Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Morality in war is contraband.” There is never a moral thing about war. It is the killing and slaughtering of those who are as guilty as they are innocent. It is the duty, however, of a soldier to do as he is told. The way common soldiers rationalize the things they must do in times of war is by believing that the blood they shed will be on the metaphorical hands of their superiors. There are no morals in war. There is survival and logic. How to keep other people alive, kill one to save a thousand, kill one to save two, kill a child to save a comrade. These are the common debate topics between those who long for world peace and those who try to keep it. It can be amazing, people who cry and beg and plea for the world to be at peace, and yet they criticize and verbally rape those who would give their life to keep it. It is disgusting that those who are calling for peace would never have anyone remove the people who call for genocide from this earth. These people assume that everyone wants world peace, and that no one should have to kill. They play on the idea that it is immoral to kill anyone no matter what the crime, and yet they do not realize that by continuing to let criminals live, is an act of killing others. Who then is a criminal, the man who shoots a tyrant, or the man who lets him go?
There was a story, written about a soldier, named Marcus Luttrell, who came across some goat farmers while he and his men were on a mission. There was no way to go around these farmers, and he was afraid they would alert the enemy of their position. So, he had a choice, move past the farmers in hopes they did not alert the enemy, or kill the farmers. He took a vote with his men, who decided to not kill the farmers,...
... middle of paper ...
... Imagine the psychological implications of killing a child, gun or no gun. It simply goes against every moral in the human body, but soldiers have to do it because they may be saving the lives of their comrades. They have to pull the trigger, and let the bullet fly, if it kills the child or no, they still have to do it. They will see the face of that child for the rest of their life, but they could see the dead faces of 1,2,3,4, or 5 of their brothers. One way or the other, that soldier put aside his morals and did what he had to do, for the sake of other lives. Whether he will see that face for the rest of his life, he did his duty. Morals have to be put aside in combat, or more people will die if they are not. Soldiers carry out their duty, pull the trigger, let the bullet go, and try to forget the face of the person in the sights. The alternatives are much worse.
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
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...
In The Most Dangerous Game the characters in the story were Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff. Now in the story Sanger Rainsford is the victim, and General Zaroff is the predator. Sanger Rainsford was a hunter, he was fearless, brave, strong, and smart. He claim’s that he is superior to the animals that he kills. But when he is being hunted himself, his point of v...
...volving death and separation. Children within the United States whose parents serve in the military are left to deal with issues of separation and fear. The fear of not knowing when their parents are coming home, and if they’ll come back the same person they were when they left. Since we are incapable of hiding violence and the act of war from children, it is better to help them understand the meaning behind it and teach them that violence is not always the answer. Children react based on what they see and hear, and if the community and world around them portrays positive things, then the child will portray a positive attitude as well.
...man soldiers use infants and babies as targets for machine guns. These Jewish babies were tossed into the air and used as target practice for the German machine gunners. The soldiers were never told to do this; they chose to. They made their own personal choice to kill the babies. It is natural instinct for humans to protect babies and infants. In order for the soldiers to shoot them, they had to deliberately go against their nature to kill the babies.
.... Some soldiers got the impression to kill everything and others got the impression to not kill women and children (Olson, Maples, CID, p.70).
This is the immoral act of killing other innocent soldiers, even if it is to protect yourself and those you love. Therefore, sending soldiers to kill the ‘enemy’ in the hopes of achieving a short lived peace is a faulty idea that Perry and his fellow soldiers, as well as anyone involved with the war, struggles to believe.
The genocides in Rwanda and Nazi Germany are just two examples of how the world sat back and watched as masses of innocent people were killed. Both were a result of political powers wishing to solidify control and create a better society, through the mass killings of those who were taught to be enemies of the state and sub-humans. Both relied on the use of propaganda to control knowledge common people had access to, thus controlling them. The differing methods of mass killing was a result of the varying reasons for killing, resources available, and power of the party in charge. The rest of the world can and should learn through these acts of hate that any unjust killing must be stopped, as country’s internal affairs can not be allowed to include massacres of innocent people.
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.
part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater
...oal of such violence is to obtain a greater moral good. But antiwar pacifists maintain that the ends do not justify the means, if the means are murderous. It is a tragic mistake to believe that there are great moral goods that can only be claimed by war and the amount of moral good obtained by war is often greatly exaggerated and inequitable.
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
...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.
The Politician and the soldier have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. The longer the war persists, the more likely he will not go home alive.
...rthermore, to fight in a way is fundamentally inhuman. As humans, we are thinking animals and we should be able to tell from right and wrong. Since these soldiers have decided to join the war, they are not human at all.