I Am At The United States Air Force Base At Midway

10. “Take faith in God, my child,” my grandfather said and he held her close, “He will return them safely. The war is terrible, the wars have always been terrible. They take the boys away from the fields and orchards where they should be, they give them guns and tell them to kill each other. It is against the will of God” (49.1).

Think of it as destroying a great evil. It is the highest service you can perform for your country” (Beah 108). He simply proclaims that they need to die, but we need you to help. That last part was to convince those that felt the need to feel important in this cause for survival.

being heard. “If we are called on to do military duty against the rebel armies in the field, why should we be

Others believe that if you fight in a war and you win then you will forever be remembered and honored, also that you should fight for your rights. The quote “Those who have died fighting for freedom are remembered” explains how you shouldn’t let people tell you what to do and if you fighting a war you will be honored and remembered. I reject this because, for the people who lose, nothing would happen to them. They wouldn’t be remembered, they would’ve died and the other side wouldn’t care. Therefore I disagree with the aggressive action.

Introduction Imagine having a nice family dinner with your entire family. You ask “Pass the chicken, please.” a peaceful normal dinner. Then, American soldiers barge into your house, knocking down your door in the process.

A true war story is rather difficult, if not impossible, to share when it goes beyond one’s imagination. Regarding such a story, one morally sound aspect about it is that it lacks morality or meaning to it. Extracting facts from a true war story is a daunting task because what seems to happen is what actually occurs. In what is to follow, I will tell one awful true war story.

“Yet bombing a concentration camp filled with innocent, unjustly imprisoned civilians also posed a moral dilemma for the Allies. To be willing to sacrifice innocent civilians, one would have had to perceive accurately conditions in the camp and to presume that interrupting the killing process would be worth the loss of life in Allied bombings. In short, one would have had to know that those in the camps were about to die. Such information was not available until the spring of 1944.” (Berenbaum).

“My people, while I was gone you have sold my country, I have come home, and there is not left me a place which to pitch my lodge”(looking glass) Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce war. The U.S was not justified in their actions leading up to and during the Nez Perce war.

In Gallipoli, a 1981 film focusing on several young men who enlist in the Australian Army during World War I, an ethical dilemma is presented. One of the main characters, Archy Hamilton, is given an order by his superior officer, Major Barton, that will surely result in his death, as well as many others’, for nearly no tactical gain. From this order, the dilemma arises: should Archy follow the order given to him and charge fruitlessly into the enemy and inevitable death, or refuse the order in preservation of his own life? The natural instinct of survival—perhaps the most basic and primal human impulse—might lean one towards the option favoring self-preservation. In terms of a Soldier’s duties and Army ethics, however, we will see that the choice should be made to carry out the given orders even if doing so assures death, as long as the orders are lawful.

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

The movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

The complete idea of a suicidal mission is not entirely incomprehensible to some country’s militia. Even if one were to justify the use of kamikazes for the explanation or an ample specimen of one’s loyalty to his or her

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

More than half a century has passed since the end of World War Two and to this day it is still difficult to fully understand the severity of what was by far the most destructive war in human history. More than sixty million people were killed during World War Two and more than half of those were innocent town’s people. Among the dead were over six million Jews, which was two thirds of the total living race in Europe at the time. Beyond these general statistics were thousands of stories of crimes committed against soldiers and civilians. These crimes against humanity included cases of prisoners of war being murdered, sent to concentration camps and abuse as well as harmless civilians being rounded up and

What do you do? Consequently, wars tend to lead to important moral and ethical dilemmas. Choices like whether to attack a terrorist, if you know in doing so you'll also hurt civilians. Or, whether to follow orders, when you know that doing so could lead to your own death. These are ten films that offered interesting, fascinating, or just downright fascinating moral and ethical dilemmas. Personally, I see no honor in dying in the trenches. If I knew death was certain, I would most likely do anything I could to get out of the situation. Honor suddenly seems a bit overrated. (At least, I hope I would do this. There's a good chance that like a lemming flinging itself over a cliff, that I'd be swept up by the paralyzing fear of the situation and simply find myself doing what all my other fellow soldiers were doing.) Basically trying to come up with another alternative without having any blood shed involved. In this situation I would try to let the civilians know that were not bad people and that we only want the best for them and I would advise them to let go the herd just so less people would get hurt in the