Monday, March 11, 2019
In time of war, actions not morally acceptable become acceptable Essay
We live in an imperfect world where military man interactions breeds frictions occasioned by participation of different individuals in matters of society, economics and even spectral inclinations of the different masses. Human beings subscribe voluntarily or involuntarily instal themselves in different argonas of life due to their races or ideologies and consequently have had to act in line with a legitimate set of belief. then this has bred differences in how a different society approaches issues relating to both governance and interaction and lack of consensus among individuals and sometimes groups within and without have led to violence.This violence is sometimes political and involves a set of organized military groups fighting for a certain goal that is usually political in nature. War is more or less on the participants and mostly on innocent civilians caught in the middle of the chaos. The questions that potently begs a just answer is can in that location be a just contend. Hedge (2002) claims that in essence there is not oftentimes difference between the U S government and Alqueda arguing that disdain what motives drives them to violence both the outcome is goal of innocent civilians. only there are those who feel that to agree with Hedge would be to deny that there cannot be moral reasons to go to struggle and that the presuppositions behind the just war theory are fallacious and misguiding. In this fancy it would be concern to agreeing that no reason should drive a country to wage war on another or even that terror groups must be allowed to exploit the weakness of less able nations in order to conduce terror to perceived enemies.In my opinion such a expect is untenable and unrealistic and a way to avoid taking duty in accordance to the natural laws of justice that guarantees freedom and rights of individuals (Zupan, 2004). It is therefore valuable to highlight that it is hypocritical to deny that a party might be justified to wa ge war to counter similar aggressiveness or as way of stopping gross violations against fellow human beings. any human beings have a right to life is a clearly accepted fact and anything that contravenes such a fact would ordinarily be considered immoral and against fundamental pillars of justice, rights and freedoms.However whereby a war has been taken as to being justified then a waiver is taken in order to grant the involved parties the right to take away the lives of those perceived to be the enemies. In addition the loss of civilian life in the course of such a war is simply taken to be the costs of bringing such changes as necessitate that war. Hedge real accuses Washington of stooping so low as to use death as a means of expressing its dissatisfaction with certain issues (Hedge, 2002).In other wars certain groups of people who previously viewed as morally incorrect might draw a change of perceptions simply because they direct their atrocities to the perceived enemy. In th is regard the common phrase that an enemy of my enemy is my enemy becomes true. There are those who would argue for the sovereignty of nations and that a state has a right from outside interference. In ordinary times such a status applies and there are clear efforts to observe and even promote the status quo. However in times of war sovereign borders are breached and this usually leads to the remotion of leadership or occupation of such state.Hedge (2002) however seeks to bit out that while he is not a war supporter, that it is sometimes important to use force to counter a force that is more than immoral as compared to the countering force. It is therefore important then that we must bring in that we have a moral responsibility to take care not to ignore or indeed breach the fundamental rights of citizens as we pack in war. Hedges, C. (2002). War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York key books. Zupan, D. (2004). War, Morality and Autonomy. London Ashgate publishings.