My grandfather was a conscientious objector, something he rarely discusses, and only self-consciously if he does. He was willing to see combat as a medic, but the war was coming to a close, and so my grandpa was instead posted stateside in the supply corps. There he helped process the troops and their gear as they returned from Europe.

He is a deeply moral man — flawed, as all sons of Adam are, but truly good. A man who started a successful small business after the war and headed it for 60 years, supporting many people and charities the world over. The extent of his magnanimity will likely never be recognized because he gave then as he continues to give now, quietly and with no attachment.

A conscientious objector is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a “person who, for reasons of conscience, objects to complying with a particular requirement, especially serving in the armed forces.” Often these folks were given short shrift, shamed for holding to their convictions in times of war. This shaming is flawed thinking, both as a judgment of individuals and for its national implications. The conscientious objector should be honored both for his contribution and for his knowledge of his moral reservations about inflicting violence — even when it would be better served to force his hand. The possibility of conscientious objection is a triumph of protecting individual conscience rights in the face of the collective’s desires.