Ethics of War

Ethics of War By Fred L. W. Bennett

One of the most remarkable results of the great war in Europe is that many people have been led to question the ethics of settling disputes between nations by armed force. In England, popular as the war is, taking the country as a whole (I speak from personal knowledge of conditions) a class has arisen known as "The Conscientious Objectors." They declare war to be utterly wrong and immoral. When questioned by the authorities they invariably quote isolated passages of Scripture in support of their case: such as "Love your enemies;" "Thou shalt not kill," etc. The military authorities, as may be supposed, have the greatest contempt for these conscientious citizens, and when they appear before the special courts which have been set up to hear appeals for exemption, they are sure to be roughly handled by some sarcastic representative or other of the war office. But I must not wander from my subject. The Rev. R. J. Campbell, the noted English preacher and writer (author of The New Theology which caused a stir a few years ago), says that war is the only thing that can bring out the best there is in man. In other words he cannot demonstrate his readiness for sacrifice on a grand scale in any other way. If war is uplifting and really beneficial to the race, let us hasten to turn our gospel leaders into warriors, cancel all diplomatic appointments, and fight whenever we have an opportunity! Judging by this standard, America must have lost heavily morally and spiritually by her neutrality in respect to the present war! The truth is, war is degrading, the most demoralizing, hateful, wicked thing known to mankind. It not only destroys bodies, it destroys souls, which is infinitely worse. Many foolishly assert that a great spiritual revival will take place in Europe as a result of this strife. How can all the hatred and bitterness inseparable with war produce a feeling of love and humility in the breasts of the participants? Many of the bereaved will be led to seek consolation in religion, but I am speaking of the people as a whole. When I denounced war as wicked, I did not mean that men who engage in it are necessarily bad. Whilst I have much sympathy with the views of the conscientious objector, I must say that he is a fanatic. The real trouble is this: — nations are like

424 IMPROVEMENT ERA

individuals, — sensitive,passionate, ambitious, overbearselfish, ing, etc. —but unlike individuals they are "living together" (for the relationships are very similar) in a state of anarchy. Unlike individuals in a civilized country, however, there is no one invested with undisputed authority and power to intervene between nations when they trespass on each other's rights. War, therefore, is the only means a nation has of punishing its offending neighbor. Let the man or woman who thinks people who engage in war are wicked imagine him or herself in a country without laws, and my point will be readily understood. If it is wrong to use force to suppress evil designing persons, then it must be wrong to maintain large bodies of men like the police, for they depend on force for carrying out their plans as much as the soldier. How are we then to understand war? This way: It is a natural result of the wickedness of man as a whole, just as most diseases may be traced to wrong living, or some delinquency or other on his part. If the nations of the world, irrespective of race, color or power could be brought together in one great Church, possessing inspired prophets and apostles, there would be such a bond of sympathy that war would be absolutely impossible, for all would be brothers and have a common interest. As it is now, most nations have a church of their — — own, in some cases many, and they have no respect for the teachings of others, they look for their own to guide them although most of them profess to believe in the same God! Ever since the dawn of time there have been wars, and many take this as a proof that war is all right; but it rather shows that the world has at no time been free from sin: otherwise we should have had the millennium long ago. When the prophet said, "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, be not troubled for such things must be," he did not mean that they were right and proper, nor was he planning anything (as others suppose) he was merely reading the future, which is quite a different thing. He had such a knowledge of human nature that he could see quarreling and bloodshed would be inevitable at times. Universal peace will never be attained in this world, that is, the world as we know it at present. There is too much sin abroad for that. Peace will not come until the great millennium when Christ appears to his people, as he has promised to do. Whilst we cannot stop war, we can all do our best to make the world purer and better and make less cause for it. The private individual little thinks of the power for good or evil he has in ih is respect. Sarcastic remarks about a foreign nation, when indulged in by a number of people, are productive of much bitter fruit. I am confident the war between England and Germany is largely due to foolish remarks on both sides, which led