You see it in the movies all the time: If the hero stoops to killing the villain, then the hero will become “just like” the villain. Thus the hero inevitably spares his murderous nemesis, or is marked an antihero otherwise.

This is, of course, nonsense. It is perfectly possible for a good man to kill without becoming a murderer. It is even possible for a good and righteous man to deny quarter to his defeated foe, at the end of such a story, without becoming a murderer, if he deems that his enemy is his enemy in perpetuity, a threat so long as that enemy survives. Such a man may answer to the law for what he has done, and may even be called to pay with his life for violation of the rules of warfare, but this is not a judgement on the man; it is only a statement regarding the rules of warfare in that time and place. The man himself, having taken the life of his defeated nemesis, may yet be a good man and not a murderer, if the killing was, truly, necessary to a just end.

(It’s worth noting here that a just end is the establishment of justice, not the acquisition of vengeance. The just man kills only those whose continued life prevents the establishment of justice, and justice can be found only general liberty.)

Killing your enemies in war does not make you wicked. If the war is just, then the killing is simply killing, part of the inevitable ugliness of the world. And if this is true, then certainly, using propaganda or trickery to win the same war with less bloodshed cannot be called more immoral. Being a propagandist for liberty does not make you “just like” a Soviet propagandist, anymore than being a warrior for liberty makes you “just like” the jackbooted thugs of socialism, Left (Soviet) and Right (Nazi). Even your use of cruel interrogation methods, if they work to secure you a needed tactical advantage, do not make you the equal of one who tortures for pleasure. Your morality comes from within you. If you fight for liberty, and justice by way of liberty, for all men, against those who would deny liberty and justice to those weaker than you, then you fight righteously.

Now, it may be that you cannot use a cruel interrogation method without devolving into sadism. It may be that you can’t lie or propagandize without losing sight of what it is you’re trying to achieve. It may still be that the better course is martyrdom, that it is better to go peacefully to your death for your cause than to fight for it. But that is not because the thing cannot be done; it’s because you can’t do it, or don’t trust yourself to do it. If so, so be it, but do think that you have the moral high ground if you sacrifice the just cause because you can’t bring yourself to do ugly things in its name.

The one who sacrifices victory over evil, and grants victory to evil, in the name of some principle of “clean” fighting, must acknowledge that his principles serve evil, and he has served evil. God will judge. Maybe, when it is all done, and the enemy has killed you and has taken your children and turned them into monsters like himself, you will go before the Almighty and He will reward you for your otherworldly philosophical dedication. Or, maybe He will ask you, “Why did you let a monster take my children from me, and turn them into monsters like himself, forever banished from my sight and condemned to eternal damnation and hellfire, while you still had the means to fight?”

Will you answer, “Oh, well, I didn’t want you to think I was the kind of person who would stand for a rude tweet.”

And if you think God is going to pick up your slack and win your war for you after you hamstring yourself, you have another thing coming.