The Convoluted Moral "Logic" of Militarism

Ask many people if they believe in the validity of the 6th commandment (Exodus 20:13) "Do not kill" and they will say, "Yes, of course." Ask them if, on that basis, they are morally opposed to war, however, and the validity of the 6th commandment is quickly compromised through casuistry.

The convoluted moral logic of militarism often runs along the following lines: "Of course I believe that it is wrong to kill. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many other people don't share that view--or maybe share that view but kill anyway. And since there are such people in the world who do kill, I am willing to pay others to kill on my behalf."

As Tolstoy pointed out (brilliantly and repeatedly), such "reasoning" makes no sense. If this isn't obvious from what I have written above, try this: substitute the word "theft" or "adultery" or some other category of action that you consider to be morally wrong for the word "kill" in the paragraph above and then observe how nonsensical it is:

"Of course I believe that it is wrong to steal. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many other people don't share that view--or maybe share that view but commit theft anyway. And since there are such people in the world who do steal, I am willing to pay others to steal on my behalf."

Who would make such an argument for theft? No sane person. But when it comes to murder--the organized mass murder that armed forces engage in--this very same argument suddenly becomes not only sane but perfectly compelling.

Militarism is big business and survives because so many profit from it. Our complicity with government-sponsored Murder, Inc. leaves us all morally compromised. It is our conscience that prompts us to rationalize our complicity with actions that we personally disavow. But instead of rationalization, we should examine our consciences and decide what our true convictions may be and whether or not we have the courage to follow their lead.

Ending war does not involve rocket science. If anything, it involves the refusal to engage in a particularly dishonest species of casuistry where conflicts of interest pre-determine the outcome of the case.

Resist. Refuse. Renounce.