War is perhaps the worst thing that mankind could learn over the years of its existence. Floods, earthquakes, tornadoes - all this is a whim of nature, in which people rallied since ancient times for the sake of survival. This is a kind of challenge from above, received in order to find out whether a person will withstand - of course, people themselves can not do anything about it.
War is a challenge, completely artificial, dictated by the desire of one person to kill another. This is the real plague of mankind, for which he will be ashamed until the very end of time.
Poetry of war
If you pay attention to the way of reporting this terrible, bloody event in literature, cinema or theater, you will notice that along with cruelty, horror and chaos, beauty, selflessness, and greatness always appear. Remember even the Trojan War, unleashed out of love for the beautiful Helen? Or the scarlet and white rose war? Or even the Great Patriotic War? How is it covered in literature and cinema?
As a rule, war is considered a great feat of the people, about which it is subsequently customary to compose legends and write books about heroes. From all this it should be concluded that art largely poetizes this terrible event, the real scourge of mankind. In this case, the moral choice of a person in a war, as a rule, goes by the wayside, but more on that later.
War choice
First of all, it is worth saying that this phenomenon in history is always someone else's choice. As a rule, this is not the will of the people, as is customary to write in textbooks and speak in beautiful television programs. In fact, this is the decision of a completely concrete person who managed to give his own idea life, to infect the people with it. For example, take the war unleashed by once fascist Germany. Did ordinary workers, teachers and librarians want to exterminate Jews and representatives of other races (with whom, by the way, they lived completely well before that)? Not. This was what Adolf Hitler wanted, who, with the help of his charisma, persuasiveness, and other personal qualities, was able to convince people that they needed a war.
The moral choice of man in war, in fact, begins with the question: is it worth it to untie?
Features of choice
If this topic has already been touched upon, one should think about what kind of choice a person involved in the war can face. The topic may seem simple and insignificant, but this assumption will be highly false.
How many things fall upon a person at the first call to hostilities? He needs not only to decide whether he is for the war or against it, but it is worth it to take up arms or better just wait out this terrible time, saving himself and his family.
Literally immediately after this, the question arises of the separation of the ideal. A man is forced to decide why he went to kill. Who is he going to take his life from? Who is the enemy here?
And of course, one should not forget the moral choice of man in war. In this case, we have in mind the choice not only between “shoot and not shoot”, but also between “save or not save”.
And, worst of all, the right option is impossible to choose.
Alea jacta est
Unfortunately, far from always a person goes to war of his own free will. Sometimes it is required by the state or the elementary need to protect his family. And this is the worst thing.
The problem of moral choice in war does not arise for those who go there voluntarily, who go there to kill for the sake of murder. If we spoke earlier about fascist Germany, we will use its example further. The Nazis did not experience any spiritual hesitation in the full sense of the word - people who enjoyed the killing of other people.
But there were also those who did not want to go to the front. Those who were obliged to take up arms and go into battle to defend other people's ideals.
It is before them that the problem of moral choice in war opens up. Kill or die yourself, save a friend or your own life, run or stay in position until the last breath. And these are just the most striking examples of impossible dilemmas.
Of two evils
Many will not agree, but it is very likely that whatever choice is made, it will be wrong. Following the technique of famous sophists, we note that it all depends on which side to look at a particular phenomenon. The saved life for some may become an invaluable act, the greatest of all possible. For others, this will be a betrayal of the homeland and the fall of man.
What to be guided by if you need to make a moral choice in war? The only right option in this situation, perhaps, will be personal beliefs, the very soul of a person who can encourage or oppose a particular decision.
A few examples
If we raise a topic such as moral choice, examples are required first. Referring again to the literature, we recall the famous hero B. Pasternak - Dr. Zhivago. At one point, he was with a machine gun in his hands in front of a whole field of soldiers thrown into the fray. The hero of the novel could shoot people and thereby help his own, but instead he released a clip into a tree - so unnatural was the desire for him to take someone's life.
Or remember Irena Sendler, who saved two and a half thousand children, taking them out of the concentration camps in a bag. Just imagine what moral choice a person faced in the war. She could save her life or lose hers, moreover, in torment that is hard to imagine. And yet she took a chance.
Why so hard
When it is required to make a person’s moral choice, the arguments for or against can be very different. But the biggest, most significant of them is, of course, fear. You can be afraid for your own life or the well-being of your family, for what others will say, for what awaits in the coming day. All this is often confusing and does not allow you to remain a person in a decidedly inhuman situation.
Among a number of other factors, the issue of material reward stands out especially. Of course, from the point of view of morality, there can be no question of making a choice between money and the life of a child, an old man, a woman ... and any living creature, in fact. However, there are those who have the scales tilted on the other side.
Open your eyes, humanity!
The topic of a person’s moral choice is traditionally considered in a completely different aspect: Shakespearean - to be or not to be, Raskolnikovsky - to be a trembling creature or the right to have, Gerasimov’s - to drown Mumu or not. In this context, war was relegated to the background, as if humanity was trying to forget this misfortune that had happened to it so many times.
Of course, famous writers raised this topic in their works, of course, it was reflected in the cinema. However, they tried not to pay special attention to this, so as not to indicate to a person the lack of humanity in him.
Now many people are asking this question: moral choice - composing an exam or just reasoning in class. Philologists and psychologists are turning to this more and more when writing diploma and term papers. Increasingly, all of humanity is thinking about this.
Perhaps someday we will understand that the only right decision is life without war, and only what does not warp our soul can be called a justified choice. We can hope that with bloodied feet this grief of all mankind will no longer pass through any country. We can believe it. And we believe. That is our choice.