On the Taboo of Killing

 A friend recently brought up the topic of death in the context of the military and I thought it useful to spend some time thinking about it.

The conversation stems from two marines who come to different conclusions on the existence of God after seeing wartime. 

• "With all this death in the world how can you believe in God?"
• "With all this death in the world, how can you not?"

My first thought when considering this is the lens through which these individuals are seeing the loss of life.

• Lens 1: I have witnessed the killing of a person and now I must take the fragility of my own existence into question.
• Lens 2: I am here because I believe in the mission of my nation state and the purpose I serve is toward the objective of the mission.
• Lens 3: I am here by the grace of God and he has a plan for me in this mission.

These lenses aren't mutually exclusive so you can adopt a combination of them.

For an individual looking through Lens 1 I would imagine there would be an immediate ethical dilemma to the action of killing in combat. The more killing they take part in the more events they encounter that have a non-zero possibility of their own life coming to an end. And as time goes on this probability increases. One could have hubris and think that survival is solely a skill that can be honed but in the chaos of war I don't think this is a tenable position to hold. There will always be surprises. The assumption I would make is that a person no matter what they believed in as the reasonable justification for murder would start to feel the pull toward their own existential demise and want to exit from combat.

When Lens 2 is considered, there is the possibility of pride in martyrdom so it may have the effect of softening Lens 1 and allow an individual to deprioritize their own existence for the benefit of the mission their nation state has committed them to. I'm reminded of Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo. In this book the primary theme is a Samurai should behave as if he is already dead. This preemptive abandonment of one's life has the function of ridding the soldier of the anxiety of imminent death which is argued makes them a much more effective warrior. Of course this assumes that the reason for the war in the first place has just cause in order to validate this level of dispassionate strategy.

Lens 3 is a complicated one due to the tight rope one has to walk in order to justify violence given the religious taboo against it. The complication comes from the conflict between justified old testament genocide and new testament "turn the other cheek" sentiments. There is additional complication when the opponents in a given wartime engagement are in opposing religions and even carry sentiment of extermination based solely on the intention of wiping out another religion. Again martyrdom is to be considered in this context since the survival of the "good" as defined by the adopted religion is the ultimate goal.

For person 1 in the original anecdote, there seems to be a focus on the nihilism of war, when seeing violence firsthand how can one believe in anything, apostacy seems like a natural conclusion. I think this is the sole focus on lens 1, identification of violence as if through a mirror, looking at their own torn flesh on the battlefield in the same moment they witness their bloodied opponent.

Person 2 appears to be leaning denying the natural tendency toward nihilism, as if to say, "without God watching over me there would be no purpose at all and I might as well step into the next crossfire I see." It is his faith that keeps him in the battle. And here is where Lens 3 comes into focus. He thinks of his life as having meaning because of God's existence and God is there to protect and in a way he is there to protect the narrative of God in his faith, his describing his faith to others and his ability to kill those of a different faith.

Neither of these personas considers Lens 2 which I think is interesting. In the heat of battle when does a combatant rely on the justification of war by a ruling class? When was the last time a soldier felt comfortable dying for the cause of their country. Is this an aspect of modern warfare or is the sentiment more so a faint echo from past eras, eras that produced the necessary philosophy described in Hagakure.

Regardless of the two specific personas, I'm drawn to the morality posed by these constructs. Does God condone killing? It depends on who you ask. The Bible certainly contains many events of justified murder so even though Jesus would have you turn the other cheek, how the holy book is interpreted leaves a lot of room for poetic license.

Does the state condone killing? Over and over again, yes. If that is unclear to anyone, stand witness to the rise in death penalties, death in the penal system generally, homeless death, death as a result of affordability of basic human need, as a result of nutrition, as a result of mass marketed poison, on and on. The state loves to kill, it's hungry to send young men to war and interestingly refuses to send old men to pasture.

Ultimately I think the Lens one needs to truly consider first is Lens 1. When you see death with your own naked eyes it becomes real. Before that moment it was an abstract idea. You know it's inevitable, but it's not coming for you anytime soon until it gets close to you, until the cold reminder passes through your chest like a specter robbing you of your breath. No matter how you look down upon the fallen, this reminder of inevitability should be universal and should make one reflect upon whether an additional lens is necessary to maintain a sense of calm when facing the existential conflict. Does someone need the rose colored glass of God or a red white and blue colored lens of patriotism to keep moving forward?