Search results

The author analyzes the classical Christian viewpoints on the military, presenting the wide spectrum of ethical problems related to the national requirement of performing military service, participation in war, the death penalty, etc. The paper also draws attention to the historical background of the penetration of both the concepts of "just war theory" and extreme pacifism into the Russian-Ukrainian brotherhood of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists. The author notes both the Russian "sectarian" and the "Orthodox-monastic" influence on the traditional pacifism of a considerable portion of the Slavic Baptists and discusses the ambiguity of the definitions of military involvement even in the creeds of the EC0B, as well as the sharp contradiction between some official publications and the actual life of local congregations. The research contains a brief survey of the key biblical texts on the problem, which are mainly interpreted fromthe position of Christian pacifism. At the same time, the author points out the known shortcomings or moral limitations of the admissibility of pacifism, specifically in its extreme legalistic form.

This article looks at the individual responsibility of rank-and-file soldiers in "just wars" & defends what might be called "subtle pacifism." Subtle pacifism begins with an acknowledgement of the conflict between the jus in bello imperative of taking part in one's own community's just wars & the pacifist imperative of refraining from any homicidal enterprise. The moral dilemma faced by soldiers in any just war proves insoluble, as may be shown by arguments based on open debate, incommensurable descriptions & the most cogent interpretation of the case of the "naked soldier." The article concludes that to minimize the risk of being trapped in this dilemma, we should work toward an international order that obviates the need for just wars. And to minimize the temptations of bad faith, we should oppose compulsory military service. Adapted from the source document.

THE ARTICLE EXAMINES AN APPARENT CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY REFLECTED IN THE POLICIES OF GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR. HIS FIRING BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN FOR PUBLICLY ADVOCATING ENLARGEMENT OF THE KOREAN WAR CONTRARY TO AMERICAN POLICY OVERSHADOWS HIS SHIFT FROM MILITARISM OF PACIFISM AFTER WORLD WAR TWO. THE ARTICLE EXAMINES MACARTHUR'S AIMS AND CONCLUDES THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL OUTLAWRY OF WAR WOULD NOT MEAN PEACE AT ANY PRICE OR A BAN ON DEFENSIVE FORCES.

This article looks at the individual responsibility of rank-and-file soldiers in "just wars" and defends what might be called "subtle pacifism". Subtle pacifism begins with an acknowledgement of the conflict between the jus in bello imperative of taking part in one's own community's just wars and the pacifist imperative of refraining from any homicidal enterprise. The moral dilemma faced by soldiers in any just war proves insoluble, as may be shown by arguments based on open debate, incommensurable descriptions and the most cogent interpretation of the case of the "naked soldier". The article concludes that to minimize the risk of being trapped in this dilemma, we should work toward an international order that obviates the need for just wars. And to minimize the temptations of bad faith, we should oppose compulsory military service.