same capacity as men. I cannot in good conscience send a man off to war while telling a woman to stay safe at home. That is like saying one life is more valuable than another. Saying it is OK for some to die and not others is God’s business, not mine. Either everyone gets a shot at getting shot or no one does!

This strikes me as entirely unreasonable. In the first place, in any war, the majority of o those in the military, whether draftees or enlistees, do not get shot at. Even in war zones, some soldiers are more apt to be in firefights than others. We don’t rotate every soldier into a combat role just for equality purposes, despite their qualifications or lack thereof. That would be military disaster.

Second, there are good reasons for having a primarily male military and a primarily male draft, which have been discussed in other threads.

And as to conscientious objection, the law takes no account of the just war theory when it pertains to individual soldiers. Every individual does not get to decide for himself which war is just. (Would we allow everyone access to classified intelligence to help them decide?) C.O. laws have only recognized those who object to all war in principle.

Finally, on a personal note, one of our local priests just returned from military duty a few years ago. He served in a war zone and even on combat patrols, but as a chaplain, did not carry a weapon. Even he didn’t get to decide whether or not he would serve in a particular war. And he didn’t demand that his mom and sisters serve alongside him!

 

[GEddie]

Why the state in question?

Because the policies of some national states (the Third Reich, CCCP) actively promote evil, it would be justifiable to refuse contributing bodily to strengthening those regimes.

 

[D_Martin]

Because we are not in Biblical Israel. None of our modern national states are led by divine prophecy.

Divine prophecy was infallible; there could be no loopholes for not obeying. National administrations are not infallible, but the Church is.

ICXC NIKA

How is it that the church’s relationship with the Lord their God is any different then Israel’s relationship with the Lord their God? Same God right? And we know that this God doesn’t change does He?

If one remains in a nation voluntarily, then that person has no problem with the nation’s conflicts with other nations and agrees to stand with it. If you don’t agree to stand with that nation you live in, then ether leave that nation or suffer consequences of treason. It is immoral to remain in a nation and refuse to stand with that nation if it deems you qualified to fight.

 

[GEddie]

How is it that the church’s relationship with the Lord their God is any different then Israel’s relationship with the Lord their God? Same God right? And we know that this God doesn’t change does He?

If one remains in a nation voluntarily, then that person has no problem with the nation’s conflicts with other nations and agrees to stand with it. If you don’t agree to stand with that nation you live in, then ether leave that nation or suffer consequences of treason. It is immoral to remain in a nation and refuse to stand with that nation if it deems you qualified to fight.

That assumes that the other nation would admit someone who would refuse to defend it.

Since the entire earth is now divided into competing sovereignties, a human being cannot live life without being subject to one of them. That should not require him to die fighting.

And this is totally separate from the issue of the Church’s relationship to God. Yes, Biblical Israel represented God in times past. God led them in war. But today, not they but the Church represents Him. And since the end of the Papal states in 1871, war fighting has not been in its repertoire.

ICXC NIKA

 

[shipwrkd]

If I know a war is wrong, then I will not fight that war. Isn’t that just common sense?

Common sense isn’t that common in war.My dad was drafted in WWII and it was a “just” war until the Pope denounced the US for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was “invited” to participate in the Vietnam “conflict”. At the beginning, Pope Pius XII was in favor of maintaining the degrading Catholic population and against Communism as was JFK, our first Catholic President. It has even been suggested that Pius XII was instrumental in involving the US in that war. When it turned ugly, were those that were already there supposed to lay down their arms and swim back home? I think it’s been said before that your bound by he laws of your country to fight. Wars are never declared just or unjust until after they are over so one must rely on his nations leaders to have entered a war for the defense of that nation…well, except maybe for Obama.

 

[D_Martin]

That assumes that the other nation would admit someone who would refuse to defend it.

Since the entire earth is now divided into competing sovereignties, a human being cannot live life without being subject to one of them. That should not require him to die fighting.

And this is totally separate from the issue of the Church’s relationship to God. Yes, Biblical Israel represented God in times past. God led them in war. But today, not they but the Church represents Him. And since the end of the Papal states in 1871, war fighting has not been in its repertoire.

ICXC NIKA

Really, it’s a good thing the U.S. and it’s allies didn’t think like you do, back in WWII days. Are you enjoying the freedoms made available to you to express your thoughts without ramification because people of nations where obligated to stand and fight with their nation?

If you noticed the Lord hasn’t changed the condition in the world of competing nations. So the order of nations must be ordained by God. They rise and fall according to His will. The same condition will remain according to scripture until and even after the Lord Jesus returns to Israel.

So what you are saying is, the church has changed, because it doesn’t have the authority to declare war any more, therefore the truth must have changed in the matter of war? The Truth doesn’t change, what people want it to be may change, but the Truth never changes.

I do believe the church is supposed to stand with the Lord and His Ways on matters like this, correct? Or is it, the church deems the right to trust its own judgement, instead of the Lord’s Judgement.

---

Also:
I wouldn’t be so smug on the matter of the church represents the Lord and not Israel. That’s what the Israelis thought back in Peter and Paul’s day. The return of Israel to the land they once had, is a fulfillment of prophecy and when the leaves on the fig tree state start to show, then we know that summer is near. The Lord Jesus isn’t coming to the Vatican, He is coming to Jerusalem.

 

[pnewton]

But that provision, such as pacifist, isn’t provided in the conditions by which a Israelite might be excused from combat, does it? And if the Lord’s provision for exceptions for his people in the case of combat aren’t sufficient in the eye’s of the church, then how can the church be wiser then the Lord Himself?

That’s rather presumption to know the mind of the Lord on your own don’t you think, just because of a rule for Israelites? In case you haven’t heard, we do not live by the law of Moses, nor do we have a Promised Land to occupy. Many things the Israelites did were a situational commandment.

Just out of curiosity, do you still follow the law of Moses in your version of Christianity?

 

[D_Martin]

That’s rather presumption to know the mind of the Lord on your own don’t you think, just because of a rule for Israelites? In case you haven’t heard, we do not live by the law of Moses, nor do we have a Promised Land to occupy. Many things the Israelites did were a situational commandment.

Just out of curiosity, do you still follow the law of Moses in your version of Christianity?

So what you are saying is that Christians should pick and choose which of the Ten Commandments they will honor?

 

[pnewton]

So what you are saying is that Christians should pick and choose which of the Ten Commandments they will honor?

What you said is not in the Ten Commandments. But, no. You have given a very good reason why we need an authoritative teacher on Earth instead of allowing everyone to go willy nilly on their own though the Bible.

 

[GEddie]

So what you are saying is that Christians should pick and choose which of the Ten Commandments they will honor?

Can you please name the commandment that engaging in war is a part of???

 

[D_Martin]

What you said is not in the Ten Commandments. But, no. You have given a very good reason why we need an authoritative teacher on Earth instead of allowing everyone to go willy nilly on their own though the Bible.

LOL
Your going to win no matter what aren’t you? The honest truth only applies when it helps you win in your view, doesn’t it? I didn’t bring up the law and the applications thereof, as in does one live by them today, you did. Therefore it applies. Your attitude as far as reading the Bible is near criminal, considering that Adam and Eve were fooled by trusting someone’s opinion (the serpent’s) of what God says other than the Lord God’s view on what He says. Also, if one actually reads the Bible, one would find out what the Lord says on different matters that men face. Therefore one should know what the Lord says for himself, before listening to what others say about what the Lord says or does.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the law (including the Ten Commandments) and we who are His are fulfilled in Him. Therefore yes the law and the commandments apply.

Have a nice day.

 

[silentfactor80]

This strikes me as entirely unreasonable. In the first place, in any war, the majority of o those in the military, whether draftees or enlistees, do not get shot at. Even in war zones, some soldiers are more apt to be in firefights than others. We don’t rotate every soldier into a combat role just for equality purposes, despite their qualifications or lack thereof. That would be military disaster.

Second, there are good reasons for having a primarily male military and a primarily male draft, which have been discussed in other threads.

And as to conscientious objection, the law takes no account of the just war theory when it pertains to individual soldiers. Every individual does not get to decide for himself which war is just. (Would we allow everyone access to classified intelligence to help them decide?) C.O. laws have only recognized those who object to all war in principle.

Finally, on a personal note, one of our local priests just returned from military duty a few years ago. He served in a war zone and even on combat patrols, but as a chaplain, did not carry a weapon. Even he didn’t get to decide whether or not he would serve in a particular war. And he didn’t demand that his mom and sisters serve alongside him!

I hear what you are saying but I am tired of hearing women complain about everything men do and how “bad” we are. Women sit comfy and enjoy the hard work and sacrifice men have made over the ages. Sure, not every man that walked the face of the Earth has been a great or even mostly good guy but seriously the nonsense women complain about these days is ridiculous. In WWI and WII women shamed men into combat in the White Feather Girl campaigns. Not every man is charged up to go kill. I don’t want blood on my hands innocent or not. I am not going to harden myself only to come back with PTSD or be all aggressive then hear women whine about how violent men are. Until EVERY woman makes the same sacrifice as every man I see no reason to become a killer for them. Childbirth is no sacrifice. You get a baby and its a joyful thing. War is the complete opposite! Most women dump the kids off in daycare anyways these days while they go enjoy a lucrative “fulfilling” career.

 

[JimG]

I hear what you are saying but I am tired of hearing women complain about everything men do and how “bad” we are. Women sit comfy and enjoy the hard work and sacrifice men have made over the ages. Sure, not every man that walked the face of the Earth has been a great or even mostly good guy but seriously the nonsense women complain about these days is ridiculous. In WWI and WII women shamed men into combat in the White Feather Girl campaigns. Not every man is charged up to go kill. I don’t want blood on my hands innocent or not. I am not going to harden myself only to come back with PTSD or be all aggressive then hear women whine about how violent men are. Until EVERY woman makes the same sacrifice as every man I see no reason to become a killer for them. Childbirth is no sacrifice. You get a baby and its a joyful thing. War is the complete opposite! Most women dump the kids off in daycare anyways these days while they go enjoy a lucrative “fulfilling” career.

Okay, I had to chuckle at this. I see your point, but men and women have been blaming each other for misfortune ever since the Garden of Eden. In the Genesis account, God confronts Adam, who blames “the woman you gave me!” God confronts Eve, and she blames the serpent!

Nevertheless men and women are intended to work together, to fulfill their own duties, and to help each other to get to heaven. When it works, it works wonderfully. The current culture seems to have gotten a little off the track.

(As an aside, some women have been launch officers in the Minuteman III ICBM force for a long time now. They are good at it. There are some combat jobs they do well, and that’s one of them–nuclear deterrence! Still I wonder how they would do if SAC were still in existence. Curtis LeMay didn’t even like missiles; he preferred that payloads be delivered first hand and in person. More macho, certainly, than a keyturn. For myself, I’d prefer that WW-III not be conducted by women, just because it seems inappropriate, but that’s just me.)

 

[silentfactor80]

Okay, I had to chuckle at this. I see your point, but men and women have been blaming each other for misfortune ever since the Garden of Eden. In the Genesis account, God confronts Adam, who blames “the woman you gave me!” God confronts Eve, and she blames the serpent!

Nevertheless men and women are intended to work together, to fulfill their own duties, and to help each other to get to heaven. When it works, it works wonderfully. The current culture seems to have gotten a little off the track.

(As an aside, some women have been launch officers in the Minuteman III ICBM force for a long time now. They are good at it. There are some combat jobs they do well, and that’s one of them–nuclear deterrence! Still I wonder how they would do if SAC were still in existence. Curtis LeMay didn’t even like missiles; he preferred that payloads be delivered first hand and in person. More macho, certainly, than a keyturn.)

Glad you got a laugh but there still is an issue here lol! The problem is society does not impose any lawful duties upon women that is does not on men. Consequently, try to tell a woman what “her duty” is and if you can still post back here consider yourself lucky.

It is unconstitutional to assign duties to one that are not assigned to another. That makes the more responsible group second class citizens. If women can hold public office and vote to send men off then they need skin in the game too. Lots of female Democratic governors signed laws making it impossible for guys to get drivers license if they didn’t register. When guys vote against abortion stuff we hear wailing and the usual “if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” line OVER and OVER and OVER. At some point men are going to have to stop tolerating that nonsense and women are going to have to “woman up.”