In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good. In mid-November of last year amidst rising tensions in the Middle East, Israel launched a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza on Wednesday, killing the military commander, Ahmed Al-Jabari of Hamas in an air strike. This strike on a car carrying the commander stemmed the beginning to what is known by the Israeli’s as operation “Pillar of Defense”. Following this “surgical” assassination, the Israeli air force struck over 20 underground rocket launch sites belonging to Hamas (governing terrorist organization in Gaza) and the Islamic Jihad. According to Palestinian sources these strikes killed an additional six Palestinians. However, this attack on the commander and launch sites came as an immediate response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire over the previous weeks and prevention of other “Palestinian factions from building up their arsenals further. In a statement made by the Israeli Defense Force spokesman, he justifies the assassination of Ahmed Jabari stating “The first aim of this operation is to br... ... middle of paper ... ...future threats from Hamas, a hostile terrorist organization. In my opinion, Nagel's opinion regarding moral structure in war is a little too narrow-minded. When relating actions in war to absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold ground in issues like the middle-eastern conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess the right and the wrong by simply evaluating one particular action that country has taken in war. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and air strike are clear actions for the overall good, however by absolutist terms, Nagel would have a difficult time seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable. Works Cited http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-militant-chief-killed-in-israeli-airstrikes/
Being a veteran journalist focusing on politics and social issues in the print and television arena, Philip Seib, authored Beyond the Front Lines. He wrote several other books including Headline Diplomacy: How News Coverage Affects Foreign Policy, and The Moral Journalist: Covering the Post-Cold War World. His accolades consist of multiple awards recognizing his newspaper columns and television reporting skills worldwide. Although Seib is a Princeton University and Southern Methodist University graduate, he is now a journalism professor at Marquette University and his curriculum explores international news coverage, media ethics, and new technologies that impact print and television journalist.
In 2005, the Palestinian director and writer, Hany Abu-Assad, released his award winning motion picture, “Paradise Now.” The film follows two Palestinian friends, over a period of two days, who are chosen by an extremist terrorist group to carry out a suicide mission in Tel-Aviv during the 2004 Intifada. The mission: to detonate a bomb strapped to their stomachs in the city. Because the film industry seldom portrays terrorists as people capable of having any sort of humanity, you would think the director of “Paradise Now” would also depict the two main characters as heartless fiends. Instead he makes an attempt to humanize the protagonists, Khaled and Said, by providing us with a glimpse into their psyches from the time they discover they’ve been recruited for a suicide bombing operation to the very last moments before Said executes the mission. The film explores how resistance, to the Israeli occupation, has taken on an identity characterized by violence, bloodshed, and revenge in Palestinian territories. Khaled and Said buy into the widely taught belief that acts of brutality against the Israeli people is the only tactic left that Palestinians have to combat the occupation. In an effort to expose the falsity of this belief, Hany Abu-Assad introduces a westernized character named Suha who plays the voice of reason and opposition. As a pacifist, she suggests a more peaceful alternative to using violence as a means to an end. Through the film “Paradise Now,” Abu-Assad not only puts a face on suicide bombers but also shows how the struggle for justice and equality must be nonviolent in order to make any significant headway in ending the cycle of oppression between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as
This marked the beginning of the Palestine armed conflict, one of its kinds to be witnessed in centuries since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1. Characterized by a chronology of endless confrontations, this conflict has since affected not only the Middle East relations, but also the gl...
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.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
My first question in the case is what gives a person the need to justify war in the first place? There are a lot of reasons to need to justify the mass murder of thousands of people. One possibility could be that with the knowledge and
Sanchmo, . "The Israeli Response to the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre.” Response to terrorism. FreeRepublic, LLC, 10 Febuary 2001. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/537799/posts.
Israel is being attacked! The people of Palestine and Israel, may have heard about, witnessed, or even been a part of those attacks, but few know who the real culprits are and what they’re about. Rockets falling from the sky, suicide bombings, and violence seem to happen daily in the region. While they know it is the responsibility of a deadly group, they may not know their faces. They may not know that they walk the streets with them and plan their next means of destruction not too far away.
...causes pain and suffering to all who endure it, those both on the front and at home. However, there are circumstances and situations in which war can be used as a last resort. Many people believe that there is no such thing as a “just war”. After all, what is just about the bloodshed of people? However, the just war theory does not aim to promote war but to regulate it. In a perfect world, war would not exist and political disputes could be resolved through peaceful measures. But, as long as humans have the desire for larger land and more wealth, many will turn to war as a means to gain these material things. It is the just war theory that allows for some sort of ethical code to govern the hell that is called war. The just war theory is a temporary solution for the time being. It is only when the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.
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;
In Israel Jews and Arabs have been in conflict for hundreds of years because they both share religious grounds in Israel. Since the founding of Israel in 1948 there has been continuous conflict between Israel and Arab states. This conflict has been marked by six bloody wars. On both sides, religion has again and again brought the peace process to the brink of annihilation. The first spark between the two sides started in Hebron, the site of the tombs of patriarchs, building sacred to both Jews and Arabs. Early in 1994 Baruch Goldstein, a religious Jew, opened fire and killed thirty nine Arabs while at prayer. In response to the Hebron killings, two Arab suicide bombers blew up Jewish buses in northern and central Israel. Fifteen died and seventy were injured (Peres 1995 p.177-178). There are still wars going on today, Israel against Palestine
On October 18, the Israeli paratroopers started their journey northward towards the city of Ismailia. Ariel Sharon, commander of the 143rd Armored division decided to order an attack towards the north even though he did not have permission to do so. As the Israelis approach the city of Ismailia, they soon started receiving fire and thereafter had to retrieve because the Egyptian defense seemed a little too strong for them. The Egyptians were ordered to retreat but couldn’t because they we...