How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate? If you do not understand that blindly following your conscience in certain circumstances is cowardice then there is precious little to discuss. Alas I'm the sort of chap who'll put my conscience to one side to defend you. I'll worry about it later. Your quandary is a complete non sequitur in this case.
OK - so it is now personal abuse - I think that is generally considered to be the loss of an argument. Don't get angry with me because I disagree with you. Go and look up the meaning of cowardice and then try to have a discussion without calling others obtuse. I disagree with you but that does not make me obtuse. I would like to know anyone else on here who agrees with you that bravely following your sincere beliefs equates to cowardice - rather than stupidity or whatever else you want to call it. You told us the story earlier of your proud family killing people for what they believe in - so did many cowards who did not agree with it but were too craven to say "no I will follow what I consider right". Killing people does not equal bravery. Some of my best friends are Jehovahs Witnesses. I disagree with almost everything they believe in - but I respect their right to believe it and they are COs and they are NOT cowards - someone who will die for their beliefs is NOT a coward. How can YOU not see that? The "quandry" demonstrated exactly the dilemma you posed about someone who would kill smaller numbers for the greater good - it was definitely a sequitur. Anyway - our discussion is at an end as you have stopped making points and have resorted to abuse. Please do not put your conscience to one side on my behalf to defend me - I do not need your kind of defence.
I think when it comes to self defence I don't believe in violence, and the thought of ending someone else's life is abhorrent. Yet I'm also steeped in principles, some I was brought up with and some I've arrived at via experience and thought. I don't like injustice of any sort and had a difficult enough start in life that left me very conscious of having to stick up for myself. Fortunately I have never had to defend loved ones against serious physical threats. I'm not sure anyone knows how they would react in those circumstances but we like to think we' d do anything to protect those close to us. One thing which experience should have taught us is that almost all those who went to war were afraid and the experience of killing strangers traumatised many for the rest of their lives. At least we have moved on from the once widely held belief that those who could no longer bear killing others should be shot as traitors.
Nice one Theo ! None of us knows how we would have reacted, because we were all brought up in a completely different World - the only dangers of my youth were avoiding skinheads on friday nights. When my father tells me about his past (he's 96 so he has a lot of it) it describes a life so different from my own. If I had lived then I would have been a completely different person to what I am now. And if I had grown up in Gaza I would probably be different again.
I do not know you so I can't say if you are obtuse. Your argumentation is. Nothing personal. My point is that "bravely" following your own conscience to the detriment of the greater good is not brave at all, but cowardice. To take your family intrusion scenario I'd rather wrestle with my conscience having shot the intruders rather than wrestle with it upon survival and having watched them die knowing I could have saved them. No brainer, really, isn't it? The train argument is faintly ridiculous as the laws of physics would realistically dictate that nudging the family car would make no difference. To nudge it forward and sacrifice that family would be, as you suggest, to play god in the vain hope that the "real" god will intervene with a miracle! An act of selfless bravery would of course be to put my own car in front of the train and hopefully make good my escape. There in lies the difference. You do not, as yet, appear to understand or accept the difference. Moving on to JW's, a branch of Christianity that puts one's own fear of god and conscience above that of one's own children. It's abominable. I too have friends in this particular sect. One in particular I was compelled to ask what should I do if he was seriously injured as he was barely practicing his religion at the time. He was quite determined that he should not have a transfusion. So I'll put this scenario to you: you're driving and you have an accident that is down to you. You're okay but you're friend has lost a lot of blood and the paramedics want to give him a transfusion. There is no i.d. to say he is a Witness but you overhear the conversation.... do you let him die? We always invite them in when they come knocking, especially if the children are in tow. Never yet met a Witness child happy to be there. So basically I find their "conscience" somewhat objectionable. And most certainly cowardly because they are more afraid of what will happen in the "next life" than doing the right thing for the greater good in this life. As to my family you seem to be under the impression that they're all a bit gung ho. I can assure you that they were far from first in the queue. No dispatches or medals for gallantry though stripes were earned. They did their duty, putting their conscience aside to do the right thing for the greater good. They wrestled with their conscience later. Truly brave for all the right reasons, not apologetically so for quite probably the wrong ones. If I ever felt it necessary to defend you then I would, and wouldn't hesitate. You might not like it but it's not your choice to make if the defence of you is also for the greater good. Do you understand that?
I cannot argue with someone who calls somebody else's argument obtuse simply because they do not come around to your way of thinking nor someone who defines cowardice as following your conscience when it does not meet your morality.
As I see it most (though not all) conscientious objectors come from a religious background, Quaker, JW, Buddhist etc. The commandment 'thou shalt not kill' appears unequivocal - or is it? Does it refer only to human life ? Although Jesus was not a vegetarian there are some parts of the Bible which are not clear on this. Also does the command mean to not kill directly or also indirectly (ie. to kill by non action) - if as a direct result of non action people die is this the same as killing ? Legally this is often the case. If someone like Brevik (the Norwegian nutter who committed mass murder) is in the process of mowing down hundreds of people can I do nothing or am I not also responsible for those deaths ? A direct question for Leo - would your conscience have justified the assassination of Hitler if it could have been achieved ? We should also be very carefull with using words like 'cowardly' to describe those things which we do not like. If a man stands before a forest armed with a Kalashnikov and shouts to a man hiding armed only with a penknife `Come out and fight like a man - you coward' who is then the coward. We say all bullies are cowards - and I think we agree there. Is it not the act of a coward to bomb whole towns more or less with immunity (bombing from a height which no anti aircraft gun can reach) - is it not cowardly how the Americans wage war ? Read the rules of war from the Khoran and there it would state that to wage war against an enemy which has inferior arms is an act of cowardice and anti islamic - yet we call suicide bombers cowards ! Cowards are always the 'enemy' or the person we want to defame in some way.
But following your conscience when it puts only yourself first and the greater good in jeopardy is nothing short of a cowardly thing to do. I am very surprised that you apparently fail to accept this. What are the Israelis supposed to do, sit back idly whilst Hamas fires rockets at them? What is the rest of the world to do, sit idly by whilst Israel far exceeds an acceptable response in terms of human suffering? Sit idly by whilst Hamas continues to fire rockets from densely populated areas knowing that the Israelis will consider the civilian casualties as acceptable collateral damage? Let the situation fester knowing that it will spread and cause further disharmony between Jews and Muslims? How far does it have to go before your conscience says "enough is enough and I will do something about it". How does your conscience allow the likes of ISIS continue in any form? They would kill you, me and all of us debating here (and quite probably including any Muslims that use our boards) without batting an eyelid. What does it take before the conscience is put to one side for the greater good? And in case you hadn't noticed but Cologne and I had a perfectly reasonable argument in which I think it's fair to say we didn't agree. My definition of cowardice doesn't mean what you think it means. Once you've understood that then we can move on.
Some good points Cologne in #187. My understanding is that the Kill commandment pertains to murder of fellow man, going back to where Abraham killed an Egyptian guard (going from memory, I stand to be corrected) and god told him not to do it again. Either way it's a commandment that is way down the list, below mixing cloths and observing the sabbath. All bullies are indeed cowards. Suicide bombers are also cowards, their fire power is invariably greater than that at the average checkpoint or market square, rendering their own argument mute. But their morality is based also on the morality of barbaric scripture and promises for the next life. They are cowards, nothing particularly brave about accelerating into the next life with all its virgins and paradise when this one is such a struggle. Somewhat different to a kamikaze pilot flying a plane into a battleship with all guns blazing. Psychotic? Most certainly. Cowardly? Well, given the lack of element of surprise and inferior fire power I have to say not. Drone technology, I assume this is what you mean regarding the way the Americans fight, is acceptable when it hits a legitimate target but seems cowardly when it strays into an innocent area. Contentious at best. Not brave but does not brave mean cowardly? I don't necessarily think so.* How far do we go? Anyone here remember the Star Trek episode where two planets continued a virtual war after negotiating an end to the real war. Whole sectors of cities were marched off to be summarily executed because they had been hit by such and such missile. Utter madness. Where are we headed? ima
An interesting question and you may be surprised by my answer. When I had faith in God and considered myself a Christian I followed what I believed to be his teachings. I could not conceive of any circumstance in which Jesus would have killed and so I would have not have been able to justify it. I believed in God and Jesus and that justice was in his hands and I had faith that what happened on this Earth was less important than what was to follow. Hitler would face judgment not by man but by God. Was I stupid to believe that? Who can say? I was in a club and so had to follow the rules - if you are not prepared to do that then leave the club. As it happens I did - I lost my faith and now not only am I not a Christian but do not believe in any form of God at all. That means I am free to decide my own rules and do what I want to do. I would kill Hitler without hesitation in 1939 and onwards but maybe not in 1936. How strange that someone would define me as having been a coward when I had and followed my faith but now views me as a brave person. Ridiculous - of course. My bravery / cowardice has not changed - my beliefs and how I follow my conscience has. I think "thou shall not kill" and Jesus' personal example related to human life. I am not sure animals were considered much at all - apart from the original Genesis gift of everything to mankind to use as he saw fit - killing / eating animals is within that. Kill is a verb active not passive - standing by and not acting is simply not killing - it is failing to stop killing - they are different. You may believe you have a moral duty to try to prevent somebody else killing but it is not the same as committing the act yourself. The use of the term coward is simply one person's judgement of another. Most people reserve the term to use when a person is not brave. It seems some use the term in other ways. For me it is not helpful to label a person as either brave or a coward. We are what we were born and have become as we have developed. I consider labelling someone whose views or actions you do not approve of as a coward as wrong and unacceptable as if you used homophobic, sexist or religious prejudice against them. Who are we to label another human being?
Well, I see it's all kicked off again.... I read an article recently that summed it up succinctly when it quoted the Israeli ambassador on a trip to George Galloway's "Israeli Free Bradford" earlier this week where he said something along the lines of "it's not about left and right, Sunni and Shia but past and future". http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....ador_in_Bradford_to_answer_Galloway_comments/ Galloway is a most objectionable apology of a human being. We need to move on from that sort of mind set. I see little hope for the wider world until we do.
That's a bit of a politically correct cop out. Cowardice is the ultimate form of selfishness. The unwillingness to put the necessity of doing a lesser evil for the greater good. The ability to put your own conscience above the survival prospects of the society around. By the same token this is why a bully is a coward, because a bully will put himself above the needs of the many. Sometimes it's braver to walk away from a situation to face up to the cause another day. I've had to take a stand against bullies in my life, and been hospitalised for having to do the right thing. A very unpleasant experience, especially when I could see the hopelessness of my situation. But in doing this I made damned sure I wouldn't be bullied again, and that they would think twice before having go at some other unsuspecting chap. But to keep walking away, to not face the objectionable reality where it affects all around and where it puts the society at large in danger is cowardice. Not a label. A fact.
