Morality Of War And Peace

As Carl Jung once stated, “Man's task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious”. To reach a peaceful reconciliation, one must learn to embrace two distinct elements of their personality, the "Persona" and "Shadow." Likewise, in the bildungsroman, A Separate Peace, author John Knowles depicts the common rivalry between young adolescents, and how they struggle to accept their identity and the relationship between their unconscious self. Gene, a Devon High student, becomes best friends with Finny and grows jealous of his ostensibly flawless friend, causing him to make a life-changing decision. His struggles to reach an inner balance between his “Persona” and “Shadow” lead to the ultimate death of Finny. Gene’s transformation involves the changes of his mask and “Shadow”—from guilt and jealousy to pride and tolerance—which results in the later acceptance of the light and dark parts of himself, allowing him to truly reach adulthood and a state of peace.

War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy

John Knowles’ novel A Separate Peace is about a few boys at a boarding school in New Hampshire. The story is centered around the friendship of two boys, Gene and Finny, at a boarding school in New Hampshire. Although in the beginning of their friendship Gene did not trust Finny, by the time he dies Gene feels as if a part of him has died, showing that he still felt closely bonded to him after all they had been through.

The novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles is about learning and it reveals that people have to have the bad to see the good. This thematic statement connects to both the book and the world that we live in today. Many people want everything to be perfect and beautiful but the hard truth is that it will never completely be that way. Life isn’t going to be the way every stroke was placed on the perfect painting of life that everyone has in there head which was handcrafted from their wildest dreams. Their may be some slippery patches but good will follow close behind.

John Knowles’ “A Separate Peace” takes place at a boarding school during World War II. Best friends Gene and Finny have been inseparable during their time at the Devon School. This is until reality hits Gene, and he slowly starts to realize that he is inferior to his best friend. Through the unbalanced friendship between two teenagers in “A Separate Peace,” Knowles illustrates that a loss of identity may be present in a relationship if there is an unequal amount of power.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort” (Henry 30;

“Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” famously argues for the colonies to renounce reconciliation with Britain in favor of war. Henry claims that the British intend to use force in order to impose their power, and therefore, the colonists must prepare to fight. His claims and argument prove valid and are supported with relevant and sufficient evidence. For example, Henry sites “war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.” Again, he asks if the “fleets and armies” from Britain are needed for “a work of love and reconciliation.” This demonstrates effective reasoning by calling attention to the noticeable and evident military presence along side the ridiculousness of thinking peace is possible. In this light, the

In common sense, Thomas Paine, said that there were no kings and consequently no wars during the world’s early ages. According to Paine, wars resulted from kingship and superiority. Countries without kings such as Switzerland and Holland enjoyed peace more than monarchical governments. In the case of America, foreign powers that arose as colonies sought for power and control over the nation.

In the text “Aquinas on Law, Morality, and Politics (Aquinas, 164)”, Aquinas discusses the topic of war and killing. A question is asked that states “Is it always sinful to wage war?” and this question is met with 3 objection statements. The object statements say that it is sinful to declare war because those who live for war activities will die by participating in war activities and because of that they will be punished. Three other reasons as to why it is sinful to declare war is because war goes against the divine precept, it goes against the concept of peace, and war-like activities are not allowed in the church. Aquinas counters these objects by stating that there are 3 different kinds of criteria that are needed in order for a war

First providing evidence that today’s advances enable us to survive without fighting for land, or food making war superfluous. He blames greed of power, and egos for war, using evidence from the past to confirm his theory. The examples of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne Napoleon, and Hitler, all claiming a desire for peace. All pursuing their selfish ambition, thus proving his claim that greed of power and egos are responsible for war. Furthermore, claiming the power of modern weapons eliminates the possibility of a benefit from war. Using the convincing evidence of our annihilation to substantiate this claim, creating the urgency to resolve conflicts peacefully. Asking that our actions accurately match our speech. He argues the hypocrisy proving that claims for peace are made while building our arsenals and armies. He uses the example of heads of state coming to peace negotiations with sheathed swords. “We must pursue peaceful end through peaceful means.” (King, 1967) Again using history as evidence of future behavior, stating when he sees history repeating itself he becomes skeptical. He petitions us to revolutionize, before the destruction of the planet and extinction of the humane race, assuming capability of reform.

The first reason being, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged(Article 1). It is important to note that the sovereign is the leader or overseer of a certain project. Aquinas believes that the people themeselves can not wage a private war on a country, but if the sovereign say its okay, then they are allowed to wage a war. The second reason that Aquinas gave is that, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault(Article 1). Here, Aquinas attempts to explain that war is just as long as you have a cause to attack someone,and that they did something wrong to you or others around you. It’s the famous line “and eye for an eye.” An example of this reason would be, if someone were to get hit , it would be okay for them to go back and hit the person back. Although this may be bad like in school accoriding to Aquinas it is completely legal to attack someone if they attacked you. The third reason he gives is that, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil(Article 1). Intending to demosntrate that it is okay to wage war, Aquinas says that it is always okay to wage war as long as the person you have rightful intentions.

It is imperative to understand Aquinas’ definition of just and unjust laws. Through defining these terms, we will be able to understand Aquinas’ claim. A law that is just has the power of “binding in conscience” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). It is derived from eternal law and therefore inherently morally correct. An unjust law lacks this integral quality. Aquinas is willing to say that an unjust law is a so-called law, but a just law is a law proper in its entirety.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

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.

“Just war” can be waged only as a last resort, when all other options are insufficient.