Due to the schism between, “hawks” and “doves” in foreign policy, the pursuit of peace is perceived as just and the pursuit of war as unjust. This dynamic aims to prevent the injustices that can come out of war, but it ignores those that persist in peace. The simplification of this relationship fails to consider that the motivations and aims of war can help to justify its righteousness and create stability that upholds principles of justice. The conflict between these virtues of justice and peace are universal in international relations, but they can be examined specifically in the case studies of Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War that chronicles the war among Athens and Sparta and their allies and Francisco de Vitoria’s On the American Indian, which examines the Spanish conquest of Latin America. Both Athens and Sparta in the
Torture creates fake evidence as well as creating more violent conditions for soldiers in the wars for example wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The methods used for torture are so inhumane that they cannot be tolerated. For those reasons and countless others, I believe that torture is not necessary for national security. The public believes that National Security uses torture to save the lives of many innocent people, and they also believe that it is temporary pain which is not true. Being tortured becomes psychological a victim of torture will never forget what they might have gone through especially if they were innocent.
By becoming a soldier, you give your right away not to be attacked, under this circumstance a valid consent is given, therefore it's morally accepted to attack enemy soldiers during a war. An example of someone who fought an unjust war justly is General Rommel. A Nazi general who burned an execute order from the president to avoid executing soldiers in captive. Even though some may question his participation in the war in the first place, and also argue since he’s fighting for the wrong side there is no justification whatsoever for his actions, I will answer all these questions with my arguments above, which strips away any kind of responsibility from him in partaking in the war. Therefore, his actions can only be judged by what he does during the
Within every individual’s past, or even the past of a nation, there are certain parts that are attempted to be covered up. The desire to disguise the dissatisfactory is partially to blame on human nature. As individuals, no one wants to be looked down on for the negative parts of their past -- the same goes for nations as a whole. To be specific, every nation would like to try and cover up the darkness and the horrendous baggage from war times. No leader, army, or individual would like to discuss the murder and harm done during war.
They insist that they can’t carry out military service because war have to kill sombody and killing people is barbarious action, and they said that they want peace, and war is an action of destroying peace. However, Conscientious Objectors are usually considered as criminals because refusing military service
Civil disobedience is the act of refusal to obey laws set by an authoritative figure such as a king or government. This action occurs when one breaks the law because it is morally justifiable to them. People consciously disobey a law if they find it unjust or to peacefully protest. To break these laws people are willing to take great risks and sacrifice to do what is morally right like the characters do in the pieces of literature Antigone by Sophocles and “If We Must Die” by Claude Mckay. Both of these pieces of literature are about civil disobedience and reveals that civil disobedience requires great sacrifice.
Instead of taking responsibility of the situation, they claim they did not do anything even when there is clear evidence. This is their job and shouldn’t be let by from pity. “The legal system gives the police the benefit of the doubt, but doesn’t give it to the average citizen,” ( Jaros para. 17). They are just like an average us if we brutally hurt someone we would surely have charges pressed against us what we did.
Accordingly, then, while the scope was much larger, that does not necessarily make 9/11 an act of war. Contending that what happened was rather murder, Lincoln supports Hauerwas and deemed it immoral for Bush to have treated it as an act of war. Therefore, we can see how the emphasis on heroism to fight this demonic evil can actually work against people in many ways as it causes this overreaction. Ultimately, we are left to wonder whether war, that subsequently means America would not have the time to worry about the social balance of its nation, or lack thereof, justifies the excuse of fighting for the heroism shown by the responders that sacrificed their lives for
Slaughterhouse Five does not hold back with the gory imagery, and that is partly the reason why it has been disputed. The fact of the matter is that, that kind of imagery is necessary so that the reader can get some kind of sense, even if it is not first hand knowledge of some of the things that happen in war. The kind of things that the government and most people will not tell you about because it does not fit their agenda and it would make war seem less like the kind of adventure they like to portray it as. In the beginning of the book, Billy Pilgrim, the main character believed that to be truth, that war was
In The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien we are introduced to the characters Azar and Henry Dobbins. These characters have many differences, especially in personality traits. O’ Brien didn’t necessarily include them in the text to show us some big secret that we didn’t notice, but for the purpose of this report, he did. The characters Azar and Henry Dobbins can be seen as representations of the different ways a person might react during a war or some other traumatic experience. Azar is a character who could be seen as the cruel, unforgiving, and truly animalistic side of the population as a race.
Police practicing public execution is a clear infringement upon the constitutional rights which is why I have chosen this article. The title of this article “police brutality may be overwhelmingly legal but it 's far from being ethical or just”. I have chosen this article not only with its connection to Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. but it is a growing epidemic in today 's society. While it is legal for an officer to use force to “protect and serve” the right to take ones life is not ethical. In the article Shaun King goes over several situations in which the police officer(s) felt that discharging their fire arm was not only justifiable but deemed the situation to be dangerous for the lives of themselves, and others in the area without provocation thus creating a public execution without a trial; infringing upon the victims constitutional rights.
To prevent an inaccurate account of history, an additional attitude towards history is needed. Though the “winner’s” view of American history is a standard viewpoint, the perspective of the victims, the “losers” adds a new and essential element to historical events if one is to have the most accurate account of the event. For example, the war in Vietnam, from the mindset of the American, seems a necessary evil to fight communism in Asia. However, when considering the war from the mentality of the Vietnamese people, one sees a brutal and unjust attack that killed soldiers and civilians alike. As quoted in A People’s History, a dispatch from Saigon read, “Many Vietnamese--one estimate is as high as 500--were killed by the strikes.
In cases like this, it seems unnecessary to punish individuals for wrongdoing. Additionally, there are many ethical issues surrounding punishment. Various people may question whether it is morally correct for the government to use the law to inflict punishment on its citizens. This is the case for abolitionist theories, which believe we should aim to replace punishment with restorative justice rather than justify it or reform it. The majority of ethical issues surrounding punishment come from the use of the death penalty.
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.