ABSTRACT
Traditional thinking about morality and war would have us employ something we might call a moral division of labor. According to this way of thinking, governments are morally responsible for the decisions to start and stop wars and members of the military are morally responsible for how the wars are fought. From members of the military, we demand obedience. If ordered to engage in activity that is patently illegal or immoral, we expect the military professional to refuse. So, Michael Walzer and the traditional view for which he speaks hold soldiers morally and legally responsible for how they fight, but they are not to be evaluated for the fact that they fight the proper object of evaluation for that decision is the government alone. Many morally enlightened governments already allow for global conscientious objection. Indeed, rather than reducing a nation's military strength, the availability of selective conscientious objection (SCO) might actually have some benefits.
