What bothers me most is that the kid was about to let himself be killed because he couldn't bring himself to shoot someone clearly, and unmistakably intent on murdering him. That's not moral. Squeamishness is not moral. Being paralyzed by fear -- cowardice, in a word -- is not Moral. To quote the late Robert A. Heinlein, "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level." Behavior which promotes survival, of one's self, then one's family, then one's community, then one's nation, is moral behavior, in ascending order. Allowing yourself to be killed by an evil man bent on murder isn't moral; it just gets you a Darwin award.
I am no admirer of pacifism. I think another golden age scifi author, Poul Anderson, put it well, at the end of the book Ensign Flandry, when he wrote "...ever since Aknaton ruled in Egypt, and probably before then, a school of thought has held that we ought to lay down our weapons and rely on love. That, if love doesn't work, at least we'll die guiltless. Usually even its opponents have said this is a noble idea. I say it stinks. I say it's not just unrealistic, not just infantile, it's evil. It denies we have any duty to act in this life."
This is just another way of saying something that is usually misattributed to the great statesman Edmund Burke: the saying that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." Pacifism is the philosophy of doing nothing, even in the face of evil. I can't agree that's a noble thing.
reply
share