A QUESTION OF MORALITY.

ITS EASY TO TALK TOUGH, HARDER TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

The modern law of armed conflict (LOAC) supports the following maxim: if the enemy combatants can be put out of action by capturing them, they should not be injured; if they can be put out of action by injury, they should not be killed; and if they can be put out of action by light injury, grave injury should be avoided.

Sounds great in theory, but war is war, and I know that there is often a discrepancy between intent and act, a time when the need for action overtook the time for consideration.

I had a discussion with an acquaintance the other day that raised questions about the conflicts among morality, the law, and military necessity.

The scenario was as follows.

Bob is a patriot and wants to do his part. He is not opposed to the idea of Direct Action, but he doesn’t own a weapon beyond the knives in his kitchen, the wrenches in his garage, and possibly a homemade spear he can make from a birch tree in his backyard. What is a man supposed to do?

Bob has noticed that a solitary soldier from the US Annexation Military Force (USAMF) often comes down the road to sit on a park bench close to his house during the evening. The park is quite secluded, out of view of the local high school football field, which has been commandeered by the occupying army. Bob can see an opportunity if only he dares.

That evening, Bob casually walks along the path, and upon arriving behind the soldier without alerting him to his presence, he reaches forth and cuts the man’s throat using the Santoku knife from his Hexclad knife set that his wife bought for him last Christmas. As the man’s blood drips to the ground, Bob scoops up the man’s M7 rifle and the SIG Sauer M17 service pistol, along with all of the magazines and scurries home.

Bob feels vindicated in his actions; after all, the victim was an occupying military force, and he feels that this is not really murder since that’s a civilian offence. After all, soldiers are allowed to kill. Killing the man was necessary, or else Bob would be weaponless at a time when the possession of firepower could be the difference between life and death.

Was he justified in his actions? Should he feel guilty for killing a man to gain weapons so he can defend his country? What to do, what to think?

There might come a time when everyone will have to come face-to-face with the question of life and death, and the question of where your morality and ethics fit into the brave new world that we could face. It might be time to start asking yourself that question now. Before it becomes a question of your life or your death.