>We all have a choice not to participate in the insanity (or "immorality") of war. In fact, if we all did, wars wouldn't exist at all. Refusing to go to the bat

>We all have a choice not to participate in the insanity (or "immorality") of war. In fact, if we all did, wars wouldn't exist at all. Refusing to go to the battlefield and kill other young people is not immoral. It is the most moral and humane thing you can do. That's just a defense of the status quo, though. Going to war is automatically immoral if we are at a global maximum for, I don't know, whatever quantity you're trying to indirectly adjust by going to war. The easiest example to use is probably WW2 (it also happens to be relevant to the article): If you want to minimize oppression, and you judge the morality of actions based on whether they increase or decrease the amount of oppression in the world, then refusing to go to Europe and fight the Nazis is not the most moral thing you can do - it's an act that doesn't decrease oppression as much as agreeing to fight the Nazis, and since you rank the morality of actions by the change in oppression, then going to Europe to kill young Wehrmachts is more moral than not going to Europe to kill young Wehrmachts.