News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

News

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

News

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

News

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

News

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

The Fallacies Of Preparedness

Communications

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

There is an objection to limiting the term, Pacifist, to those who refuse to go to war and those who favor them. There are many who are just as extreme in their hostility to war, but whose conception of the State and her prerogatives forbids them to disobey her decrees. The very fact of his living in an organization such as the State makes, a man liable to her laws. Though these laws be against his conscience, he must obey them as he would his parents. The Draft Law was against the conscience of many people, but it is as much a law of the land as the most fundamental provision in our Constitution.

Yet, certainly there is no religion or philosophy of life which permits a man to kill his fellow. So does war violate a man's ethical principles. Combine these two concepts, of the State and of the Conscience, and you have the Pacifist. Consequently, a vote condemning those who refuse to go to war is not a defeat for Pacifism. PHILIP C. JOHNSON '27.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags