Check out this story here.
(once you click on the link, you may need to push another button to launch the CNN video).
It regards a decal a soldier (and Iraq war vet) had on the back of his truck reading, "Forgive me Lord for the sins I committed to protect our freedom."
This relates to a great class discussion we had in a couple sections.
On one view of consequentialism, if doing some (in isolation) morally wrong act leads to a greater good, then that originally wrong act becomes good. On another view, the original wrong act is still wrong, but it "had to be done" as it were. Clearly the soldier has the later view... interesting.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The idea of having power to take the life of another as a service member was a thought that I had to sort through before I decided to come here. Life is sacred and the taking of a life should never be viewed lightly. I agree with the soldier’s decal saying that we do have to do wrong in order to secure our nation’s freedoms and security. We are a fallen race. Because of that, we cannot simply have a secure nation without taking measures to protect ourselves. As a nation, that means we must have a military in order to protect our sovereignty. In an ideal world, we would not have to protect each other from the next person because everyone would live in harmony. The fact is that everyone sins. That is why we are imperfect and why we are infinitely blessed that God is merciful. Despite the necessity of committing wrongful acts against the enemy, I still agree with Augustine that we can have a just war if all of the jus ad bellum and jus ad bello requirements are fulfilled. We just need to recognize the awesome responsibility we have as the military and only use force to do wrong against the enemy when absolutely necessary (i.e. our people’s safety is in jeopardy).
Christians in the military all have to deal with this issue because the main purpose of our military is to protect our country and its citizens. Sometimes, the only way to do that is to kill the people that would take our freedom away. I do not believe Christians should consider this as a sin. There are many times in the bible that God allowed or even aided men to kill other men. Samson killed a thosand men with a donkey's jawbone, David killed thousands of Philistines in battle. But God never would have condoned the actions of these men had their reasons been unjust. As long as there is moral justification behind it, killing in battle is not a sin.
I propose that this soldier’s proposition is unsound. I will seek to prove his argument unsound by arguing the case for war from a Thomistic divine law perspective.
I am assuming that if he is indeed looking to the Lord for forgiveness then he holds true to some sort of Christian theology which states that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, I will make my argument based on Biblical truths.
First, we must define what sin is. 1 John 5:17 says that “all wrongdoing is sin;” therefore, we must ensure that going to war is NOT wrongdoing. This point can be made by looking at the reasons for going to war. If we are holding to the principles of Just War Theory, then we are going to war for a good cause that may have the end goal of peace (which would be supported by “blessed is the peacemaker” from Matthew 5:9) or simply by Hebrews 13:17 which says that when our leaders are doing what is right (for war, Just War Theory) then we are to “obey your leaders and submit to their authority, for they keep watch over you as men who must give an account, obey them so their work will be a joy and not a burden for his is of no advantage to you.” God commands us to obey our leaders when acting rightly (according to the JWT), and in so doing, as a soldier, we must go fight for our country with the approval of God. Therefore, with God commanding us to obey our leaders, His commands can not be sin; hence, killing in a war that is entered in to by a just government (the USA) is not a sin.
Loominator-- you say as long as there is moral justification behind the reason for going to war, then killing in battle is not a sin. I agree with this statement, but see many problems in its application. By agreeing to join the U.S. military, you are agreeing to follow someone else's commands--your superior's. Maybe the person giving your orders doesnt look at morality the same way you do. Are you wrongly putting your faith in that person? How do you know the government's actions are always just and reasonable? Do you really submit that everything the U.S. does is moral? I would say that most, if not all of the U.S.'s actions in regard to going to war are primarily for our self-interest, and not necessarily just or moral, at least in the way you describe it in your references to the Bible. It's not always so easy to defend committing a sin as merely protecting our so-called morally intrinsic country, when you don't have a say in the reasons we go to war.
Many good points brought up here. To continue with Theo's assumptions and approach (bible's legitimacy, etc), I would just add that we have to also watch to avoid that "smoke screen" we've talked about in class. Just because our leaders say to do something, we still need to think critically about what it is we are being asked to do. I would think that Kant would also ask us to examine for ourselves if our actions could be a legitimate maxim based on what we do.
No doubt, this former soldier has seen terrible things in war. I sincerely hope that he did not have to do anything that was against his view of right and wrong. But even then, he might have done something terrible that was completely justifiable within the laws of war. If we are to assume in a just war construct, there are still terrible things that can happen. Just the simple act of killing can be considered a terrible sin for some people. So, I think sometimes terrible stuff (killing) must happen to protect freedom. I do hope that he is not referring to anything terrible like killing children or unarmed combatants because that is much harder to justify.
i agree with loominator, however the arugment has to be legitimized by the bible, which some people do not agree with. other christians may go back to Augustus to deal with their moral feelings on war.
I would like to challenge the premise that this man believes he has sinned. The whole idea of forgiveness stems from the fact that an individual now sees the folly of their actions and thus wishes that they never happened. An individual who wishes to repent makes a vow to himself and his higher authority that he knows why his actions were wrong and will never do them again to the utmost of his ability. But this man’s single sentence contradicts this edict all by itself.
According to Merriam Webster, The word “Repent” means to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life. If we were to take this definition into account, then we could surmise that if the owner of this vehicle were given the choice to go back and undo what he had done, he would do just that. However, he contradicts this sentiment before the sentence is even over, saying that he did it to protect our freedom. He is simultaneously saying that he wants forgiveness but would do it again.
I doubt this man sees his freedom as more valuable then his eternal soul, and since he apparently fought for this freedom anyway, the only conclusion to draw is that is that he not repentant to God, but rather to his local man. He is appealing to his local man’s sense of morality and not his God’s. He believes that the end goal is enough justification for the means and seeks only to draw less attention to views that he thinks make him reprehensible to today’s society.
Post a Comment