Conscientious Objectors In World War One

Words: 550
Pages: 3

Who is to judge whether one is braver than another, when they both suffer? This is a discussion surrounding the idea of the 1900s where one is allowed to choose whether to enlist or not. Yet, no one really will have the choice, even with or without reason. Conscientious objectors are people who refuse to go to war because of their morals, religion and/or beliefs; this led to controversies in World War 1 where people shamed men who refused to go to war. I believe the conscientious objector is a brave person, because of the treatment they are assured they will endure. The perspective of conscientious objectors as cowards is understandable with the time the accusations were made, since men are seen as cowards if they do not fight, protect, show dominance by being aggressive and sacrificing themselves. This would make it more understandable to see the hate they have for conscientious objectors because they aren't just trying to do something the way men are supposed to, but instead doing something new. They are not fighting and believing there are solutions without harming people, this is unrealistic, especially at a time when a war is happening but that should not be a reason to belittle them for trusting …show more content…
They are abused and tortured for believing in their faith and not changing their morals for the cause of something they don’t believe in. They might have to go to battle on their own free will, but they enter a battle with everyone against them. Besides, they'd still be taken to the fight to help soldiers, become doctors or be sacrificed. Everyone should respect their grasp on their belief you could not prove to be 100% true, and even if one should applaud for being a strong willed person, instead their beliefs and themselves are mocked. For example, when they “crucified” Christians as a way to torment