The question of the moral and ethical justification for refusing military service amid a general mobilization provokes complex reflections on the balance between personal conscience, responsibility toward loved ones, and obligations to the state.

Conscience and Duty: The Moral Dilemma of Conscription

The question of the moral and ethical justification for refusing military service amid a general mobilization provokes complex reflections on the balance between personal conscience, responsibility toward loved ones, and obligations to the state. Some arguments arise from the belief that participating in military actions inherently implies killing, which is, therefore, unacceptable according to each individual’s moral principles.

One approach is formulated as follows: if war is viewed primarily as an act of murder, then conscience compels one to refuse any participation in such evil and even to encourage others to make the same choice. As noted:
"The matter appears as follows. Whatever the historical significance of war may be, it is above all the murder of one person by another: but murder is condemned by our conscience, and therefore we are, by conscience, obliged to refuse any participation in war and to induce others to do the same. The propagation of this view, by word and example, is the genuine, the only correct way to abolish war, for it is clear that if every person were to refuse military service, war would become impossible."
(source: link txt, page: 1842)

This argument emphasizes that if a person considers murder unacceptable under any circumstances, then participation—even in forced mobilization—contradicts his personal moral principles.

However, there is a counterargument suggesting that, under conditions of compulsory service, refusal might result in other citizens being conscripted in one’s place, thereby shifting the moral burden and physical suffering onto them.

It states:"Would it not be better, however, to preempt the possibility of accidental killing by refusing military service for oneself?

Undoubtedly so, if the matter were one of free choice. At a certain elevated level of moral consciousness, or with a particularly developed sense of compassion, a person would certainly not choose military drill service by his own free will, but would prefer peaceful pursuits. But as for the compulsory service demanded by the state, then—without sympathizing with the modern institution of universal military conscription, whose inconveniences are obvious and its practicality questionable—one must acknowledge that, as long as it exists, an individual’s refusal to submit to it is a greater evil."
(source: link txt, page: 1843)

Thus, while the moral rejection of violence and murder forms the basis for refusing service, in the context of state compulsion such a choice may also be seen as transferring the burdens of service onto others, raising an additional moral question about fairness and responsibility.

Historical experience shows that such moral grounds were discussed even in the early Christian era, when certain thinkers and church representatives refused military service on the belief that warfare is incompatible with the Christian principle of the sanctity of human life. Although modern societal and ethical views have evolved and become more complex, the question remains: on what basis can personal conscience and an understanding of life’s meaning override the obligations imposed by the state?

In summary, the main moral and ethical grounds for refusing military service are:
1. The rejection of participation in murder as a violation of the highest standards of personal conscience.
2. The desire to take personal responsibility for one’s actions, rather than shifting that responsibility onto a coercive state mechanism that may force another person to partake in such violence.

Supporting citation(s):
"The matter appears as follows. Whatever the historical significance of war may be, it is above all the murder of one person by another: but murder is condemned by our conscience, and therefore we are, by conscience, obliged to refuse any participation in war and to induce others to do the same. The propagation of this view, by word and example, is the genuine, the only correct way to abolish war, for it is clear that if every person were to refuse military service, war would become impossible." (source: link txt, page: 1842)

"Would it not be better, however, to preempt the possibility of accidental killing by refusing military service for oneself? Undoubtedly so, if the matter were one of free choice... but as for the compulsory service demanded by the state, then—without sympathizing with the modern institution of universal military conscription... one must acknowledge that, as long as it exists, an individual’s refusal to submit to it is a greater evil." (source: link txt, page: 1843)

These positions demonstrate a profound moral conflict in which the issues of personal responsibility and collective justice become central to the discussion of refusing military service amid general mobilization.