The book being used for my Contemporary Moral Issues class tried to use a hypothetical situation to express that killing in war is justified, because it is like self-defense in nature. I do agree that it can be self defense in nature, or at least similar to self-defense. The difference is, in self defense, the aggressor usually has some active intent to harm the other for no reason. However, in the case of war, the alleged aggressor, is also only acting in 'self-defense.' It's important to recognize that in the case of war, if one side of combatants is justified in killing in 'self defense,' the other side is too. If both sides would realize that, war wouldn't be (or at least not quite as bad). Both sides kill the other because they are convinced that the other will kill them if they do not. So, if both sides of fighters would realize that, they could all go peacefully back to their families and friends.
It would probably be best to let the political 'leaders' fight on their own, rather than having men that don't want to kill each other fight for them. It's sad, to know that people kill each other because they are told to. They go out and kill people that otherwise could be their friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment