Morality in war Essay

Is state of war ever moral? I feel that war is a necessary blow up of deportment. Sometimes pull out is the only elbow room to defend yourself or others. We are all equals, and It is immoral to take the life of anyone, however it is also immoral to let the life of anyone be taken. We present a responsibility to help each other because cooperation is the only port the human race provoke survive we also wee-wee a right to defend ourselves. This means that if someone else is threatening you or anothers life, and you are capable of helping, you have an obligation to protect yourself or them.Lethal force will never be moral, but what if its the only sort to protect someone? Lets say that an attacker has unkept into your house and is holding a gun to you and your family. You also have a gun pointed at the assailant. In this hypothetical situation we must digest that the only way to save your family is to pop out the attacker. You must make a choice to kill the attacker or le t the attacker kill you and your family. Both options are immoral, so one has to ask if its to a greater extent than immoral to kill the attacker, or to let the attacker kill your family?The lucid choice to me is to kill the assailant. I feel this is the right choice because of two reasons. One, our responsibility to protect ourselves and our family is larger than the responsibility to not do misuse to another. The second reason has to do with the proportion of damage. The attacker would be doing more harm in killing my family and me then I would be doing in killing him. This example includes us to see, on a small scale, when deadly force is necessary. Things take hold of more complicated when we look at inviolate countries rather than just one family, but my view point carcass the same.Lethal 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 regurgitate others in a position where there is no other option, but is war 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 near moral choice, so it is sometime moral. I believe that many of the wars we have had have been immoral.I dont think that the United States has been warrant in its activenesss every time. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Vladimir Putin. I feel that it is in part due to the classical male duty tour up to ethics which focuses on independence, autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination, culture, transcendence, product, asceticism, war, and death, Jaggar, womens liberationist Ethics, 1992 One can see that these characteristics would allow for war to be more often morally acceptable.A libber approach to ethics would focus more on interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace, and life. Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 1992 These characteristics allow for a more peaceful world. The Syrian regime was charge of using chemical limbs against its own people in family of 2013. The weapon of visual sense destruction Sarin may have been used, and this action is against international law.The United states felt obligated to step in and punish the Syrian Government for this because they felt it was in the worlds high hat interest to not let these atrocities go unpunished. It could be more dangerous to let them get away 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.If the United States were to attack the Syrian government without UN blessing 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 exchangeable the US bypass UN approval on military actions then transnational law means nothing. The world reacts by asking if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to reassure your security.Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire 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 situation because it would not be in self defense it would be an act of aggression causing more harm than good. A diplomatical approach would be a step in the right didactics for this particular situation. This real life si tuation allows us to see how we can judge the morality of an action on a larger scale.In conclusion, war can be moral, but it is only a dodge to attain peace and safety for a group. All other options should be explored before war can be considered this is because war involves some of the about immoral actions possible the killing of others. Never think that war, no theme how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. - Ernest Hemingway http//www. brainyquote. com/quotes/quotes/e/ernesthemi108407. htmlzB7XwPTRbCpbv7my. 99 http//www. nytimes. com/2013/09/12/ spirit/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria. html? _r=0.