The taking of an innocent life is seemingly always wrong, but what if it’s to help save the lives of many? This classic ethical dilemma was brought to life when four American soldiers on a secret mission to locate a high ranking member of the Taliban were accidentally discovered by three locals, one of who was a fourteen-year-old boy. By releasing them, the soldiers ran the risk of the locals being Taliban sympathizers, who would alert them to the soldiers unknown presence. However, this decision was not that black and white, because it was also possible the goatherds would not tell anyone what they saw, and then would have been brutally murdered for no reason. Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell struggled greatly with this decision, as the soldier in him screamed to kill them, but the man inside him told him to let them go as they are innocent and not deserving of death. By applying the three different …show more content…
principles of justice, Luttrell can see what ideals each decision would represent, and make a decision from there. In the principle of justice known as Maximize Welfare, the good of the many outweigh the good of the one. It is aligned with the idea that decisions should be based on the amount of people being positively affected by a situation versus the amount of people being negatively affected. In the example of the Afghan Goatherds, the principle would argue that the two goatherds and the boy should be shot and killed by the Navy Seals. The reasoning behind this is that three people losing their lives would help save the lives of many, so even if the goatherds and the boy did not do anything to deserve being killed, their individual rights are forfeited for the good of the country. The Taliban killed millions every year under command of Osama bin Laden; by finding one of his close associates, this group of soldiers could potentially be protecting the lives of thousands, which seems like the logical thing to do. The goatherds were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but by following this principle they need to die. Should the soldiers decide that yes, this is the principle of justice they believe should be applied in this particular situation, they would shoot the two goatherds and the fourteen-year-old in the head, and carry on with the mission. When using the principle called Individual Rights, everyone has universal rights that must always be upheld, no matter what the situation may be. These rights, such as the right to be treated fairly or the right to life, cannot be breached even if the end goal is far more important than one person's rights. When reviewing the event of the Afghan Goatherds, it is clear that if the soldiers were to believe in Individual Rights, they would release the goatherds and the boy. By accidentally finding the soldiers, the Afghans do pose a threat to the mission the Seals were sent on, but that does not mean their right to live should be forgotten. It is not the soldiers place to decide what value these men's lives have, and they cannot kill them because they are a potential liability. There is no concrete proof that these men will absolutely inform the Taliban of US soldiers. To make the assumption they will, and kill them for it, ignores the fact that these are real people who should not have to unwillingly give their lives for a country that is not theirs in support of a mission they have no part in. Virtue, the last principle of justice, believes in making decisions based on the effect it will have on society. Will the choices being made negatively affect the society we all share, or will they create a better, more accepting one? The Afghan Goatherds case is highly debatable, but using this particular principle of justice, the goatherds would not be killed because of the message it would send to society. By murdering the goatherds for this secret mission, it would send the message that killing three unarmed people is morally right when it’s being done for the ‘greater good’. It confuses very carefully placed societal lines about how far we as people can go before we’ve done something unforgivable. Having the right to take an unarmed persons life because of something they may possibly do is ethically wrong and teaches the other members of society that even murder is excusable. The consequences of the mindset this act would create are numerous, and all detrimental to the ideals we hold in place. By applying this principle, the goatherds would be spared. As in many ethical dilemmas, there is no easy answer.
If put in the place of Officer Luttrell, I would chose to kill the goatherds rather than let them go. Morally, it would not feel right, and I would hate myself for having to do that, but it’s ineffable. By deciding to go on this mission, I will have already resigned myself to the fact that I will have to cross certain personally barriers in the name of the war on the Taliban, and by doing this heinous act, I will possibly be saving the lives of thousands who would have otherwise been killed. In this instance, I’m using the Maximize Welfare principle, because I believe that my issues with killing the goatherds would stem from a place of discomfort with doing such an ethically gray act, and as a Navy Seal I need to commit fully to the mission. Individual rights and Virtue have no place in this situation, because of the high stakes in place and the fact that while at war, certain lines have to be crossed to achieve the goal in mind. Morality has a place in law, but in this instance, the decision should be logic
based.
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even with these contradictions the results are obvious. The question that must be posed is whether these results make the American soldiers involved that day “guilty”. There is the fact that the environment of the Vietnam War made it very confusing to the soldiers exactly who the enemy was, as well as providing a pent up frustration due to the inability to even engage in real combat with the enemy. If this is the case though, why did some soldiers with the same frustrations refuse the orders and sit out on the action, why did some cry while firing, and why then did one man go so far as to place himself between the Vietnamese and the firing soldiers? If these men who did not see the sense in killing innocents were right with their actions, then how come the ones who did partake were all found not guilty in court? The questions can keep going back and forth on this issue, but first what happened that day must be examined.
The Taliban and the Nazis are very alike in many ways for many reasons. Some of the reasons are the Rise and Fall, the government change, and even the attack of both of the groups. Both of these terrorists groups have killed many people and have caused very bad wars, and the cause of deaths, and bombings at schools, markets, and many other facilities.
The mental state of mind one reaches when it involves killing another human being is inconceivable. Some claim there’s a choice to kill or not to kill, or to commit suicide or to live and face the consequences for the killings. This isn’t true, once this point has been reached one is no longer in control, it is as if someone else has tied puppet strings to your limbs and you are now transformed into a killer. The stage has already been set and there is little hope to cancel the play and walk away from the final act. Only the help of others and a long-term safety net can help at this point.
The United States is a developed country that people are lucky to be able to live in. In the past however, not everyone was given the same rights. Through legislation and even war, people have fought for change so that we could live in the world that we live in today. Similarly, in Afghanistan people are fighting for their rights everyday. They have been through war and oppression to reach their goals of the freedoms that every person deserves. In this country, women and children are restricted from rights that every person deserves, though they have revolutionized into a country that is somewhat better than it was in the past, they can improve marginally.
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
My first point illustrates the aspects of medical professionals who are preserving the life of enemy combatants. I undoubtedly claim that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are praiseworthy because they preserve the life of the one who was being tortured. An opposing view could assert that the medical professional shouldn’t be present to preserve the life of the enemy combatant because it’s morally wrong to help the enemy. I would respond to their claim by reminding them that life itself is precious and should be preserved, for a person shouldn’t do another person wrong if they have done wrong to them. Another way to approach this is to state that by treating the enemy well, they may have a change of heart. ...
Canada has played a vital role in international relations for the majority of its 144 year history since the signing of Confederation in 1867. Canada first participated in World War I, then World War II in 1939-1945. Following World War II, Canada was also involved in the Korean War. Canada has been primarily a peacekeeping nation. There are many questions people ask when a high income country goes to help a lower income nation such as Afghanistan. What are Canada’s motives for helping out Afghanistan? Who will benefit from Canada going to war in Afghanistan? These are some of the questions many people have. While Canada has many domestic problems of its own such as homelessness, poverty and increasing national debt, why should Canada get involved with a problem that is across the globe? Are the costs of going to war out weight the political benefits? Modernity, modernization theory and gender stratification are some key concepts that are related to Canada going to war in Afghanistan.
Kill or be killed by the enemy. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy.
“If a body of enemy troops is repulsed, give to the wounded the same care as you would give your own men; treat them all the forbearance due to the one who is stricken…After the battle, restrain the fury of your troops; spare the vanquished…People should say of you: they fought courageously when they had to, but remained generous and humane throughout.” –General Guillaume Henri Dufour (Moorehead, 1998)