@Dali Parton said:

This movie was really lacking any examination of the ethical dimensions of his choice. Nobody ever asked how is it any different to kill by your own hand versus helping someone else kill? It just seemed kind of shallow that he had a "conviction" and that made him right. A lot of the problems we have nowadays are because of people with unexamined convictions, or worse, people who use their convictions to avoid personal responsibility for their actions.

Your examination of the movie is empty. His conviction was the sixth commandment: thou shall not kill. That's who he was- a devout 7th day adventist who followed the Bible strictly. The film covers this as well as the ins and outs- he doesn't work on Saturdays, he doesn't bear arms but wants to serve as a medic to save people, etc. In the context of the war, the power of serving was mentioned due to pearl Harbor and human rights abuses by the Japanese as they and Germany invaded neighboring countries with the intent of world domination and tyrannical rule. He wanted to be a doctor and save lives. He even saved some Japanese lives, or at least tried.

@virics said:

@Dali Parton said:

This movie was really lacking any examination of the ethical dimensions of his choice. Nobody ever asked how is it any different to kill by your own hand versus helping someone else kill? It just seemed kind of shallow that he had a "conviction" and that made him right. A lot of the problems we have nowadays are because of people with unexamined convictions, or worse, people who use their convictions to avoid personal responsibility for their actions.

That's an excellent point. Kind of a hypocrite isn't he. But I think looking for logic and reason in a war movie is a lost cause.

You mustn't know the definition of hypocrite. In this case, you would be the hypocrite since you refuse to question your own convictions. Doss will live forever because of his convictions. You..youll be forgotten. Nobody will care about your story. Doss will inspire millions. Japan and Germany were purely evil, but Doss still would not kill them. That's called something you'll never have or understand- integrity.

@Dali Parton said:

It just seemed kind of shallow that he had a "conviction" and that made him right.

I think your view is being a little unfair to the film. We see a couple of things that inform his "conviction" (warning: spoilers ahead!):

1. He hit his brother with a brick...he thought he killed him. He went and stared at the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall of his home. This would have left quite an impression on an young child.

2. He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, which meant he had a religious root to his objection. There is some brief conversation that "killing in war isn't murder" but according to his conscience it is.

3. He wrestles a gun away from his father as his father was threatening his mother with it. He points the gun at his father and while he doesn't pull the trigger, he says "In my heart I killed my dad that day." He also says he promised God (because of that incident) that he would never touch a gun again. This revelation, which fills in why his conviction is so deeply held, comes late in the film, but really informs all we have been seeing from him.

While you might not agree with his choices, as others have pointed out this is "based" on a true story and the film does a pretty good job justifying his convictions.

The movie does show how he get where he ended up. But it completely side-stepped how his convictions apply under the new conditions. You said it yourself, he thinks killing in war is murder. But he doesn't even try to address why he's not an accomplice to murder.

@Dali Parton said:

The movie does show how he get where he ended up. But it completely side-stepped how his convictions apply under the new conditions. You said it yourself, he thinks killing in war is murder. But he doesn't even try to address why he's not an accomplice to murder.

The psychologist says to him 'were fighting Satan here", and he says, "I know that sir and I will be there helping soldiers as a medic, but I will not bear arms."

He also explains in the courtroom he joined up as a duty to save lives, and said it ain't right for other fellows to go risk their lives while he stays back. In a world tearing itself apart, he said he wants to put a little of it back together.

Interesting points.

@Dali Parton said:

The movie does show how he get where he ended up. But it completely side-stepped how his convictions apply under the new conditions. You said it yourself, he thinks killing in war is murder. But he doesn't even try to address why he's not an accomplice to murder.

And from your OP:

This movie was really lacking any examination of the ethical dimensions of his choice. Nobody ever asked how is it any different to kill by your own hand versus helping someone else kill?

I think you are imposing this conflict on the film. He is not interested in anyone being killed. He says it is not right that he would stay home while everyone else goes off to war, and as @Heisenberg12 (a url for a name?) points out his desire is to put a few pieces of the world back together. I don't understand how you think him healing soldiers is killing others. To follow that logic his most ethical choice is to let soldiers kill each other? Also, the film makes it a point that he is interested in healing both sides. With that in mind I wonder how he interprets the statement "we are fighting Satan here."

@virics said:

Problem is that being a medic is aiding murderers.

So again, and not to beat this dead horse, but according to that ethic if you patch up a gangster in an ER you are helping that gangster kill others? So your only ethical choice is to let them die? And if that is the case, how far into someone's life do you have to look before you consider them "good enough" to be worthy of your doctoring skills?

I see far more consistency in his desire to be a healer only wherever he is (remember the kid under the car? it's not just a wartime conviction for him).

@virics said:

Problem is that being a medic is aiding murderers.

Wow. What the definition of murderer?

@virics I'm starting to think you are trolling. :-/ If not, please forgive me. Thanks.

Do you think if all doctors, nurses boycott war there can't be war? In a way that medic aid only helps to prolong, to make it even possible first place?

@wreckage3001 said:

Do you think if all doctors, nurses boycott war there can't be war? In a way that medic aid only helps to prolong, to make it even possible first place?

I'm not sure who you were asking the question to, but I think you're point gets to the core of the "ethical" question: does healing others allow further suffering? If so then every doctor/nurse/emt/rescue worker would have to be omniscient so they could rightly know who to heal and who to let die...and impossible scenario.

Or think of it another way: what if a medic saves someone on the battlefield (who would have surely died there) and that person comes back to share with others the atrocities of war and the brokenness of the mechanism to resolve conflict. Did saving that person prolong war?