Refusing to kill is about what one becomes, not what one ought to do

Evidence

I am my weapon: that is a counterintuitive thesis. It conflicts with concepts of instrumentalism, contradicting the idea that the nature of the subject is independent of the means of his actions. On the contrary, it affirms that the two are essentially identical. If that is the case, I cannot dissociate my intentions or ends—the things that make me what I am—from the means that I employ in order to achieve them. Ethically, what I am is expressed and defined by the nature of the weapons that I mobilize. The choice of weapons is important because it radically affects what we are, and at stake in that choice is the risk of losing our soul or essence. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 610 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The lesser-evil logic measures morality against one’s own violence; Combat indifference to killing spread to accept civilian deaths by mistake; Choosing a weapon can alter or forfeit the user’s moral essence — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 610 (+3 more)

Related

• Choosing a weapon can alter or forfeit the user’s moral essence (similarity 0.89)
• Combat indifference to killing spread to accept civilian deaths by mistake (similarity 0.84)
• A combatant’s weapon defines the moral essence of who they become (similarity 0.84)
• Right to kill depends on readiness to expose own soldiers (similarity 0.83)
• Combatants grasp their own essence only by being the object of an opponent’s weapon (similarity 0.82)
• The lesser-evil logic measures morality against one’s own violence (similarity 0.82)
• Just-cause theorists grant only the just warrior the right to kill (similarity 0.80)
• Lesser-evil arguments make people forget they chose evil (similarity 0.80)
• Moral limits on weapons apply only where adversaries are equals (similarity 0.79)
• Legal immunity for wartime killing presupposes that the right to kill is mutual. (similarity 0.79)
• Modern artillery made killing morally irrelevant by severing aim from effect (similarity 0.79)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. (similarity 0.79)
• An enemy’s incidental human detail can stop a soldier from firing (similarity 0.78)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.78)
• Removing risk reduces the soldier to a mere executioner in need of new victimhood (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Right to kill depends on readiness to expose own soldiers #expands (0.75)
• Choosing a weapon can alter or forfeit the user’s moral essence #complicates (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 610
• The lesser-evil logic measures morality against one’s own violence #qualifies (0.65)
• Combat indifference to killing spread to accept civilian deaths by mistake #complicates (0.55)