In 4th century BCE China, military strategist Sun Tzu recognized the need for justice and moderation in war (Griffith, 1971), while Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle discussed the need for a just cause (Sorabji, 2006). In ancient Babylonian times the lex talionis was the means of gauging proportionality between crime and punishment. Today, this ethical dilemna is succeeded by ‘just war’ theory for the moral guidelines regarding the ‘right’ to wage war, via jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Forrester, 2005). Rather than fall into the quagmire of justification as to right or wrong regarding the ethics of warfare, and fall foul of the dualism associated with both just and unjust combatant’s right to kill. Or the contradictions found within …show more content…
This could be argued is where the strength of propaganda lies, as a false truth from a lie is still seen as a truth. This I will sum up with reference to Koa Tzu, who likened human nature to the flow of water taking the path of least resistance (French, 2011). Cavanagh (2012) defines two terms that can help demonstrate this point. The first is cognitive dissonance; whereby a contradiction can cause feelings of distress due to a conflict that arises from holding opposing beliefs. This conflict between harming civilians, and the governing body is always right, has to be resolved. To remove this conflict there must be a change or an acceptance of, in this case, the false premise. Therefore with the aid of the second, pluralistic ignorance; whereby believing that those in authority are more informed, and everybody else for that matter, removes the need to question the validity of the premise. Here the power of authority and the social group adds its weight through a collective consciousness (Zimbardo, 2009). Therefore, the conflicted mind finds itself that tributary of least resistance via social
With this morality in both conflicts plays a role in the bombing of cities and villages that contained a high concentration of civilians, where the United States believed the enemy to be stationed. It is here where the concept of body counts comes into play and supports the argument of an unjust, immoral war that defied the concepts held by American Exceptionalism. Tirman uses the example of Vietnam to point out argument, where the bombing strategy of “harassment and interdiction fire” was practiced, where there was no proof that enemy targets were destroyed and in the end did more harm than good as “killed a lot of innocents” to produce a number of supposed enemy casualties” (Tirman, The Real Cost of Vietnam). As in Vietnam the excessive bombings
From a young age, humans learn that truth comes from authority. This concept is addressed in the dystopian novels 1984 by George Orwell and Anthem by Ayn Rand when they convey the possibilities of a totalitarian society. The controlling governmental figure in 1984, Big Brother, uses psychological torture to convince his citizens that life is better when he is in charge. In Anthem, the society has reverted to times before electricity and everyone is convinced through their loss of information that individual thought, even if it is to advance society, is dangerous. Regardless of both novels differing, they are unified through their author’s warning that the destruction of individualism by the government can quell the growth and progress of humankind.
Faber, a retired English professor, is well aware of this when he states “Ten million men mobilized. … But say one million. It’s happier” (Bradbury, 94). He makes a keen observation about how people are willing to accept false information because it upholds their worldview.
In the documentary, Gunnar Myrdal, who wrote the substantial study, An American Dilemma, believed that people are confused in their minds. I believe this to be attributed to the influence public opinion has in today’s society. Society has gotten to the point where superficial characteristics and money determine one’s social standing. The people with high social standings will say anything to stay with the public opinion. Furthermore, regular people agree with the public opinion because the people with power agree.
As a warrior-type saga, Egil’s Saga has numerous conflicts that are solved through violent acts that result in death and bloodshed. While at times these acts (usually carried out by Egil) appear criminal and unwarranted, often times they are performed in an effort to honor loyalties and to avenge the wrongdoing or deaths experienced by fellow kinsman. But, in an effort to retain power and a high standing, at times bloodshed was necessary to acquire significant wealth. Regardless, these actions go unpunished and the perpetrators are never held accountable in terms of being sent through any sort of formal trial. However, within the Saga of the Confederates there is a noticeable transition from the seeking of bloodshed to the push for formal trials.
The author states that the one of the many flaws in a democracy is the fact that people have the right to vote without having knowledge on the subject. He understands that people make decisions based off their morals, not on the knowledge they have on a subject. Keohane adds that as a self-defense mechanism people, when they are faced with a mental conflict that occurs where their beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information; this is called cognitive dissonance. He goes on to explain the theory of motivated reasoning, which is where people have two facts presented to them where one fact contradicts their principals, and they end up choosing the fact that is closest to their ideals. According to Keohane people with higher self-esteem are more likely to acknowledge new information than people with insecurities.
The conflict standpoint is based on the idea that the society is comprised of various different groups who are in constant friction with one another for the access of scarce and valuable resources; these may include wealth, fame, power, or the authority to apply one’s own value system onto the general society. The conflict theorists argue that a conflict exists in the society when a group of people who believe that their interests are not being met, or that they are not getting a fair share of the society’s resources, work to counter what they perceive as a handicap or a
War is immoral. War is cruel.” (Document B). This shows
For ‘New Wars’ theorists, modern conflicts have a series of important similarities, which at the same time are different from traditional conflict therefore; a categorization of identifiable variables could be constructed. More precisely, by describing the characteristics of these new forms of violence, it intends to create a common theory of why wars are developing the way they are doing now and how does this development takes place. Indeed in her thesis she punctuates how in the ‘New Wars’ actors, objectives, finances and tactics are not anymore the ones that use to be found in ‘Old Wars’. The dichotomy between traditional wars and contemporary wars is the core subject of this work. With this conceptualization, Kaldor has brought a new way of thinking about war and opened up more possibilities for the theorization and comprehension of wars.
In war, those who kill the most enemies become praised as war heroes, but this convention fails to realize that humans accumulate guilt and lose innocence as a response to performing and
The absolute truth may not always be known. Another culture’s history may tell a varied version of an account that differs from the ones that exist in the textbooks in American classrooms. To every war, there is the triumphed and the defeated. Each side walks away with a drastically different outlook on what has occurred. By only hearing one side, individuals are there by limited and constricted to a less knowledgeable idea of the truth.
According to Quora.com, the first ever documented use of snipers was in the American Revolution. The short story, “The Sniper”, takes place in the Irish Civil War. Two snipers discover themselves on the same territory, both trying to kill the other. After being hit, the protagonist fakes his death. His plan gives him an easy kill on the enemy sniper.
Throughout Chapter five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her views on war in terms of social, physical and mental goals and punishes of such violence. To begin, one of the first goals of war as defined by Nordstrom is a direct result of a threat of loss of control. She explains that it is common for one military to feel the need to destroy another when their control over a certain (land area owned or controlled by someone) is under threat (56). An interesting point that Nordstrom makes is relating to/about (community of people/all good people in the world)'s do not tell the difference between the existence of different violences. As stated by Nordstrom, most people will naturally tell/show the difference between different wars; however, very few tell/show the difference between the experience of violence throughout such wars (57).
Introduction: The book Everything Everything By Nicola Yoon shows thins girl who struggles with a normal life as a teenager. Maddy the protagonist faces a disease where she can’t even go outside or she could have an allergic reaction and get hurt very bad. She goes on meeting new people trying hard to be normal and have a life where she doesn’t have to worry about what’s going on around her.
Due to the violent civil war, society made lawlessness a synonym with just action. Without the constructs of justice, human nature tends to lean towards self-interest and self-destruction. The civil war demonstrated that unrestrained human nature leads to the destruction of civilization and citizens with reject the necessity of restraint and found new laws and societal norms. In addition to this, in the Melian dialogue, the Athenians completely ignore justice when addressing their expansion campaign. For the purpose of self-interest, honor, and security, the Athenians decide upon the policies of power and their representative