Killing in Warfare
Uploaded by sharmaine on Mar 19, 2007
Discuss the claim that killing in warfare is more justifiable than other types of killing.
Abortion is a type of killing, and brings no peace, whereas wars such as the Nazi overthrowing brought peace and justice to those who were being hurt. Thus, war is more justifiable than abortion, because it is achieving something greater as an outcome.
If we justify war, then we justify pre-meditated murder because its still killing that has been planned in advance. If we justify war as a society, then we justify other types of killing such as murder, euthanasia and abortion.
Those who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation point to Jesus' words, "Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"(Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this is not the case. Note the specification of right cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? In fact, it doesn't really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek.
When is full-scale nuclear war right?
Emphasis is obviously given to numbers of lives saved and to the extent to which people’s lives are worthwhile, therefore it would be strange to think it such a war could be justified.
It is also remembered that after such a war most of what is valued would have been destroyed and horrendous genetic effects would still be in store for any survivors.
President Kennedy said in relation to this issue “the survivors will envy the dead”. The effects of nuclear war to this scale would of course take much longer to resolve than even the worst regime. Also it must be remembered that a widespread or prolonged nuclear war would end the human race.
This being the case contingent pacifism is the only sane attitude to a full scale nuclear war.
In certain cases such as that of Hitler’s Nazi regime contingent pacifism is not viable, with the II World War being the lesser evil than that which did and could have occurred. However all things considered even...