There is an old saying, "All is fair in love and war." This saying is around because during times of war, countries are more concerned with being victorious than with being moral in their actions. If a country were to attempt to be moral, they may lose to a country that will stop at nothing to win. On the personal level of the soldiers, morals are even more difficult to possess. A soldier not only lacks the ability to make major decisions about the war, but he also is unable to make his own decisions about what to do. It is because of this that in a properly structured military one cannot keep their own personal morals.
It is important to stress the meaning of the word "can" and "can not" in this essay. When it is said one can not keep their morals, it does not mean that he or she can not try. In the story "Guest of the Nation" by Frank O'Connor, a man was asked if he would do what he thought was right knowing he would be shot He replied that he would even if it meant being shot twenty times over. Yes, this means that he could attempt to keep his own personal morals but would die for doing so. Because of this it is understood that one could always try to keep their morals, but in a time of war keeping ones personal morals while continuing to fight in the war is impossible.
In "The Guest of the Nation" the men doing the killings felt that it was their duty and that their own personal morals did not matter. This concept of duty comes up often in two situations. The first is like is shown in this story. A person is posed with a moral decision in which what they feel is the right thing to do can not be done because of what needs to be done. Doing what needs to be done is considered to be duty. The second situation is when the ri...
... middle of paper ...
...apons, a person may feel that they chemical weapons are immoral.
In times of war morals are put the test not only on personal levels, but for countries as a whole. Decisions have to be made that may go against what an individual believes for the better of a country as a whole. Although soldiers may believe one way, they will not be able to express that belief unless it coincides with the belief of their country. All decisions will be made without consent of the soldiers, and regardless of what the solders personally believe, the missions will be carried out and the morals of individuals will be disregarded. Because of this and the desire to win at all cost, it is impossible for individuals to maintain both an active part in a war, and their own individual morals.
I acknowledge that I have used a revision/proofreading site to check this document before submission.
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
Combat requires a certain emotional inertness. I am unable to kill something I empathize with as a human being. I need a reason to hate the enemy I am at war with; I need to be able to dehumanize the target. At first, as Caputo did, I would be unable to ignore the fact that the Vietcong are human beings with every right to live as I have. Following the brutal attempts to kill me, I will easily lose my own humanity as well as that of the enemy. It is the ethical wilderness that facilitates this dehumanizing transition. Once it is recognized that the enemy has dehumanized you, it is commonplace to return the favor.
By abandoning their humanity and relying completely on their instinct for survival, they are left with a sense of apathy. Dehumanizing their enemies enables them to murder with ease, and even with a sense of pride in their work. Without suppressing their humanity and abandoning their morals, their mental health would have sustained significant damage from their traumatic experiences. Devaluing the lives of their enemies and their emotions allows soldiers to cope with the tragic horrors they face on the battlefield every
There is an obvious need to ensure that all soldiers act according to military orders rather than their own personal political motivations. At times, the military’s need to protect military order supersedes a soldier’s right to political speech. There is a delicate balance between protecting military interests and a soldier’s right to freedom of speech. Interests of the military, including protecting national security, promoting order and discipline within the military, and safeguarding military secrets must be balanced with a soldier’s right to tell his or her story and the public’s right to know the truth about the war on terror.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
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
Millions of men were called to serve in the Vietnam War. Sometimes, the men were drafted and did not have a choice. Unlike the gift-wrapped ideals of the war that were displayed to the United States, many soldiers would find that the military life would involve far more than “real man-sized action.” To the general public, soldiers were being drafted to be heroes, but once they were forced into war, less than heroic things occurred, and no one would be able to object. The law...
First, The May Act signed by Roosevelt allowed the government to create “moral zones” for military personal.[1] This intrigues me because it cites military personnel as worthy of protection from the state, while other groups were left vulnerable to violence. Furthermore, the military has a monopoly on violence and force. They can legally attack another nation and their attack will be seen as justified. Yet, their soldiers have to be morally policed due to their immature or irresponsible behavior. Groups that are expected to protect citizens cannot police
It is ingrained in soldier’s minds that to die for ones country is a great and honourable sacrifice. However, in the poem Dulce et Decorum Est the speaker uses powerful words and images to portray that patriotic propaganda is an “old lie” (Owen 27). In the first stanza, the speaker explains the effects that war has on young soldiers: “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks/ Knock- Kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge” (Owen 1-2). Propaganda portrays soldiers as being young heroes, those who are strong, healthy and vigorous. However, based on the evidence expressed in the previous quotation soldiers are not all what propaganda
Being a good soldiers also required you to, follow the rules, follow orders, obey the code of conducts, look out for your fellow comrades, fulfill your duty requirement, being honest and fight for your country. In other words, a soldier must be committed. Committed to their work, the nation, the mission, their fellow servicemen and their unit. With these characteristics, a soldier can become successful.
In the film, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’, there are many displays of concepts that we recently learned in sociology this year. The film is about a Christian, named Desmond, who decides to join the army during World War II. However, he has a very specific and socially unaccepted request of his time in the army. Usually when fighting in the army, the soldier carries a gun. In this film, Demond refuses to carry a gun during war due to his Christian faith and declaration against killing others. He decides to join as a combat medic, and is highly challenged and discouraged by other military members and officers during his training. This is a true story.
Young soldiers need to learn to live the Army values, which are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. If these values can be instilled in us then we will have everything we need to make an excellent soldier but also a great person. These values also come into play when you are sent downrange because you want to have good fellow soldiers who will always have your back know matter what the situation you find yourself in. The army values also define our character traits as a person and they teach us discipline. The Army Values are a big part of our lives us young soldiers need to learn how to maintain them.
...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.
Cultures vary depending on the extent to which they build virtues based on all the five foundations. Therefore, the liberals who only rely on the two foundations, find it hard to comprehend the moral motivations of the conservatives and therefore the culture of war. To them, the two foundations are all they require to make sound moral judge...
"The core of a soldier is moral discipline. It is intertwined with the discipline of physical and mental achievement. Total discipline overcomes adversity, and physical stamina draws on an inner strength that says drive on." - Former Sergeant Major of the Army William G. Bainbridge