Before I continue, let me say a few things about my approach: I don't want to get into the particulars of any cases. Rather I would like to examine the principles and ideas that certain cases bring to light.
So, here we go...
Is in inconsistent to be a conscientious objector and to remain a member of the armed forces?
I don't think it is.
- One may have joined the armed forces under certain political conditions. After some time those conditions change and what may have been inconceivable at one time may be a politically possible. Under such conditions it seems consistent to remain dedicated to the principles that brought one into the military and hope that the objectionable possibilities don't materialise.
- The obligation one has to one's military contract is of a fundamentally different category than a moral obligation. A military obligation is highly contingent. That is it relies on certain things: being paid, receiving a uniform, being provisioned. A moral obligation not to participate in unjust wars has no contingencies. In this sense it would seem that until something trumps one's military contract that obligation holds.
