A question was asked this Sunday whilst in Sunday School about the difference between killing in war and murder. I thought it a very good question, and one that deserved more exploration than we were able to have in that forum. So, you get to read about it here. At least, here are my musings:
I served in the military. Some of my training involved the utilization of various weapons. I found that I was quite proficient at it. I qualified as a sharpshooter on the M-16 rifle, which meant that I was able to put a round through a target the size of a large pumpkin from over 200 yards away with 90% accuracy. This was with only using iron sights (no scope). I also shot different kinds of weapons, including the grenade launcher, the pistol, and a AT-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M136_AT4). While we used targets and dead machinery for our training purposes, there was always the lingering understanding that there would be people at whom I would be really shooting. And when we were trained, we were not taught to shoot to maim or otherwise discourage people... We were trained to kill. Because, that's what the enemies' intentions are as well. It becomes a life and death struggle.
So while I was trained to kill people, and while I would have performed my duty if called upon in obedience to the lawful orders of my superiors, it is not something I would have relished. I don't think anyone, anywhere, at any time, relishes the idea of killing another. Well, perhaps there are some who are mentally or otherwise unstable. But it's not something that normal folks think about. In particular, I tend to be a caring, kind-hearted individual. Violence is repugnant to me. I don't allow my children to play first-person shooter games in my home (although I'm sure they get their fill of shoot 'em up at other's places, and that's fine). Shucks, I would sooner shoo a fly out the door than smash it.
On the other hand, if a wasp was threatening my daughter, I would smash it without any hesitation.
So it becomes a complex issue. What are the motives under which taking someone's life is acceptable? This applies to the death penalty as well as killing in wartime. Certainly it is something to be avoided when/where possible. But when does it become necessary? When is it better that one man should perish than a whole nation suffer? Nephi struggled with that one before dispatching Laban.
I don't know the answer to that one. On one hand, the Nuremberg defense seems applicable - that one is just following orders of the duly appointed leaders. On the other hand, the Nuremberg defense seems weak and unsubstantial. How can a rational human being claim such an argument? Shouldn't we all exercise the precious right to choose whether or not a particular order is legal and just? And yet, what if we're wrong?
Shakespeare ponders the very thing in Henry V. The king, disguised as a common soldier, engages some of his soldiers in conversation. The men are talking about how if the cause of the king is just, the soldiers' obedience wipes the crimes from them and places them on the king. If not, the king has a great reckoning to do for all of those lives and limbs lost. Henry, however, sees things differently. He says that each man's duty is to the king, but each man's soul is his own. The king may send forth a soldier on an errand, but how that errand gets accomplished and what that soldier does along the way is up to the soldier, and the king cannot be responsible for reprehensible deeds performed by the soldier, even if he's in the king's employ.
I think a lot of it boils down to what we think of life. Life does not begin or end with birth or death. Life is a continuum - we lived before we came here, and we will live after we are gone. The only prerequisite for death is birth - we will all die. The conditions of death vary - accident, illness, old age, even punishment - but we will all go back to the earth. States and nations may make the ultimate decision regarding a person's life, either in wartime or in response to crimes committed. But each person's soul is their own.
I think, in the end, we should be much more circumspect about how we treat the precious commodity that is human life. It it not expendable. People are unique and irreplaceable. As we look to our fellow travelers on this sphere, this mortal coil, we should be reminded constantly of one another's innate goodness and unique qualities. We should strive to celebrate life and its diversity. And we should seek to preserve as much as possible the gift that is each day, each moment, and to enhance it for others as much as we can.
I served in the military. Some of my training involved the utilization of various weapons. I found that I was quite proficient at it. I qualified as a sharpshooter on the M-16 rifle, which meant that I was able to put a round through a target the size of a large pumpkin from over 200 yards away with 90% accuracy. This was with only using iron sights (no scope). I also shot different kinds of weapons, including the grenade launcher, the pistol, and a AT-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M136_AT4). While we used targets and dead machinery for our training purposes, there was always the lingering understanding that there would be people at whom I would be really shooting. And when we were trained, we were not taught to shoot to maim or otherwise discourage people... We were trained to kill. Because, that's what the enemies' intentions are as well. It becomes a life and death struggle.
So while I was trained to kill people, and while I would have performed my duty if called upon in obedience to the lawful orders of my superiors, it is not something I would have relished. I don't think anyone, anywhere, at any time, relishes the idea of killing another. Well, perhaps there are some who are mentally or otherwise unstable. But it's not something that normal folks think about. In particular, I tend to be a caring, kind-hearted individual. Violence is repugnant to me. I don't allow my children to play first-person shooter games in my home (although I'm sure they get their fill of shoot 'em up at other's places, and that's fine). Shucks, I would sooner shoo a fly out the door than smash it.
On the other hand, if a wasp was threatening my daughter, I would smash it without any hesitation.
So it becomes a complex issue. What are the motives under which taking someone's life is acceptable? This applies to the death penalty as well as killing in wartime. Certainly it is something to be avoided when/where possible. But when does it become necessary? When is it better that one man should perish than a whole nation suffer? Nephi struggled with that one before dispatching Laban.
I don't know the answer to that one. On one hand, the Nuremberg defense seems applicable - that one is just following orders of the duly appointed leaders. On the other hand, the Nuremberg defense seems weak and unsubstantial. How can a rational human being claim such an argument? Shouldn't we all exercise the precious right to choose whether or not a particular order is legal and just? And yet, what if we're wrong?
Shakespeare ponders the very thing in Henry V. The king, disguised as a common soldier, engages some of his soldiers in conversation. The men are talking about how if the cause of the king is just, the soldiers' obedience wipes the crimes from them and places them on the king. If not, the king has a great reckoning to do for all of those lives and limbs lost. Henry, however, sees things differently. He says that each man's duty is to the king, but each man's soul is his own. The king may send forth a soldier on an errand, but how that errand gets accomplished and what that soldier does along the way is up to the soldier, and the king cannot be responsible for reprehensible deeds performed by the soldier, even if he's in the king's employ.
I think a lot of it boils down to what we think of life. Life does not begin or end with birth or death. Life is a continuum - we lived before we came here, and we will live after we are gone. The only prerequisite for death is birth - we will all die. The conditions of death vary - accident, illness, old age, even punishment - but we will all go back to the earth. States and nations may make the ultimate decision regarding a person's life, either in wartime or in response to crimes committed. But each person's soul is their own.
I think, in the end, we should be much more circumspect about how we treat the precious commodity that is human life. It it not expendable. People are unique and irreplaceable. As we look to our fellow travelers on this sphere, this mortal coil, we should be reminded constantly of one another's innate goodness and unique qualities. We should strive to celebrate life and its diversity. And we should seek to preserve as much as possible the gift that is each day, each moment, and to enhance it for others as much as we can.
Comments