In the majority of cases I think war is morally blameworthy, but under certain conditions I think killing can be justified. War, as opposed to the killing of the leaders responsible, is immoral because of the nationalist lies they are usually based on, the “collateral damage” deaths of non-combatants, and the many other war crimes committed during wartime. When you understand that where you were born, who raised you and what culture you were raised in is utterly arbitrary, you realize that wars fought over differences are just as arbitrary. They are arbitrary because they are not necessary.
Collective murder can only be accomplished by the rhetoric of a “just cause.” People’s consciences can only be assuaged when they think that the horrors they are committing are worthy, righteous, and beneficial. In most cases it appears that “worthy,” or “just” simply means “in our interest,” or “for our benefit.” The language of war, masked under the illusion of justice, expresses an “us vs. them” ideology. War is nothing but the macrocosmic image of fights amongst school children. We fight over resources, goods, and the means of production in a way analogous to “tug-of-war.” If we shed our national allegiances and stop to think about war, if only for a second, we ought to see how superfluous and immoral war is. Taking these notions into account, I find that the pursuit of international peace, nuclear disarmament, and the breaking or false stereotypes to be the most liberating for my conscience.
Many would take these ideas and think that pacifism is the logical conclusion, but I prefer to think of it as “calculated liberalism,” because there are times when I think violence can be justified. This places me somewhere between pacifism and just war theory. If Adolf Hitler were in the scope of my rifle, I would pull the trigger and make the normative claim that others ought to do so as well. There is an evil of indifference as well as an evil of passion. To sit idly by, crossing your fingers and hoping for the best, can be a grave evil of omission. Chris Hedges thinks America committed this during the fall of the former Yugoslavia. I tend to agree. The fact that the United States only uses its military when the “cause” is in their best economic interest is unfortunate and is why the only war efforts in the history of the United States that I support were those done during WWII.
Even though I think that killing can be justified under certain conditions, I do not think we should be quick to kill. Killing, even of an evil dictator, is not something to be enjoyed or intoxicated by. The “drug of war” should only be taken to help innocent people, and even then, with extreme caution. Ideally, the drug of war would never be taken, but when others take large doses of it, and demand the killing of innocent civilians, it may be taken to defend the oppressed. The problems we face when dealing with war is that we cannot be completely objective, removed, or see things sub specie aeternitatis (lt. “from the aspect of eternity”). We cannot do this because we are already thrown (Martin Heidegger) into the world, much like a rock becoming conscious while rolling down a hill. Since we are constantly moving we often cannot see our blind spots or the correct way to maneuver. All we can do is be compassionate and critical.
These are a few of my positions regarding the morality of warfare. They are not set in stone, but reflect my musings on the subject. Given the fact that the United States has been bloodthirsty from its inception, I recommend that we begin leaning more towards pacifism. When the United States errs, it does so on the side of war, not on the side of peace. This should change. The most powerful countries bear the brunt of the responsibility, and should only use their military power to defend the innocent, the oppressed, and the poor. Militaries should be humanitarian instead of nationalistic. They should support peace instead of fighting in superfluous wars.
Thanks, Kile, for your take on this. Have you read Unconquerable World by Jonathan Schell? (http://www.amazon.com/Unconquerable-World-Power-Nonviolence-People/dp/0805044574)
Honna,
I have not read it but I looked the book up and it seems very interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
Best,
I’m not sure how atheism relates either to war or my pacifism. In any case, as a pacifist, I believe there are always non violent solutions and there is never any moral killing. This became particularly clear for me personally with the ending of apartheid in Sth Africa in 1992. Thank you Honna for the link: I’ve ordered the book 🙂
Thanks for your response Steph.
Atheism relates to atheism because I am an atheist wrestling through the ethics of war and peace. I am almost a pacifist, if it wasn’t for the evil of indifference.
Best,
Sorry: “This” relates to atheism…
I guess I will just stay confused. I understand both you and I are atheists. While theists (or Christians) can appeal to both biblical and patristic texts to both justify war and oppose it, depending on texts selected and or interpretation, an atheist appeals to their own moral code. But in a way both appeal to their own moral codes. And I’m not sure what you mean by indifference. The alternative to ‘sit idly by’ isn’t necessarily violent action. I am not indifferent to ‘evil’. I advocate passive or active resistence and non violent force, depending on the evil, persuasion, dialogue and other constructive ways of resolving wrongs. I’m just not sure how atheism comes into it, apart from the fact neither you nor I appeal to religious texts.
And only by conjecture, i believe atheism relates to the concept of Kile’s main point of why war is fought by our neighbors for the illusion of the “just cause”. Atheism and mindless followings (insofar as being told what to believe isn’t rational thought) relates to atheism rather literally. The monopoly of power leaders have over the masses creates a construct “us verse them”. “Them” being whoever we are told are “bad” or worthy of killing or sacrificing ourselves. My interpretation of this article is the condition: atheism, the prowess of individual thought, promotes peaceful interaction between communities unless there is a Valid reason for war. Valid not equating to money or what our hedonistic leaders desire for us to support.
Thanks Emily and Steph.
This post is simply my musings on the ethics of war and peace from my perspective. The “An Atheist” part of my title simply means me. I title all of my posts that way. There are other robust connections between atheism and war (as Emily has pointed out) to be made; I simply wanted to convey my thoughts on the subject.
Best
Kile, as a first-time visitor to your site, I am curious to know what connection there may be between your atheism and all the graduate level study you have done in theology. Did you go to seminary and lose your faith, or did you major in religion while having none of your own?
MMS- I am not answering en re Kile, but I am answering on behalf of myself because your confusion pertains to my ideologies aussi.
No. 1. The connection between graduate level studies and theology bolsters edification, intelligence and a non-provincial outlook on life, philosophy and why someone believes in something or nothing at all. In response to your rhetorical first question, even though there was no question mark,the way in which you framed your *loaded question (*not really loaded) just conveys your own emotions on the matter.
I can’t answer the question you highlighted as an actual question because you asked Kile specifically about his trek in education and religion, however I am going to respond to your question in general. Take it or leave it.. Kile will eventually respond.
The brevity of context to your question makes understanding the reason or the answer you want difficult. I write answer you want because the latter part of your question shows somewhat of a angry emotion, to say in the least, about being atheist whilst being educated in theology (and knowing a lot about religions and history). Are you angry that someone may have found a reason to disbelieve in a faith or are you really just curious because you are going through a similar course?
Maybe frame your question better because, as of now, your inquisition seems loosely related to your own beliefs and not Kile’s own self realization. By the by I am basing this entire response on “or did you major in religion while having none of your own?”.. I found your syntax unfriendly. You don’t have to rephrase or answer me, not sure why I was offended but you may want to clarify if your angry or honestly curious for pure reasons.
EAB, my sincere apologies. I intended no offense– I just wondered whether Kile had always been an atheist.
MMS: I was actually a devout protestant Christian for 5 years and then I deconverted slowly over the past 5 years, and this was all during graduate studies. My studies played a crucial role (I think) in my deconversion. Now I study religion as an atheist/agnostic. Thanks for your question.
Kile, thank you for your kind reply. I do hope the phrasing of my question did not offend you as much as it seems to have bothered EaB. Honestly, I find the journey you have thus far described quite interesting and would like to know more, discuss further, etc. Would you be willing to correspond with me by email (as opposed to blog post replies) for the next little while?
MMS- my sincere apologies. I intended no offense– I just wondered whether you were asking because you were curious about his journey or because you were being sarcastic.
I lament that you feel you need to request a private correspondence because of me, and again I apologize if you took my question and context for my question as a threat or a bullying technique. You can’t read more or less into text, which is why I ask. However, religion is a private issue to many and I am not requesting you do or don’t do anything right now, just responding to your last comment about my original question to you.
EaB: I have asked to correspond with Kile by email rather than blog post replies because I personally think all blog post replies (regardless of the blog’s topic or content) ought to be about the post itself rather than something else. Clearly, I took a risk in asking the author a clarifying question about his biography rather than contributing directly to a discussion over his original piece, but now, having received an answer, I would like to find a more appropriate forum in which to continue an informal conversation with this person whose life story interests me. Rather than distract from his essay any further, though, I have suggested an email exchange as one such possible forum. In short, to paraphrase Carly Simon, this song is not about you.
MMS- “Kile, thank you for your kind reply. I do hope the phrasing of my question did not offend you as much as it seems to have bothered EaB. Honestly, I find the journey you have thus far described quite interesting and would like to know more, discuss further, etc. Would you be willing to correspond with me by email (as opposed to blog post replies) for the next little while?”
So, you tell me you don’t want to be a troll in your latest reply, yet your request to Kile for a private discussion mentioned nothing except for a reference to me, then you reply to me with a “i didn’t want to divert from the topic” reason. In short, you may need to understand respect a little better, your first question was rather personal for a public forum, and secondly that song was actually about that person but portrayed in a very sarcastic way, however I got your attempt at trying to make yourself feel above me by putting me down, maybe get the song right next time.
EaB, you have now grossly misunderstood me three times. While I was willing to believe (from your original response) that I may have inadvertently stepped on readers’ toes with my first post, that first post was not in any way directed at you. As a matter of courtesy, however, I apologized and clarified the intention of my question with you, the reader, and then clarified with Kile, the author, using your response (the sole reader response of its kind) as a point of reference. It was not a personal attack on you. It was an example of how I hope Kile does not feel. Had he told me that he had been equally or similarly offended by my question, I would have apologized to him as well.
Frankly, I find your determination to read my words in the most personally targeted and negative light to be inappropriate, unfounded, and exasperating. Your tone is humorless and unnecessarily hostile, and it has sapped me of all desire to continue any further discussion with you.
If I had another means of contacting Kile outside of the comment section of his online essay, I would use it.
“The fact that the United States only uses its military when the “cause” is in their best economic interest is unfortunate and is why the only war efforts in the history of the United States that I support were those done during WWII.”
The “fact”. I don’t believe you can prove this to be true. In each case of war there was an evil group of people waging war on innocent people. The United States only intervenes when there is no choice because the evil group is growing in strength and causing mass carnage.