Ethical Dilemmas Of War In War

In the article “Time to Restrict the President’s Power to Wage Nuclear War,” by Jeffrey Bader and Jonathan Pollack, who have used several rhetorical devices to successfully support their claim. Ethos and Pathos have been recognized overwhelmingly in the article, proving that outraging war might have extensive consequences affecting the citizens, which must not be left as a decision for a single person rather being collective.

The understanding that people have of war today is significantly different because of modern mass media platforms. Movies have played a role in the portrayal of the experiences of soldiers in combat. In the beginning of “The Sniper” you can see the soldier in the movie decide to kill a young native child that is potentially a suicide bomber. You can read the thoughts of the sniper just by analyzing the expression on his face and his actions. It’s so realistic that you can feel the suspense of the scene and you can argue the ethics of war in your mind. You begin to think if the soldier should kill the child or not. You can imagine the guilt that he will face if he were to kill the child and the guilt he would face if he didn’t kill the child.

War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy

When it comes to any war, soldiers are placed in dangerous situations based on the orders given to them. They are forced to make quick decisions, usually out of their control, to defend their country against its said enemy. The act of killing is in no way ethical, but when done under the circumstances of war, military duty and survival, the wrongness of it can be debated. Consequently, the act of not killing can be unethical as well, since the outcome can be the sacrifice of a fellow comrade. The process of ethical reasoning cannot be used when faced with these kinds of decision because soldiers of war are unable to see all sides of the story, making it impossible to weigh the outcomes.

War, in and of itself, is an atrocity, but it becomes even more abhorrent when children are pulled into the conflict. Unfortunately, some military groups find children useful in the war effort. The wars these children are forced to be part of often leave wounds--both psychological and physical, but these kids can be healed, at least to an extent, and rehabilitated. Children are often used in war because it is easy and efficient to use them as compared to their adult counterparts. For one, children are easy to control, coerce, and indoctrinate.

The changing face of conflict has brought about an evolution on how we conduct and even think about warfare. Gross (2010) states that assassination was once prohibited under the statutes of international law but has increasingly become common in the modern day battlefield. A dilemma is presented when we question is there any ethical basis of using assassination as a tool of modern warfare. There is increasing realization that one cannot engage in war using the conventional means. Terrorism and insurgence being the new methods employed in modern warfare mean fighting using conventional rules puts one at a major disadvantage. The killing of Osama Bin Laden according to White (2012) can be termed as an assassination; it was executed by a special

In the case of military ethics killing is justifiable. "’Those who are involved in the killing that takes place in war should be under the moral justification of killing in war,’ Kilner said. ‘Whether we vote for leaders who commit the U.S. military to war, or we design the weapons or train the Soldiers, or actually pull the triggers, we share in the responsibility for that killing and we should understand its moral justification,’” (Misurelli).that people who actually pull the trigger aren't the only ones who killed, from every step of the gun being made till the trigger is pulled each person is responsible. The military has rules when killing another so it's justifiable unless the rules are broke. “The community has the right of defence and self-protection. If necessary, armed force should be used against those who

“The Tragedy of war is that it uses man’s best to do man’s worst” wise words from Henry Fosdick. When it comes down to the time where an individual hits rock bottom, a man either do its best or do its worst. Although, Man can do its best and do its worst at the same time. There are many reasons how man’s best can result to man’s worst. Henry Fosdick statement is both true and false.

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

One injustice facing the world today is the use of child soldiers. According to child-soldiers.org, a child soldier is “any person below eighteen years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity…” Child soldiers do not only include the combatants. There are also child soldiers in noncombatant positions. The most dreadful injustice is having child soldiers, because of the amount of children involved, the recruitment they face, their war experiences, and post battle feelings or events.

The ethical issue that I have chosen to discuss is war. This issue has been a common thing all around the world, since the first ever war in 2334 BCE (History, 2008). War can be started for a number of reasons, such as; Economic gain, territorial gain, religion, nationalism or revenge (Owlcation, 2015). Wars can be fought in all different ways and has the potential to shape and influence the future dramatically. War and civil wars can have severe effects and outcomes, they can be detrimental to the people, buildings, religion and living conditions of countries and states that are part of the war, whether by choice or not.

Bombings, gun fire, and screams, these are the major aspects of life children face in war waging countries. Thrust into a war based on corporate greed, political interest, or religious disagreement, these hopeful and helpless children face a dreadful future as many of them are brutally hurt, physically and emotionally. Many times, these children witness their loved ones being murdered right in front of their eyes. Though many would argue that soldiers are the victims of war, there are a few who believe that helpless bystanders, meaning children, are the true victims of war. War blackens the bright future these children would have had, leaving them mortally wounded, making them child soldiers, and leaving them hungry.

Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

Proportionality requires ensuring minimal casualties and destruction occur during conflict. Essentially, senior leaders and their advisors need to assess if war is even worth the costs in human life and property damage.

In the time period of last ten years, many changes have been observed in the nature of Warfare from being aggressive towards more argumentative. There are various views and debates among the nature and character of the wars and the debate continues to grow with time. The several reasons of changes can be attributed to the technological advances and other situational changes. This essay is going to shed light upon whether the nature and character of war has been changed in the course of recent years or it continues to be the same as it was years ago.