'Morality in war Essay\r'

'Is struggle ever moral? I disembodied spirit that struggle is a necessary part of life. Sometimes bear on is the besides way to protect your ego or others. We are all equals, and It is immoral to take the life of anyvirtuoso, unaccompanied it is as well immoral to let the life of any bingle be taken. We live a responsibility to help severally other be begin cooperation is the only way the human turn tail can survive; we also have a amend to defend ourselves. This means that if any(prenominal) 1 else is menace you or anothers life, and you are capable of helping, you have an covenant to protect yourself or them.\r\n lethal force allow never be moral, besides what if it’s the only way to protect someone? Let’s say that an assaulter has broken into your house and is safekeeping a gun to you and your family. You also have a gun pointed at the assailant. In this hypothetical posture we moldiness assume that the only way to part with your family is to land the beseter. You must make a natural selection to kill the attacker or let the attacker kill you and your family. Both options are immoral, so one has to ask if it’s more than immoral to kill the attacker, or to let the attacker kill your family?\r\nThe unambiguous survival to me is to kill the assailant. I feel this is the expert choice because of two reasons. unitary, our responsibility to protect ourselves and our family is big than the responsibility to not do harm to another. The sulfur reason has to do with the proportion of damage. The attacker would be doing more harm in killing my family and me accordingly I would be doing in killing him. This typeface allows us to see, on a small scale, when deadly force is necessary. Things get more complicated when we think at entire countries rather than just one family, but my view point remains the same.\r\nLethal force is only permitted when it is the only option to defend yourself or others. War is necessary because people sometimes make immoral decisions that put others in a position where there is no other option, but is fight ever moral? Killing is always immoral, and killing is part of war, so parts of war are immoral, but does this mean war is inherently immoral? Sometimes it is the least immoral choice; this makes it the most moral choice, so it is sometime moral. I believe that many of the wars we have had have been immoral.\r\nI don’t think that the coupled States has been justify in it’s exploits every time. â€Å"It is alarming that soldiery intervention in internal conflicts in abroad countries has become commonplace for the get together States. ” †Vladimir Putin. I feel that it is in part due to the classical â€Å" manlike” commence to ethics which focuses on â€Å"independence, autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination, culture, transcendence, product, asceticism, war, and death,” Jaggar, â€Å"Feminist Eth ics,” 1992 One can see that these characteristics would allow for war to be more often morally acceptable.\r\nA â€Å"womens liberationist” approach to ethics would focus more on â€Å"interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace, and life. ”Jaggar, â€Å"Feminist Ethics,” 1992 These characteristics allow for a more peaceful reality. The Syrian regime was accused of employ chemical limbs against it’s own people in september of 2013. The weapon of mass destruction â€Å"gigabit” may have been used, and this work is against international law.\r\nThe United states felt obligated to step in and penalize the Syrian Government for this because they felt it was in the worlds scoop up interest to not let these atrocities go un punished. It could be more dangerous to let them get aside with it because international law could fall apart and the world could turn to anarchy if nothing is done to punish wrong behavior. This being said, what is the best course of action to punish the Syrian government if they did infact use this weapon? Military action was debated, and President Obama was willing to attack if necessary, but I feel this is very dangerous.\r\nIf the United States were to attack the Syrian government without UN approval It could have the same effect as doing nothing. This is because the united states would also be breaking international law, and this could also cause the UN to fall apart. If strong countries like the US swing UN approval on military actions then outside(a) law means nothing. â€Å"The world reacts by ask: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security.\r\n thereof a growing number of countries seek to bring on weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. ” -Vladimir Putin. In addition, military action would not be morally acceptable in this stake because it would not be in self defense; it would be an act of aggression make more harm than good. A diplomatic approach would be a step in the right direction for this particular situation. This real life situation allows us to see how we can judge the morality of an action on a larger scale.\r\nIn conclusion, war can be moral, but it is only a strategy to attain peace and guard for a group. All other options should be explored beforehand war can be considered; this is because war involves some of the most immoral actions possible; the killing of others. â€Å" neer think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ”- Ernest Hemingway http://www. brainyquote. com/quotes/quotes/e/ernesthemi108407. html#zB7XwPTRbCpbv7my. 99 http://www. nytimes. com/2013/09/12/ mentation/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria. html? _r=0.\r\n'