The taking of an innocent life is seemingly always wrong, but what if it’s to help save the lives of many? This classic ethical dilemma was brought to life when four American soldiers on a secret mission to locate a high ranking member of the Taliban were accidentally discovered by three locals, one of who was a fourteen-year-old boy. By releasing them, the soldiers ran the risk of the locals being Taliban sympathizers, who would alert them to the soldiers unknown presence. However, this decision was not that black and white, because it was also possible the goatherds would not tell anyone what they saw, and then would have been brutally murdered for no reason. Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell struggled greatly with this decision, as the soldier in him screamed to kill them, but the man inside him told him to let them go as they are innocent and not deserving of death. By applying the three different …show more content…
If put in the place of Officer Luttrell, I would chose to kill the goatherds rather than let them go. Morally, it would not feel right, and I would hate myself for having to do that, but it’s ineffable. By deciding to go on this mission, I will have already resigned myself to the fact that I will have to cross certain personally barriers in the name of the war on the Taliban, and by doing this heinous act, I will possibly be saving the lives of thousands who would have otherwise been killed. In this instance, I’m using the Maximize Welfare principle, because I believe that my issues with killing the goatherds would stem from a place of discomfort with doing such an ethically gray act, and as a Navy Seal I need to commit fully to the mission. Individual rights and Virtue have no place in this situation, because of the high stakes in place and the fact that while at war, certain lines have to be crossed to achieve the goal in mind. Morality has a place in law, but in this instance, the decision should be logic
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even with these contradictions the results are obvious. The question that must be posed is whether these results make the American soldiers involved that day “guilty”. There is the fact that the environment of the Vietnam War made it very confusing to the soldiers exactly who the enemy was, as well as providing a pent up frustration due to the inability to even engage in real combat with the enemy. If this is the case though, why did some soldiers with the same frustrations refuse the orders and sit out on the action, why did some cry while firing, and why then did one man go so far as to place himself between the Vietnamese and the firing soldiers? If these men who did not see the sense in killing innocents were right with their actions, then how come the ones who did partake were all found not guilty in court? The questions can keep going back and forth on this issue, but first what happened that day must be examined.
Women in America do not have to worry about a terrorist group coming and taking their rights away. They have a government that protects them from these groups and makes sure they have the same rights as others. In the Middle East, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan, women are scared to speak too loudly. These women live in fear each day of their lives because if they make one small mistake it could mean their life. Yet, there are some people who are fighting for women’s rights, especially women’s education. Malala Yousafzai is a girl who fought for women’s education. At the age of eleven, Malala began writing a blog for BBC Urdu. The blog described how she was upset that women’s education under the Taliban would be forced to stop. Malala also appeared on national television talking about women’s education. She has become a symbol of resistance against the Taliban. Even after Malala was put on the Taliban’s hit list, she continues to speak out about what she felt needed to be said. Malala would give her life for this cause, and she almost did. On October 9, 2012, Malala was on her way home from her morning classes when a man walked on to her bus and asked, “Who is Malala”. When she said it was her he shot her. The bullets hit her head and her leg. The Taliban ordered for her to be shot because she was promoting western culture in Pashtun areas. In another case Mukhtar Mai stood up for women’s rights and was sexually assaulted by multiple men with orders from the tribal council. The tradition in Mukhtar’s tribe was that a woman who is sexually assaulted by multiple men should kill herself, but instead of committing suicide she fought for her cause (Samira 28-30). Although the Taliban restricts women’s education for religious reaso...
The United States is a developed country that people are lucky to be able to live in. In the past however, not everyone was given the same rights. Through legislation and even war, people have fought for change so that we could live in the world that we live in today. Similarly, in Afghanistan people are fighting for their rights everyday. They have been through war and oppression to reach their goals of the freedoms that every person deserves. In this country, women and children are restricted from rights that every person deserves, though they have revolutionized into a country that is somewhat better than it was in the past, they can improve marginally.
Is it really worth it? Is the simple order by a superior officer enough for someone to spill the blood of innocent soldiers? In All Quiet on the Western Front, a novel by Erich Maria Remarque, a group of soldiers learn the hard way about the realities of war. They encounter trench warfare and hand-to-hand combat and slowly see how horrible the war is. Using the book, the author expresses his hatred towards war and how only evil comes from it. The emotions and actions of the soldiers represent the realities of war where brotherhoods are formed, the public is tricked in seeing war as good, and how deep inside everyone is the same.
My first point illustrates the aspects of medical professionals who are preserving the life of enemy combatants. I undoubtedly claim that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are praiseworthy because they preserve the life of the one who was being tortured. An opposing view could assert that the medical professional shouldn’t be present to preserve the life of the enemy combatant because it’s morally wrong to help the enemy. I would respond to their claim by reminding them that life itself is precious and should be preserved, for a person shouldn’t do another person wrong if they have done wrong to them. Another way to approach this is to state that by treating the enemy well, they may have a change of heart. ...
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
The mental state of mind one reaches when it involves killing another human being is inconceivable. Some claim there’s a choice to kill or not to kill, or to commit suicide or to live and face the consequences for the killings. This isn’t true, once this point has been reached one is no longer in control, it is as if someone else has tied puppet strings to your limbs and you are now transformed into a killer. The stage has already been set and there is little hope to cancel the play and walk away from the final act. Only the help of others and a long-term safety net can help at this point.
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
The Taliban and the Nazis are very alike in many ways for many reasons. Some of the reasons are the Rise and Fall, the government change, and even the attack of both of the groups. Both of these terrorists groups have killed many people and have caused very bad wars, and the cause of deaths, and bombings at schools, markets, and many other facilities.
Canada has played a vital role in international relations for the majority of its 144 year history since the signing of Confederation in 1867. Canada first participated in World War I, then World War II in 1939-1945. Following World War II, Canada was also involved in the Korean War. Canada has been primarily a peacekeeping nation. There are many questions people ask when a high income country goes to help a lower income nation such as Afghanistan. What are Canada’s motives for helping out Afghanistan? Who will benefit from Canada going to war in Afghanistan? These are some of the questions many people have. While Canada has many domestic problems of its own such as homelessness, poverty and increasing national debt, why should Canada get involved with a problem that is across the globe? Are the costs of going to war out weight the political benefits? Modernity, modernization theory and gender stratification are some key concepts that are related to Canada going to war in Afghanistan.
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
“If a body of enemy troops is repulsed, give to the wounded the same care as you would give your own men; treat them all the forbearance due to the one who is stricken…After the battle, restrain the fury of your troops; spare the vanquished…People should say of you: they fought courageously when they had to, but remained generous and humane throughout.” –General Guillaume Henri Dufour (Moorehead, 1998)