Ethical Reasons For Going To War

There are many reasons why countries go to war. One country may want to go to war to take revenge on something that another country or countries did to them. Germany, for example, wanted to take revenge on the rest of the European nations after they all unanimously agreed that the responsibility for the First World War should be laid upon Germany. Countries also go to war for another reason, territorial expansion. The crusades were a good example of this because even though they started out a holy war, they converted into wars that focused on expanding borders. There are many other reasons why wars start, but revenge and land expansion are the two greatest ones.

Ethics must begin at the top of the organization. It is a leadership issue and the Chief Executive Officer must set the example. The organization is a group of people that are essential to meet a goal. This would be my group the Vietnam Veteran Readjustment Organization. The purpose of this group would be to assist the Vietnam Veteran in adjusting to none military life. The members of the group will be the veteran and their family members.

Can participating in war ever be morally acceptable? Many people in history have asked this question and attempted to answered it. This has resulted in different theories and opinions on the topic, the most widely known being Just War position. It explains when a country should go to war, why they should go to war, and what they should be permitted to do during wartime (Demy). Many wars in history have show the devastation that man’s cruelty to one another can cause. The best example of this is World War 2, in which many millions of people were killed. Many atrocities were committed during the war, the worst, of course, was the holocaust. Had all sides to this war followed the Just War position, the devastation would not have been as great

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West of the U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division is a leader doing what a leader is required to do; to lead and protect those in which he leads. LTC West was charged with communicating a threat and aggravated assault. These are serious war crimes charged to a leader who was undeserving of such implications. The villains here are the politicians who prevent soldiers like LTC West from efficiently fighting the war in Iraq.

Should people be persecuted for their beliefs? The Reign of Terror was a war that had lasted for eighteen months starting with the execution of the king Louis XIV on January 21st 1793, and ending with the death of the leader of the revolution Robespierre. During those eighteen months 20,000 to 40,00 people were killed by the guillotine, and many more were killed by the war. The Reign of Terror was not justified because of the internal and external threats were not very serious, rights were being taken away, and because there were too many deaths,

The framers split authority regarding matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). will anyone seriously believe that they'd have approved of the manager department waging years-long wars while not the express approval of the legislature? nonetheless the benefits accruing to any president -- the unitary nature of the workplace, the swift action that solely he will soak up a responsive world, his dominance of the televised public forum -- have created AN emperor the maximum amount as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making should be fixed.

-The first complaint is explained right away and it has to do with the soldiers themselves. “It has often been said that no one hates wars more than the soldiers who fight in them” (Brimlow, 2006, pg.37). This would make sense because they have to see horrible things and do horrible things. There were arguments made in class last week that no one enjoys killings. It is something that proves war is a problem. It says something about war when the people that are being sent to war hate it. The soldiers themselves struggle with going to battle, PTSD and need moral support groups.

The war in Syria has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, as well as the displacement, of just as many refugees who have fled the country. The regime of Bashar Al-Assad, reportedly deployed chemical agents against innocent Syrian people. President Obama went on record, saying that Assad should not cross the “thin red line” (Filkins, 2013). Many interpret this statement from the president to be a threat of war against Syria. Some are actually arguing the ethics of war in this case. During a panel discussion between theologians and policy makers on what makes for a “Just war”, Stanley Hauerwas, Professor emeritus of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School explained that the idea of a “Just war” consists of a discourse which requires thorough diplomatic argument that exhausts all nonviolent efforts before military intervention can ever be considered (Shimron, 2013).

War is justified and only justified when a nation is acting out of self-defense to protect their nation as a whole. One might argue that humanitarian wars or wars that are fought because they seem morally right are also justified. However, wars like these do not protect the interest of their nation as a whole, and are usually fought to establish political connections rather than to protect the nation.

Every century since, every generation, every day practically, has had its wars and battles, in which it has silenced the laws and made it impossible for the voices of minority to be heard. The laws are silent in time of war, because the spirit out of which they spring is suppressed. War breaks disregards all moral considerations. Might, passion, cunning become the only law. Conscience is also disregarded. Moral impulses and feelings are quenched. The lying and deceit practiced and gloried in is one of the most conspicuous of the immoralities of war. Society insistently demands truthfulness. There is no one more detested and shunned than the liar in common civil life. The whole structure and interests of truthfulness are dependent thereon.

As military leaders we have to be careful with the decision taken in war situation. Before making such decision it should be critically examine the intelligence reports, military resources available with both friendly and enemy forces, other information and opinions from the expertise.

There have been varying views as to the definition of war, while others have a broader definition to include even conflicts at home, between family circle, within and out of the immediate family; others limit the concept of war to social phenomenon which occurs only between political communities or within intellectuals. In all war according to Encarta English dictionary is “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air or sea battles.” While many have questioned the justification of war because it elicit tremendous cruelty and suffering, others have held high that war is “a peculiar human activity, in that it can bring out some of our best traits, such as courage and self-sacrifice.” (David – 2000) The big questions are: Is there anything like just war? Or can war ever be morally justifiable? What is the relationship between human nature and war? Or is war part of human nature that is inevitable? These and many other ethical issues and questions raised by war and what some define as just war will be considered in my paper.

A leader’s personal moral or ethical standards may conflict with his/her company’s ethical standards. A leader might feel something the organization does is unethical. A leader might support the overall goals of the organization but feel the actions taken to accomplish the goals are unethical. Keeping personal ethics separate from professional ethics reduces conflict; however conflict cannot always be avoided and certain steps should be taken when reacting to moral dilemmas.

This essay examines whether or not airpower, along with its technological advances, improved or diminished the United States (US) ability to wage war according to the tenets of jus in bello. The goal of war should not be total annihilation of the enemy without regard to life and property. Although there are many perspectives on this topic, most philosophers believe technologically advanced air power has gone outside the realm of jus in bello. However, based on careful analysis, research shows leaders are required to follow the laws of war and exercise sound judgment. This argument is supported by examining just war theory and the key tenet jus in bello as it applies to technological advances in airpower.

This assessment will address Qantas Airlines as the organization. The President of the company knows that there are problems he is facing and that there are changes to the organization that need to be made. Considered here are two issues: where the organization currently finds itself, and what plans can and should be undertaken to provide change for that organization. In order to make this determination, the Ethics Matters 10-step model will be used to consider ethics and communication within the company. The Qantas Airlines organization actually measures up relatively well when it comes to Driscoll and Hoffman's 10-point program, because the company has always been about open and honest communication between leadership and employees. With this kind of communication, it is very easy for a company to move forward and be more successful than it could be if it remained closed off and unwilling to address issues. Still, there are always places where an organization could be improved.