The discussion Professor Ohlins led left me very confused.

We started talking about the US bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan that killed 22 people, an event that was on the front page of both the New York Times and USA Today the very next day.

Proportionality was the legal term Ohlins then introduced, which seems to justify killings like these if the importance of the target is at a bigger ratio than the civilians that must be sacrificed. What does that mean? By killing these dudes, we’ll save a whole bunch of those dudes, but these peeps are gonna have to die too?

How can we determine whose lives are more valuable than others? If killing soldiers is more moral than killing civilians in war, does that mean costumes determine level of innocence? Why should wearing a uniform justify the killing of a person? Everyone is just as scared and can have similar levels of innocence. I know I’m overlooking who is carrying guns and the agendas of rival organizations, but I don’t understand how we can react differently to the deaths of civilians and the deaths of soldiers when these are all the deaths of humankind.

My reaction to this talk is one similar to when you realize your parents don’t know everything, and make mistakes. The definition of murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. I’ve become distrustful of the word “unlawful” because now I’m disgusted at the idea of a “lawful killing.”  Law seems to be a system of enforced rules we humans try to agree upon. I guess I didn’t realize just how “human” these laws can be, how far we are from attaining morality and justice.

If the bombings of Dresden, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are behind us, what is to come? The world is becoming more interconnected, but at the same time we have the ability to create such atrocities at even bigger distances with larger repurcussions, and with even less regard to morals. This is truly terrifying.

War is a messed up game that I don’t want to play.