Killing Innocent Civilian During War

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

In a war, innocent people will die. It cannot be helped. Although bombing runs may kill innocent civilians, they must be done. For example, a school with 50 children in it is located next to a Taliban bomb factory. The U.S. should blow up the bomb factory even if it means that the 50 children will die. This is because the bombs that are produced in the factory can be used to kill many more than 50 people. These deaths are justified because a greater good will come from the destruction of the factory. Until it is feasible for a war to be fought where no innocent people will die, these civilian deaths are justified because a greater good will come from the destruction of a threat to a greater number of people.

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

One of the biggest controversies facing America today is war. The US has been involved in many wars and violent conflicts throughout our history. To politicians, it may seem like using our military is an easy solution for problems here and in other countries. However, it does not come without consequences, including the obvious one;loss of lives. Even if the United States wins the conflict they have inserted themselves in, it cannot be forgotten about how much of an impact it can have on our own people, more so than the lives of the people we are against. If the US is going to send its men and women to kill other men and women, they need to assure that it is for the well being of the

Fire, ash, cinders, and smoke. A loud noise comes from overhead. People are screaming and running in terror. A bomb has went off. This sequence of events happened multiple times during the Vietnam War. Many soldiers died, and even more citizens died. In the past, there may have not been many laws/regulations that protect citizens to prevent casualties, but everyone learns from their past. Apparently the world hasnt learned. Recent and on-going wars still have citizens, even if they are fighting, are dying.The Vietnam War was devastating, but citizens didn 't deserve to die; it should be a right to be safe during the time of a war, and is should be the

The article describes the different forms of casualties in war; as well as, the civilian casualties of war after soldiers come home from war. The human cost of war does not stay on the battle field; it comes home to the soldiers’ wives and their children. The four thousand soldiers killed in Iraq, and Afghanistan is a small fraction, compared to soldiers’ suicides and imprisonment of soldiers killing their wives. The war is the outcome of casualties of war torn countries; as a result, the Iraq people, and afghan civilians are being abused by American soldiers.

This brings up controversy on whether or not war should be considered moral or immoral. Some believe that war is defined as a charade in which it extends well beyond moral judgement. “War is a world apart, where life itself is at stake, where human nature Is decued to its elemental forms, where self-interest and necessity prevail” (Walzer 1). Michael Walzer describes it as a lack of courage of our judgments because he believes that we are uncertain with them when it comes to the topic of war. When it comes to the death of the innocent, we should only react in a moral behavior and understand that war is immoral and there is no reason to engage in increasing the collateral damage that the Rules of Engagement state. David Kilcullen, author of Counterinsurency, argues that the Rules of Engagement should allow for less collateral damage. He states that “even if we are killing the insurgents effectively, if our approach also frightens and harms the local population, or makes people feel unsafe, there is next to no chance that we gain their support”

…killing can lead to fear and insecurity in those who learn of the risk to their own lives, is transformed into a reason in favor of permitting killing, when people are killed only on their request. For then killing poses no threat.#

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

War is many things. It may be many different things depending on each individual. Many soldiers get trained so their mentality is to characterize their opponents as less than human, so their lives lose all worth. Some soldiers however, are not prepared for this, even though they have been trained. One thing is training for it, another thing is actually killing a human being. As they kill more people, it becomes normalized for them. All they have seen changes their mind, while all of their dreams get swept aside by bloody hands of the hypnotized while they carry the cross of homicide. But why kill other strangers? What’s in it for the soldiers? War feeds the rich while it buries the poor. Rich people are power hungry, selling soldiers in human grocery store, using them as their little puppets who obey their master, making them go around killing each other in order to determine who is right, but in the end, war determines who is left. “The Man I Killed” by Tim O’Brien shows how soldiers who commit violence become traumatized and how that changes over time.

Think about the soldiers that serve your country. They all go through tough challenges. Whether it’s an easy to go through challenge, or a challenge that is almost impossible to go through. Now, think of those grown up soldiers as children. By children, meaning younger than 18. In the past, there were groups of bad soldiers that recruited young children that are eighteen and younger. These children, who just wanted to live at least a semi normal life, were now killing to keep their own lives. They have to kill, even if they don’t want to. Whether it’s an innocent person, a bad person, or it might be their family that they have to kill. The group named The Khmer Rouge killed anyone who was in their way. Although some may argue otherwise, that

This is made evident in Tawney’s article, Some Reflections of a Soldier. Tawney makes some very important assertions as to why civilians do not understand. He recognizes that the soldiers have changed and that is partly why the civilians cannot understand, but he also presents the notion that the civilians have changed where the soldiers have not (Tawney 22). Soldiers experience a great deal of change while they are away at war, they experience things they cannot explain. The change inside the civilians though, makes it even harder for them to understand these unexplainable things. The civilians have formulated these ideas and images inside their heads of what they think the war is like. Whether it be from the news, articles, books, or other outside sources they have read. By forming these images and romanticized views of war, they are unable to comprehend what war actually is to those who have

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.