Proportionality In Eye In The Sky

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

The thought of the children is one that comes up in many arguments, the saddest part of the whole siege is easily the loss of lives especially those who had no voice for themselves. With children dying in violent ways more and more each day one of today's generations cannot help but wonder if any more protective and peaceful negotiations would have been enforced to try and save those lives.

We live in a world that suffers from many injustices. These injustices range from poverty to trafficking to healthcare issues. However, the injustices done in war have been ignored for far too long. “Experts argue that the public, though understandably wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be persuaded to support some actions overseas” (Katel, 2014). In order to gain some support, the media has taken action. Movies, such as “Lone Survivor” and “The American Sniper,” have started uproar in the past two years. These movies have shed light on the true issues that our soldiers face while they are in battle. After having watched these movies and reading the recent news articles, citizens have now started to take a stand on issues like the killing of other countries woman and children, torture, and if the United States should even be sending our men to countries to defend those that are not American. They are beginning to realize how much of an honor it is that the countries that are in hardships look to the United States to restore order. It is also important for all Americans to understand the danger they are putting our military men and women in when they look down upon what collateral damages are made during war and when they do not allow our men to use torture as a way of truth seeking. War is never a happy or easy thing to declare. Yet, it seems actions are the only way to get jobs done. Actions such as interfering in global affairs, using

informant who provided information to the U.S. officials that the child is a terrorist. Should the decision to strike be only based on the informant? Can those informants who get money for their information are reliable? What if informants provide any information only to receive payment for it? The decision to strike should not be based only on such information on the basis of tremendous injustice, with no imminent threat and with no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an actual terrorist group member. People in a war zones, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan, live in a constant fear of drones whooshing above their heads that may kill them “accidentally” by a strike, because statistically around 3,000 people were killed by strikes including estimate 200 children and many civilians who were also injured during strikes. President Obama said in this documentary “this is a targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” Nevertheless, the identity of some of those terrorists is unknown and the

Saving other innocent people is a priority to the American military. We took retaliation on Syria because they bombed innocent people. Taking out the guys that do that kind of stuff is easy retaliation for the US. Getting out the bad guys in the world will save the innocent. The US takes out

This is the reality of war. War is not clean cut or binary. It is dirty and and slaughter. It is cyclical and multifaceted. The carnage is a cost of war. Ethics should not be lost or sacrificed as war continues. This is in regards to the countless lives lost due to war. How many lives will be lost in order to achieve

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

Terrorism is extremely sensitive subject, and rightfully so. I believe the United States has attempted to help form some form of defense in order to combat the growing threat of terrorism. Although I agree something must be done, I tend to disagree with the strategy. Yet, I will admit I really do not know what I would do if I was in a leadership positions and was forced to make a decision or come up with a plan. One such problem was spoken about by the NPR, in the debate about the US Drone policy. In one manner, Drones provide a safe way for the killing of dangerous individuals without ever putting a US solider in danger. However, Critics are likely to point out these Drone Strike occasionally have civilian causalities. My point simply being

The ostensible contradiction between war and morality has resulted in serious moral questions that many ethicists have tried to answer. Is war ever just? Is war just an irremovable part of human nature? Is some war just? The world constantly finds itself in a state of some form of war, and as such it seems that assessing the morality of war is essential.

Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing (Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of discrimination

The ethical issue that I have chosen to discuss is war. This issue has been a common thing all around the world, since the first ever war in 2334 BCE (History, 2008). War can be started for a number of reasons, such as; Economic gain, territorial gain, religion, nationalism or revenge (Owlcation, 2015). Wars can be fought in all different ways and has the potential to shape and influence the future dramatically. War and civil wars can have severe effects and outcomes, they can be detrimental to the people, buildings, religion and living conditions of countries and states that are part of the war, whether by choice or not.

Killing the 5th child however is justifiable because it was a preemptive act and did not bring new evil into the world. The difference between a just and unjust warrior, to Lackey, is that an unjust warrior doesn't wait until he can be sure there are no other options and someone is going to have to die before using military force.

Aerial bombing in warfare is a recent addition to the technology used to wage war. Aircraft as a tool of warfare less than a hundred and ten years old but the methodology is much older in the context of waging war. Grosscup (2006), states war has always been and will always be contentious, and so to evaluate aerial bombing ethics discourse must be centered on a particular context. Aerial bombing was first used during the First World War; it brought a new dimension in war that had never been seen before. Civilians, cities and industries were exposed to the horrors of war (Grosscup, 2006). Before the battlefield was far away from civilians’ cities and industries but the introduction of planes as a weapon platform changed all this and all of a

The group tracked gunfires by administering forces in the range of a kindergarten school in Kafr Batna that left four children hurt. An address that a child died and three other people were injured due to shelling at Saqba was sent. Additionally, the International Committee of the Red Cross describes the situation in suburban Damascus describes a "critical" humanitarian situation.

During the 20th century America has been involved in many conflicts that have led to war or the taking up of arms against other humans and nations. Although the vast majority of Americans have blindly accepted these actions throughout the century, more and more people are seeing war as morally wrong. Reasons for this epiphany are based off of a variety of things and encompass many other aspects related to war and killing examples include: due to moral and ethical principles, objection to war due to strong religious beliefs, the objection to violence due to the same ideals above, objection to the government's use of force, and the objection to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Being a conscientious objector is fairly uncommon in the United States military but there are those who have served have identified as one.