War - What is it Good For
Murder according to the Webster-Miriam dictionary is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (Merriam-Webster). The definition of Murder seems straightforward, right? The word “unlawfully” means illegal or not morally right or conventional (Merriam-Webster). Thus, murder is not morally right or conventional. Yet, a huge part of war is killing and if killing is murder, then why is modern society so accepting of war?
Most Americans are taught at an early age that killing is wrong. We are also told to “support our troops”, and that those who “serve our country” are heroes. Therefore, killing is wrong, but those who kill are hailed as heroes. The Military essentially requires soldiers to ignore their own moral compass for one of the most crucial moral rules: taking another humans life. They, along
…show more content…
The initial killing didn’t faze most of the kids, as the killing was played off as being justifiable. In the song, Universal Soldier the last verse is eye-opening “He’s the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame, his orders come from far away no more, they come from here and there and you and me, and brother can’t you see, this is not the way we put the end to war” think about that, how can the solider be the one to blame if his orders are coming from the American citizens who are indirectly condoning war and killing? I think that the Euphemism: Shell Shock to PTSD essay brought to light an interesting notion that over time, the reality of war has been softened. The American public is encouraging killing. Of course, if we don’t see it, right? Is the saying “ignorance is bliss” true when it comes to war and killing? Are we as Americans, by not saying anything at all, really saying more than we realize? Downplaying the harsh realities of war and the murder that comes with
The United States Army, in its current state, is a profession of arms. In order to be considered a profession, the organization must have an ethical code rooted in values, strong trust with its clients, and be comprised of experts within the trade. These experts are constantly developing the trade for the present and the future and hold the same shared view of their trade culture. The Army currently has an ethical code embodied in the Army Values, which provides guidance to the individual and the organization. These values are universal across the Army, regardless of an individual’s personal background or religious morals.
In A Tactical Ethic, Moral Conduct in the Insurgent Battlespace, author Dick Couch addresses what he believes to be an underlying problem, most typical of small units, of wanton ethical and moral behavior partly stemming from the negative “ethical climate and moral culture” of today’s America (Couch, D., 2010, p. 15). In chapter one, he reveals what A Tactical Ethic will hope to accomplish; that is identify the current ethics of today’s military warriors, highlight what is lacking, and make suggestions about what can be done to make better the ethical behavior of those on the battlefield and in garrison. He touches on some historic anecdotes to highlight the need for high ethics amongst today’s military warriors as well as briefly mentions
What is war? Is war a place to kill? Or is it a place where something more than just killing happens? War, as defined by the Merriam Webster is “a state or period of usually open and declared fighting between states or nations.” War, can also be viewed with romantic ideals where heroes and legends are born. Even the most intelligent of us hold some rather naïve notions of war. Upon reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, intelligent readers have been divested of any romantic notions regarding war they may have harboured.
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
The current military system is based on obedience and respect for authority. From entering boot camp where personnel are mentally reconditioned to be a soldier, airman, or sailor in the United States Armed Forces, they’re taught that following orders comes before personal feelings or beliefs. Following orders is paramount to accomplishing a mission and ensuring that the job is done correctly, and that what you think or feel isn’t worth shari...
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Attention Graber: Everyone knows that in the United States killing is wrong and if you do kill you get punish for it. Holly Near an activist tells us “Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
Offenders given mandatory life in prison on charges of murder, on average only serve 16 years before being released back into society. One in three of these killers carries out a second murder even under the supervision of the probation officer.1 If we allow murderers to spend life in prison we run the chance of them getting out and killing again. Capital punishment can also deter future perpetrators from committing such a heinous crime, and it will end the prisoner’s suffering by giving them a humane death and give closure to the victim’s family. Without a concrete meaning of “life in prison” we need the death penalty to put an end to the most evil of people.
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
During the spring semester I read Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of Life. Paragraphs 27 and 56 of this encyclical prompted a discussion of the death penalty with other students. Their first reaction was that the Pope was against it and that he was saying that the penalty has no justification. There was general resistance to the suggestion that while the Pope's attitude toward the death penalty is, to put it mildly, unfavorable, he did not flat out say that it was immoral, wrong, without justification.
...Ultimately, the way in which every war is won is by killing the enemy. That will never change. But the way in which an army goes about killing the enemy will constantly change due to ethics, new technology, new levels of hatred, and so on. There are always protesters to every war: “Stop the war! No more killing! Peace on earth!” Who doesn’t want these things? Do they think that the soldiers fighting for our country want to experience the horrors of war? Of course not, but if we do learn anything from history, it is that the human race will never stop waging wars on each other. People will inevitably die at the hands of war and the best that we can do is protect our troops at all costs, destroy the enemy, and spare as many civilian casualties as possible. I agree with General W.T. Sherman who said, “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.” (Fussell, 774.)
This essay will show that the United States is on an execution rampage. Since capital punishment was reinstated by the Supreme Court in the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia decision(Gregg), more than 525 men and women have been put to death by the state. More than 150 of these executions have taken place since 1996. 3,500 people are on death row today, awaiting their turn with the executioner. Capital punishment has existed throughout most of the course of our nation's history.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
Our society is like a bed of flowers; when a harmful weed sprouts we eliminate it before it harms the rest. Criminals are the weeds, and if they are not taken care of, they will only grow in numbers and consume the rest of us. The death penalty has been a popular issue for many years. Thirty three states currently support the death penalty verses seventeen that do not (Death Penalty Information Center). There is a great deal of opposition towards capital punishment, and the most popular opposing arguments are that Capital punishment is unconstitutional, it is biased towards race and class, and many innocent people are wrongfully executed due to mistakes in the system. These arguments are false, and are cleverly constructed with the help of logical fallacy’s and rhetoric. Capital punishment should be adopted by all fifty states because it discourages crime, and is a great representation of justice, and a moral punishment.