Abstract
Through an examination of military virtues, this article demonstrates that selective conscientious objection, if undertaken after proper deliberation, is compatible with the form of integrity demanded by military institutions. By demanding that soldiers show integrity and punishing them when they do, these institutions are acting inconsistently. The article also examines arguments that permitting selective conscientious objection would harm military effectiveness, and shows that in fact it may bring some benefits. Finally, the article considers the proposal that military personnel who believe that they are being ordered to participate in an unjust war should both refuse to obey their orders and also willingly accept punishment. It will be shown that while this position has some points in its favour, it also suffers from several weaknesses. Even if one accepts the necessity of punishment of some type, subjecting selective conscientious objectors to a dishonourable discharge from the military is inappropriate.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
