Friday, March 30, 2012
Forgiveness: A Soldier's Decision Between Morale and Self-Interest
If a parent tells the child to do something and the child refuses, it is often punished- therefore, the child obeys. The same basic principle follows in the example of a commander telling a soldier to kill an unarmed mother and child. Following the orders of the commander does not result in the happiness of the soldier, necessarily. A soldier obeying his commander should be forgiven, with the reasoning that- just as all humans do- the soldier was protecting his own self through obeying. Yes, the soldier committed an atrocious act, and that's something that he will be forced to live with for the rest of his life. Yes, he should be forgiven. Self-interest is human nature and will automatically be followed due to instinct. He was protecting himself. The mere fact that he will live with the pain of such an act is punishment enough; not forgiving him would be a pointless form of punishment that is completely unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Self-interest is human nature," very true.
ReplyDeletePunishment is self-interest.
I think you're right that he should have been forgiven. Do you think there should ever be limits to forgiveness for those who act under orders? Just thoughts.
ReplyDeleteBased on my own personal morals- no, I don't believe that there should be limits on forgiveness. I see it as though God would want me to forgive him, regardless of his actions, without any "if's, and's or but's."
ReplyDeleteTaylor you have some very good points. However, it was Karl's choice to join Hitler Youth against his fathers wishes. It was Karl who decided he wanted to volunteer. Karl's decisions led him to his guilt.
ReplyDelete