Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the vietnam war quizlet
cultural relativism elements
cultural relativism elements
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the vietnam war quizlet
Moral Split and Respect
We will always find ourselves in “moral split” situations. We struggle to make the right decision and hoping that what we decide would be the correct choice. Sometimes our decisions are strictly depended on the notion of self-filling prophecy while others are for the sake of philanthropy. We are selfish if the chosen actions turn out to be a negative impact on the majority of people; however, the negativity is unforeseeable. If we know ahead of time that our decisions are going to be harmful to others then more likely than not we would have tried to avoid that complication. Then again, life is unpredictable. It is unpredictable just like the Vietnam War. Americans went into the war with culture relativism. They thought the decision to assist in the fighting against communism was the ultimate must. They sent young men blindly into a foreign land and were so positive that it was going to be an ideal outcome. If the Northern Vietnamese was defeated, then it might be a different story; however, the consequences they must face. On the other hand, the Vietnamese had two different perspectives of the war. The Southern Vietnamese believed that the Americans were angels sent from above to rescue them from the communists. The Northern Vietnamese thought that the Americans should mind their own business. We cannot say either views were right or wrong, rather, they were picked from the same moral standards but in different circumstances. The South, America and the North yenned for victory. They made decisions that each one truly believed to be the preeminent; therefore, no sides should be unnecessarily criticized. Similarly to us, they were making the right decisions based on personal valuations of ...
... middle of paper ...
...ting will never “understand everything [and] would be incomplete forever” (249). The only understanding that these people are left with is the pondering of the possible outcome if they have chosen otherwise; not to fight. If that person truly believes that the war is the only way to solve the problem then that it would be ethically correct for him to be involved because morality is based on a person’s own judgment of what is right and wrong. On the other hand, if a person feels that is it wrong, without a doubt, then it is sad to believe that he chooses to go against his morals.
Works Cited
Johnson, Brendan B. “The Movie Quotes Site: The Deer Hunter.” (1997). 6 Dec. 2003 .
Dirks, Tim. “Greatest Films: The Deer Hunter.” (1996). 6 Dec. 2003
“IMDb: Full Metal Jacket.” (1990). 6 Dec. 2003
“Amazon.com: Apocalypse Now Redux.” (1996). 6 Dec. 2003
Not because of strong convictions, but because he didn't known. He didn't know who was right, or what was right, he didn't know if it was a war of self-determination or self-destruction, outright aggression or national liberation; he didn't know if nations would topple like dominoes or stand separate like trees; he didn't know who really started the war, or why, or when, or with what motives; he didn't know if it mattered; he saw sense in both sides of the debate, but he did not know where the truth lay; he simply didn't know. He just didn't know if the war was right or wrong or somewhere in the murky middle. So he went to war for reasons beyond knowledge. Because he believed in law, and law told him to go. Because it was a democracy...He went to war because it was expected. Because not to go was to risk censure, and to bring embarrassment on his father and his town. Because, not knowing, he saw no reason to distrust those with more experience. Because he loved his country, and more than that, because he trusted it. Yes, he did. Oh, he would rather have fought with his father in France, knowing certain things certainly, but he couldn't choose his war, nobody could. (p. 234-235)
While some characters were just blatantly Anti-War, some were Pro Army and attempted to maintain a degree of military bearing and discipline in a world of chaos. The other side just rolled with the situation and accepted the day to day existence in whatever capacity they had to in order to get through it.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view then in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period. During this time period it would be the fourth time Americans went to war in that century which made it tough for Americans to give their supportS (Schlesinger 8). Most Americans did not know why the country was getting involved in Vietnam as well as what the United States’ agenda was. This dilemma ties into the short story, “On the Rainy River” which is a passage from Tim O’Brien’s book The Things They Carried.
Throughout history, the American people have, for the most part, stood united during times of war. The people of America always seemed to rally behind each other. Most people were either willing to fight in the war or willing to take up the responsibilities of those who left for war. The majority of Americans supported the decisions of our nation’s government. This was not the case during the Vietnam War. For the first time in American history, widespread revolt against our nation’s decision to fight in the war influenced the outcome. This is what saved our country and the lives of soldiers who were fighting an unwinnable war.
“You may know principle, Sam, but I know war,” (Collier and Collier 21). Mr. Meeker is trying to tell Sam about the brutality of war because he has been through war and knows the actuality and Sam does not. Sam wants to fight, but does not know the reality of war where as Mr. Meeker does and does not want to fight. “After a few things like that you don’t give a damn for anybody but your friends anymore,” (Collier and Collier 173). Sam’s views on war have changed after he finally experiences a battle for the first time. Sam realizes that his father was right and that, “War turns men into animals,” (Collier and Collier 173). Many people still today face the grim brutal realities of war after being misled about the glories of
Barrett, Todd. "Oh, Deer!" National Wildlife (World Edition) 29.6 (1991): 16-22. Encore. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
The United States began to send troops to Vietnam to support French in 1950’s. During the following 25 years, the ensuing wars would cost 5 million people’s life and create a series of domestic tension in the U.S, like Vietnam War protest movement and the Military Draft. Even though the Vietnam War had been considered as the only war that American ever lost, but many Americans believed it was a noble cause. Like President Johnson had said in 1965, “We have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.” But was it really a noble cause? I don’t think so. There are several reasons why I think it was a shameful venture: First, we want South Vietnam keep its independence is not just because for Vietnamese freedom, but also is we want to make South Vietnam to become an obstacle that could stop the spreading of communist. Second, why did our government kept so many secrets to public during the war? Why our embassy was occupied by Vietcong just after our government said: “American is standing on the brink of triumph.” Third, do we really know a country 8000 miles far away from us? Knowing them so well that we are sure they would like our ideology. Fourth, our government had sent a “boy scout” to fight with those sophisticated Vietcong, some of our troops were composed by those people who just graduated from high school.
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 late eighteenth century, the moral treatment was first adopted by Dr. Willis and then popularized by French physician Philippe Pinel and British philanthropist William Tuke. Discouraged by the inefficiency of traditional treatments and inspired by the Enlightenment principle, these innovators tried to find a new approach to help psychotics back to sanity. Because the principle and practices of moral treatment place a high value on respecting the liberty, humanity, and individuality of patients, the moral treatment achieved the success in curing patients and remained popular in the next century.
The second reason to act morally is because there is religion. Sometimes moral codes are obtained by theologians who clarify holy books, like the Bible in Christianity, the Torah in Judaism, and the Qur 'an in Islam. Their conclusions are often accepted as absolute by their believers. Those who believe in God view him as the supreme law giver; a God to whom we owe obedience and allegiance. In other words, they think that being a good person is one who obey god by following his commandments. Religion helps people to judge whether a certain act is good or bad, which can be considered as the definition of morality. Most religions promote the same values which are: fairness, loyalty, honesty, trust, etc.... Similarly, McGinn lists the same qualities
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
...th intense compassion and love for the enemy and wait for the enemy to shoot him down. My contention is that war is impossible when every one follows the principle of “Love they neighbor…” and “service before self”. However, my ethical system does not propagate relinquishing one’s duty. It is possible to imagine a soldier fighting a war as a part of his duty, slaying his enemies even as he continues to love them. This was what Krishna preached in Bhagwadgita to his disciple Arjuna who was horrified at the sight of his kinsmen fighting on the enemy’s side.
Referencing back to the Revolutionary War, the leaders of the revolution knew that a war must be waged in the name of liberty despite the great disadvantage. The consequences of the war, specifically the loss of life and supplies without a strong ally, were massive; nevertheless, the colonists fought valiantly and defeated the British after a lingering, treacherous war. People must make difficult and complex decisions on a daily basis. Each choice has an everlasting effect on yourself and those around you. Common sense is essential in making the world a better place, and a person must always do what is right to achieve this
i Fitzhenry, R. I. (ed.). Barnes & Noble Book of Quotations, New York, Barnes & Noble Books, 1986, 197.
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas for which one could reach happiness in his/her life. All have similarities in there reasoning except Nietzshe, who contradicts the others entirely.