Morality knows no home on the battlefield. The theater of war lends itself only to a survivalist mentality which necessitates that instinct often supercede rationality. Nature's ultimatum is the grim reality of warfare; that one must kill or be killed. General Taylor's assessment of the role of morality in war is indicative of this reality. He states that it is too dangerous for an officer or soldier to exercise any judgement concerning moral matters which might lead to the violation of orders. This might lead one to conclude that the realities of war show nothing of the morality of war. On the contrary, they tell whole heartedly of the function morality plays on the battlefield. Quite simply, that it has no function. It shows nothing of the morality of war because such a thing does not exist. Like searching for water in the desert, it is equally as futile to seek virtue amidst carnage and brutality. Forget for a moment about man's reasoning and motivation for war, and it becomes quite obvious that moral values have nothing to do with warfare itself (i.e. the actual fighting and killing). In combat situations these things are primitive and instinctual reactions to threats to our immediate well-being, imbedded in mankind's genetic makeup, and are quite different from the action of provoking war. When confronted with nature's ultimatum during combat, one does not have time to assess the moral implications of his actions. On the battlefield there is a real and immediate threat to his life and that of his comrades. Regardless of why the war is being fought, at that precise point in time when opposing forces engage one another, soldiers on either side have no other motivation to kill other than their own personal safety and that of their countrymen. In nature, the motivation to fight and kill is the same. Lions fight and kill to protect themselves and their harem. Why not question the morality of lions, or any other species for that matter, in these situations? Because they have no moral values, they act only on the instinct to survive, as does man during combat.
The morality of war is hard to determine. ... In this paper I will try to explain the morality of war to the best of my abilities. ... You can never truly determine the morality of something. ... Morality needs to be based on what is right or wrong for the majority of society. ... As I stated in my introduction, the morality of war is hard to determine. ...
One can only help to question if the current volume of people that inhabit the planet see morality in a narrow state or through a broad spectrum. ... They live under different ethics and see morality in a different way other than the one we are traditionally use too. ... We can view the government's ethics through war. Was Iraq a rightful war? ... This reveals the injustice of the war. ...
As we look outside our windows, vast amounts of crime, war, and lies is all that can be seen. ... How can one define morality? ... Morality is the basis in which man judges himself. ... Morality has greatly evolved ever since the first humans roamed Earth. The people of the Stone Age had very little or no concept of morality. ...
The scientists, on different sides during the war, converse regarding their own actions and the consequences both scientists faced. They discuss their respective viewpoints on the war and the powers they have sided with. ... Morality is intertwined with human existence just as science is, because of this, science and morality go hand in hand. In order to be a good scientist you need morality. ... Morality and science go hand in hand. ...
Now, we have the case of the United States and Britain waging an all-out war against Iraq. These things bring us to the following questions: is there morality in all these wars of aggression? ... Answering these questions would mean analyzing the reasons why these superpowers engaged in war. ... These reasons are merely not enough to convince the rest of the world that war is justifiable. ... The numerous war casualties, destruction of property and social unrest during the war is reason enough to say so. ...
It would seem that morality has forever been a liquid idea. ... Morality may also be viewed as a cultural concept. ... The first concept of morality that is easily altered is morality as it applies to one's enemies. ... This is everlasting morality" (59). ... The narrative even goes so far as to condemn Duryodhana for his desire for war and praise Yudhisthira for only going to war out of necessity. ...
Ethics and morality are synonymous terms, both meaning customs in their original languages, Greek and Latin respectively. ... However, despite the gods often being instigators of events; for example the Trojan war- Aphrodite appears to cause it, but ultimately the war is caused by Paris who steals Helen by abusing Menelaos" hospitality thus provoking Menelaos to call upon the suitors of Helen to rescue her. In this case, the gods are being manipulated by Homer to emphasize the consequences of the lack of human morality. ... Summum bonum, or highest good is the most primary concept of ethical m...
The basis of morality in natural law and duty. ... Hobbes says morality does not exist in society until the making of a social contract. ... Morality is created at the time when this social contract is created because it comes with the understanding that before this contract, humans are in a state of war. ... But, there is nothing to guarantee an individual's safety and protection from any individual that wishes to do what they want, "...men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man, agains...
