http://www.truthout.org/on-duty-conscientiously-object57967
Thursday 25 March 2010
by: Camillo "Mac" Bica
Moral values and norms are the means through which we define
ourselves as persons, structure our world and render our relationship
to it and to other human beings comprehensible. That is, moral values
and norms provide the parameters of our being - what I term our
"moral identity." I submit that the moral principle of respect for
persons is foundational to any reasonable, normative, ethical system.
It is clear to me that if we do not respect and value persons, then
respect for anything else we may hold "sacred," whether it is
property, country, the flag etc., loses all meaning. Morality
requires, therefore, that we treat all persons as ends in themselves,
not as a means to the ends of others, that all persons have intrinsic
moral value, not instrumental value only. This principle is manifest
as maintaining that all human beings have inalienable human rights,
and correlative to these rights are the obligations of all moral
agents to respect and not to violate them. It is clear to me as well
that adhering to this rule, this principle, as foundational, will
bring the greatest balance of good (benefit) over evil (detriment or
harm) into the world for the greatest number of people. So, in a
sense, then, this principle is not only Kantian, but Rule Utilitarian as well.
Unless one is an anarchist, since we choose to live in community with
others, we must recognize the prima facie authority of the political
structure within the state to make decisions about policy and actions
that must be taken on behalf of the body politic. Further, when such
decisions have been made utilizing established political processes,
citizens are legally, perhaps even morally, obligated to concede at
least a preliminary measure of authority to these decisions; even
should they find them disagreeable. We must begin, therefore with a
presumption in favor of decisions of state. The authority of the
state, however, is not absolute and contingent upon the legality and
morality of the particular policy being instituted or course of
action being required.
Decisions of state may, in some situations, precipitate a crisis of
conscience. Consider for example, a state's decision to wage war. For
the pacifist, inalienable human rights and the subsequent immunity
afforded by such rights are absolute and cannot be overridden or
forfeited. As war inevitably entails violence and killing, war is
never a moral option. Consequently, the pacifist refuses
participation, arguing that one's moral obligation is absolute and,
therefore, trumps/overrides any obligation one may have to the state.
While never conceding its power to wage war, nations, including our
own, have recognized the significance and accepted the importance of
individualism, freedom of conscience and religious toleration. As
such, governments have allowed pacifists a dispensation from having
to serve in war by granting them general conscientious objector status.
For the nonpacifist, however, of whom I am one, moral rules and
rights, since they can conflict, are not absolute, but prima facie.
That is, under some conditions, rights and immunity can be forfeited,
rendering the individual liable to be justifiably injured and/or
killed in self-defense and war. For the nonpacifist, then, should
certain very specific criteria be met (henceforth referred to as just
war criteria), a war may be just and killing moral. Since, for the
nonpacifist, some wars, wars that satisfy the just war criteria, may
be morally justifiable, participation in such wars violates no moral
principle and ought to provoke no objection of conscience.[1]
Consequently, in the absence of a more stringent conflicting moral
obligation, nonpacifists ought to abide by the morally and legally
correct and duly arrived at decisions of government, even should they
require service in war.
Unfortunately, not all wars that become the policy of governments are
just and moral. Wars that fail to satisfy just war criteria, wars of
aggression for example, violate the sanctity and inviolability of
human life and the tenets of international law, treaties, United
States military law and the principles of morality. Consequently,
such wars are both illegal and immoral.
The order to participate in an unjust war and, hence, to kill
nonliable human beings (innocents) - to commit murder - is an illegal
and immoral order. Consequently, the authority of government to
require participation in such a war is forfeit, and citizens, whether
they are civilians or members of the military, have no obligation to
obey such an order, despite the war being a duly enacted decision of
government. The Nuremberg Principles make this obligation clear:
"[T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals
have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of
obedience imposed by the individual state."
In fact, according to morality and law there is an obligation NOT to
participate, a duty to refuse, an obligation of selective
conscientious objection. In addition, at the Tokyo War Crimes
Tribunal, it was further declared that there is a legal obligation to
work toward ending unjust wars.
Anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do
something about it is a potential criminal under international law
unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of
the crimes.
Selective conscientious objection, then, is the claim by nonpacifists
first, that a particular war fails to satisfy the just war criteria;
second, that it is illegal and immoral; and third, that all moral
agents are obligated not to abide by the decisions of government and
to refuse to participate in or to support the prosecution of this
particular war. Consequently, in an unjust war, since law and
morality are in agreement, there is no conflict between a citizen's
moral and legal obligation. Paradoxically, despite the clarity of
international, domestic and moral law regarding illegal and immoral
war, few governments, including our own, recognize selective
conscious objection.
Where the general conscientious objector, the pacifist, the selective
conscientious objector and the just war theorist differ is that with
the former only sincerity of belief is relevant. But with the latter,
in addition to sincerity of belief, correctness of conscience is not
only relevant, but required. That is, conscience is not infallible.
There are those - members of the Westboro Baptist Church come to mind
- who believe sincerely that God hates homosexuals as well as all
members of the military, Catholics, Jews etc. I will grant them the
benefit of the doubt that they are sincere in their beliefs and
acting in accordance with their conscience, outrageous and perverted
though their behavior may be. Consequently, since there is a prima
facie obligation to abide by just and moral policy determined through
accepted means of governance, nonpacifists citizens must either
participate in war or bear the burden of proof to demonstrate
correctness of conscience, that is, establish how/why the war in
question is illegal and immoral.
Transparency in government, that is, providing the information
necessary to create an informed citizenry, is a requirement in a
democracy if government by and for the people is to work
successfully. Political leaders, then, must, before waging war, offer
a coherent, rational and valid argument that just war criteria have
been satisfied, that is, despite the awfulness of war, killing and
destruction is a necessary, just and moral recourse in this
particular situation.
In bringing attention to moral and legal concerns that should be of
vital interest to all moral agents, especially to those charged with
the responsibilities of governing, the selective conscientious
objector is a great asset to the state. That is, the selective
conscientious objector is telling us that, in his view, and for these
reasons, a particular war has failed to satisfy just war criteria
and, hence, is in violation of international, military and moral law.
Such objections may be correct or incorrect, but either way, they
ought to be taken seriously by the government as they provide an
important opportunity to review and re-evaluate the decision to wage war.
However the Supreme Court chooses to interpret, and political and
military leaders choose to implement conscientious objection, the
legal precedent and moral obligation is clear. Consequently, we do
not need further legislation recognizing a right to selective
conscientious objection because it is already not only recognized,
but required both by law and morality. What is necessary, however, is
that governments and the military begin taking these objections
seriously. That is, our political and military leaders should welcome
the observations and criticisms of the selective conscientious
objector as a means either to reaffirm their decision to wage war, or
to correct and make retribution for their transgressions or tragic
mistakes in policy. A nation that persists in waging unjust, immoral
war is a pariah in the international community, a rogue nation, and
its leaders, war criminals.
--
[1] Given the moral gravity of one's actions in war, however, it may
well be the case that warriors may still suffer "moral injury." See
my "The Moral Casualties of War: Understanding the Experience,"
International Journal of Applied Philosophy, v.13:1, Spring 1999, p 81.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment