Examples Of Morals In The Neinambo Soldier

From prehistory to 21st century, violence and warfare permeate human existence. Tribes, cities, and nations have pitted their youth against one another in hopes improving their position. However, these Soldiers regularly fall short of maximizing their killing potential. In the book On Killing, Dave Grossman scrupulously examines war throughout recent history; specifically the human element in killing. His thorough assessment of the psychological factors associated with homicide is vitally important to individuals who wish to successfully lead their Soldiers during and after combat. Its ultimate value clearly visible in light of four major facets: the background of the writer, the general points of the book, analysis of essential concepts, and the insight provided.

Ethics Theory for the Military Professional by Chaplin (COL) Samuel D. Maloney illustrates the complex ethical decision making process. Army Leaders are responsible for professionally, and ethically develop subordinates. Developing unethical subordinates in a zero defect Army is a leadership challenge. Goal-Oriented Aspirations, Rule-Oriented Obligations, and Situation-Oriented Decisions provide leaders an understanding of the ethical decision making process. The first step to Professionally developing subordinates is identifying, and providing input on all subordinate goals. Leaders are obligated to enforce rules and regulations. Understanding subordinate character provides leaders with the information to evaluate a soldier’s integrity. However,

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  One of humanity’s most popular ways of getting its point across is through violence.  When words are no longer enough to argue a point, human casualties not only directly solve the problem, but symbolically send a message to all those affected as well.  Just as the American colonies fought against the British for Freedom when their voice was no longer heard, and just as the Islamic extremists used terrorism to send an evil message to America, both V and Chancellor Sutler used violence to gain a voice in a world of chaos.

In the United States Army we are taught to live by the Seven Army Values. They are broken down to us in the acronym ‘LDRSHIP’ which is short for Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. We are all taught these 7 Army values repeatedly from day one in the United States Army. First we memorize these values. Then we are trained to live by them. All of these 7 values coincide with each other, and play an important roll in our Army lives. These 7 Army Values also play well into life outside the Army in our personal life. People sometimes do not realize the importance these values have on the way we are viewed by the people who look up to the men and woman who are privileged enough to represent the

Mahatma Gandhi, a renowned political and spiritual leader, once said that, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.” Presume you see two men in a heated argument and one of them is about to attack the other, you take a rock and throw it at him and knock him out. On one hand it is a good thing that you prevented the attack but on the other hand you used violence yourself, and there is no doubt that you would not hesitate to use it again. The good that came from the violence that you used lasted for a short time, but the punishment that you get for doing this lasts for a long time. Imperialism of rivalries and nationalism were two of the main reasons that most

The wicked morality that looms in order to justify the ends, and the disregard for the means to get to those ends: Machiavellianism. The term is coined from the very character of Niccolo of the renaissance age, as he stated and concluded that “only the strongest, most ruthless leader could impose order” (Sayre, 58) and that “the prince must be willing to sacrifice moral right for practical gain” (59). To the naked eye, it would be pretty obvious to note that Machiavelli had a dangerous sort of mentality since war itself, in his opinion, was eventual with the leaders he spoke fondly of. However, maybe Niccolo would disagree, as he suggests to show more insight on his political views. Machiavelli seems to be more complex in nature than many might actually think.

A very prominent example of this aspect of war was shown near the beginning of the book as Brigadier General Buford arrived in Gettysburg early, and had to decide whether or not to hold the ground and hope for reinforcements to avoid getting slaughtered or leave it and risk defeat for the whole army. Buford lamented to himself that “If we made a stand here how long do you think we could hold? Long enough for John Reynolds to get here with the Infantry? How long would that take? Will Reynolds hurry?...But how long can you hold against Lee's whole army? If it is the whole Army. These are two very good for brigades; you built them yourself. Suppose you sacrifice them and Reynolds is late? For Reynolds will be late. They're always late” (Shaara, 40) This quote shows how Burford was forced to make a decision, knowing that Reynolds may be late, but also that they will need the high ground in the upcoming battle. This decision also required Buford to question whether or not it was worth it to sacrifice the lives of his men for the good of everyone else in the Army of the Potomac. Clearly, difficult decisions, with neither a right nor wrong outcome were made throughout the course of The Killer Angels. However, this theme also applies to the world

It is said that up to thirty thousand men may have died at the battle of Hastings, a conflict that occurred almost one thousand years ago. World War II, which lasted less than seven years, has been estimated to be responsible for up to forty million deaths. Thus, many people often ask the question why? Why does such conflict occur? Who or what is responsible? The culprit does not hide nor has it escaped scrutiny and blame. It comes in many shapes and sizes, faces and places. It is called violence and the potential for it resides in every single person on this earth. Whose violence conquers all? It is hard to measure the significance of violence, especially when it can cause so much destruction and death as well as stimulation. However,

Violence and war is notable throughout history. However, it is lazy to say that this proves humans are naturally violent. Rather than using nature as an excuse for those who chose to act violently it’s important we recognize that we have a choice to decide how we act. In Howard Zinn’s, “Violence and Human Nature” He shows that violence is not an instinct but that the environment in which they live in provokes them to act violently or peacefully depending on their choice (43). In City of God, a film concentrating on the gangs of Rio de Janeiro during the 1960’s to the 1980’s, specifically the township of Cidade de Deus, we are introduced to various characters who all make different choices under different motivations. Rocket, the little brother to a member of the Tender Trio, who are essentially the Robin Hood’s of the City of God, to act non-violently despite his environment and the influences around him.

You have to consider for a moment the serious nature of this action. When we deploy, we rely on the person to our left and right. The profession of arms is one that requires all to do their part. Combat, by nature, is a physical, difficult, and demanding task. A person’s very life may depend on the actions of those around him or her. Ask any Soldier pulled from the vehicle hit by an improvised explosive device if that is true or not. You must have personnel on whom you can rely. The actions and directions from the brigade forced us to accept people who may be

These virtuous standards directs our actions in order that nonviolent societies might be. Many individuals acquire ethical standards from their family, their peers at institutes, in religious settings, or in other public locations. While a record amount of societies obtain their logic of that which is

“But it isn’t only your severe punishments that produce right conduct,” Polybius told the Romans. “That alone wouldn’t make men brave. You encourage them to act heroically by holding out all kinds of rewards and incentives.”

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s