News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
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.