Is the War on Terror ethical? Since the establishments of governments, since human societies had kings and queens, since governments were run under a religious doctrine, there has always been conflict between different groups of people. There will always be differences among people of different cultures, religions, race and ethnicity. There has always been a division of power between people and inequality in the world. There was a point in human history that slaves were bought and sold as property, as if life was insignificant and could be bought again. It was the norm between cultures to push away any new movement that threatened ideologies of their regime and it was necessary to maintain control of their people. It is difficult to imagine a world where people didn’t have a voice, but there was a time in our history that these inequalities in government really mattered and defined you as a person. How did governments and regimes handle conflicts and upheavals? War. War was the first and last defense, it was not used as a noun but an action verb. It was the only thing that gave a sense of security and to an extent it was necessary, not so much because we were incapable of compromising, but simply because it was another established norm. War was the way to settle differences among governments it gave right to peace between people after a war. Flash forward to modern society war is not our only solution to problems. There have been many strong leaders like Gandhi, Martin
But war is not needed to improve and increase human rights in other nations. Even with out war there are still nations and people without human rights; it just needs to be noticed.
From an excerpt on civil disobedience by Mohandas K. Ghandi, it states, “... What comes to it, is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance, either our act of our purpose was ill conceived, it brings disaster to both belligerents.” In Gandhi’s speech he explains how going to war doesn't solve disagreements in the best way. As no matter whether someone wins or loses, everyone would still lose. By placing a countries people in war to fight and sacrifice their lives, they as well as the defeated, lose in the name of war. Gandhi tries to prove this to people by using acts of civil disobedience, or without acts of violence. Because, if he tries to fight he has no greater effect of stopping the war, as he is helping to start
It is vital to attempt to take alternate routes before deciding such a drastic measure as conflict. Doing so will save lives, supplies, and figuratively speaking, morale of the country as a whole. Even so, the natures of war can happen without it being existing, such as feelings of hostility or lack of peace. Just like a human's emotions and temperament, war's nature can be quick, ruthless, and detrimental to one's goals, if no military strategy or planning is put in place to secure victory. But no matter how much planning and precision goes into effect, it is not possible to avoid one main factor of war's nature; chance. It can affect all levels of combat and can be unpredictable in most situations. The leader's ability to adapt to new problems and quick thinking can save a strategy that's been eradicated due to chance or surprise, greatly reducing the likelihood of loss of troops or
People believe war can help the development of mankind and country. Stated by Emile Zola in her book The Origin of the First World War, “It is only warlike nations which have prospered; a nation dies as soon as it disarms. War is the school of discipline, sacrifice and courage” (Document 1). Zola’s point is very true. After years of war, the winning country can always gain some sort of profit.
It has become blatantly obvious that history repeats itself similar events reoccur and have nearly identical outcomes. The rise and fall of civilization comes as the ocean, rising to its highest point and then falling down to its knees but only to find itself climbing back up again. The book Anthem shows the extent a government and its citizens are willing to go to preserve the idea of a perfect society. But with this great society come sacrifices and challenges the people must find ways to accept, examples are, having complete trust in authority figures, the idea that the group as a whole is more important, and they must accept that there is only one way to achieve this “perfect” society. Through fear and propaganda, the citizens begin to have a closed mind and only see what they are told to see and question nothing.
The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.
The history of the human race can be summed up as self destructive. Centuries of countless war, uprisings, and oppression has marked history as a repeating cycle of hate and violence. The population today is divided amongst issues and the government is torn between what decide. The people want change from their government about critical issues, but change is not always guaranteed to be given. With change comes opposition and opposition only gives rise to violence.
Dating to the beginning of civilization, war continues to be a repeating occurrence in the world whether it be with oneself, society, or the outside influences in the world. In terms of war between countries, there is the growing controversy over its utilization and purpose when a country is predisposed to a situation foreboding unavoidable conflict. War is the only solution to certain situations but cannot be considered a panacea to all the issues prevalent in the world. The reasoning behind this is that war produces consequences some of which that are permanent. War has always spawn more conflict, gives disfigurement to human bodies, death and occasionally affects the state of one’s mind in areas such as mentality, emotions, rationality
Arguing that exploitation lies at the core of most social relationships, Conflict Theory proposes that the rules by which society are governed are dictated by powerful actors, and that these serve to ultimately preserve the positions of those groups that hold power. This paradigm argues that the nature of society is inherently conflictual, and that social change only emerges when powerful actors are dislodged through mass-level collective action that is itself difficult to
To be able to understand this topic any further, let's go into detail about certain that happened in the past that may have led to the United States War on Terror. On September 11, 2001, as most people may all know it, it was an agonizing day of sadness, destruction, and a huge turning point that not only brought America together but it also caused a great change in history. On September 11, 2001 around 8:45am, on a clear Tuesday morning, a hijacked American Airline with 300 gallons of jet fuel crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Center in New York. The impact of the plane crash left a large burning hole near the 80th floor of the 110- story skyscraper. It instantly killed hundreds of people as well as hundreds of others whom were
Throughout history, war has always been described as an atrocity and an unnecessary reason for the loss of life. This is not the case. War is necessary for the survival of the economy, the sustainability of non-renewable resources, and the progression of inventions.
There are moments in our history where the citizens of the world stand up and for their beliefs, their honor, and themselves. They come together to reform the existing government that is holding them back from achieving their desired lifestyle. When this occurs, most likely, war is inevitable to follow. When war comes to a country, death and destruction is destined. Leaders and rules change, but the pride of its citizens prevails and becomes
For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.
War should not be used just as an excuse to settle arguments. My claims are, firstly, war involves mass killings and is unethical. Secondly, war destroys economies. Thirdly, war has a negative impact and ruins the lives of children. Lastly, war can only be justified when it can be proven to be a necessity.
After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.