Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of leaders in the military
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One hundred and eight million people were killed in wars in the 20th century (Hedges). The estimate for the number of humans killed throughout human history by war is roughly one billion. Numbers this prodigious should cause an uproar, but many residents absolve their government-- arguing that killing is justified. Why are so many humans being killed by the failure of leaders to think and analyze? Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been completely at peace for 268 of them, just 8 percent of recorded history (Hedges). Marcus Garvey once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword, but the tongue is mightier than both of them put together.” The problem at hand can be resolved with an uncomplicated answer.
Leaders should attempt to reason and work with other leaders in order to reduce violence, war, and reduce civilian casualties. Violence is what most countries were founded on. Take the United States, for example. White, European men invaded the Native American’s land, infecting them with disease (intentionally and
…show more content…
Patriotism is defined as “love for or devotion to one's country” (Patriotism). Most would assume having a love for one’s country means preventing unnecessary death or injury of the other residents of said country; however, that is the opposite train of thought that the patriotic citizens have. They believe that war is a means of protection and that the death of others is justified as long as their country is protected. They believe it brings a sense of unity inside their country and this sense of unity binds together the country and bring a feeling of cohesion. It supplies meaning and purpose, exceeds the monotony of everyday life. Warfare also enables the expression of higher human qualities that often lie dormant in ordinary life, such as courage and self-sacrifice. A solution that has been thought of for the problem of war is one that mimics the effects of this feeling of
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Patriotism is defines as love and devotion to one's country, usually out of self devotion. Nationalism is an adulterated version of patriotism where aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination is forced upon the people by society, or an authoritative figure.
... and in doing so represent their country even more. Trying to be patriotic becomes hard for Brinker when his father wants him not to embarrass himself and do more for the country because Brinker feels that his father doesn?t understand that he is afraid to go to war. Brinker says", He and his crowd are responsible for it and we're going to fight it " (190). This quote shows how agitated Brinker is with his father for trying to tell him to accomplish more in a dangerous war, that Brinker wants nothing to do with, that can possibly lead to his own death. To sum up, patriotism is a necessity in going to war and representing the country because it shows feelings from the fighter to his or her country.
In the novel All Quiet on the Western Front and the poem "The Man He Killed," the main two characters have similar thoughts and emotions towards war, they both enroll in war for reasons other than patriotism and they also feel that under different situations, their enemies could have been their friends. If both the characters really felt the reason or need to be in the war, their experiences would have been positively different. Through the characters, it is portrayed that patriotism can be expressed mainly through war, but there are other numerous ways to show your love for the country.
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Simon Keller argues in his essay "Patriotism as Bad Faith" that patriotism is not a virtue but it is actually a vice. Keller begins by splitting the views on this philosophical debate into three different representations. The first being the "communitarian patriot", where patriotism is not only a valued virtue to someone's self but that it is actually an essential virtue. The second representation is a radical contradiction of the first, known as the "hard universalist. The hard Universalist sees patriotism as a vice instead of being any type of positive virtue. They think that everyone should be valued the same, and that there should be no favoritism. The third representation is the idea of the first two combined, to form what is called the "soft universalist." This view is understood as patriotism is allowed, and is not seen as a vice, but also that one has an obligation to the rest of the world, almost to try and treat them as a loyalty that you would have towards your own country. (p.112).
Patriotism, as defined by sociology, is the “love and commitment to one’s country. The sociological definition for nationalism, however, is “a sense of superiority over others” (Kemmelmeier 859). Compared to nationalism, patriotism is benign in definition. With nationalism, there is “them” and then there is “us”; in essence, it creates a strong schism between nations. Radical nationalism is a severe issue as it has high potential in causing conflicts between nations. One of the most notorious examples from history is World War II. Following World War I, Germany was in shambles; the economic and political state of Germany left it vulnerable to the rise of Adolf Hitler. The bitter resentment resulting from the conclusion of World War I in combination with a new, jingoist dictator led to the creation of radical nationalism within Germany. This nationalism led to the willingness to kill indiscriminately for the country under the belief that Germany was a far superior nation and all other nations needed to be eradicated, thus leading to global
In times of war, such as these, the importance for everyone to know where they stand on the idea of patriotism so they can voice or enact their opinion to the government and the people around them in a more clear and fair fashion is multiplied. The idea of patriotism can often be an obscure one, and during times of heightened security patriotism is a more spoken upon subject. Discussing the many different views of what patriotism means is a key step in better defining patriotism for all people. Barbara Kingsolver says in her article, “My patriotic duty is to recapture my flag from the men now waving it in the name of jingoism and censorship” (Pg. 2). What she means by this is that the idea of patriotism is being morphed into something it is not. She believes patriotism should encourage free speech and criticism of our leaders in times of difficult decisions. Instead, what is happening is patriotism is suggesting more fascist ideals than democratic ideals. Barbara believes her duty is to recapture the true meaning of patriotism and let everyone know what that meaning is. She wants everyone to feel open towards voicing t...
Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.
“Imagined communities,” a book by Benedict Anderson, attempts to answer the question on why people sacrifice their life for a nation? Why people become very nationalist and ready to be killed in the bloodshed of a war for their nation?
Is everyone punished or punished equally for murder? It’s not always justified people get away with it all the time. I don’t think killing is ever justified because when you murder someone, and you get put to death you may have deserved it but you’re still getting murdered. This topic everyone can come up with list upon list of reasons killing can or can’t be justified. But in my opinion it’s not justified. There is no reason to take the life of another human being.
Let’s start with the most important rule: murder is wrong. However, if worse comes to worst, getting away with it can be a challenging task. Whether it’s the employee who got promoted instead of you, the sports car driver who cut you off, or the jerk who let his dog do his business in your lawn but never cleaned it up, everyone undergoes moments of insatiable rage as you admit, “Man, I am gonna kill that guy.” Well now you can, and you can get away with it too.
“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice after thought… whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life.( 18 U.S. Code 1111 - Murder)” There is a debate as to whether killing is or is not right. The first word that may come to one’s mind when the word killing is mentioned might be murder, which is illegal, but they are not the same. Murder is a type of killing but there are also many other types. One of the debates about killing is if killing in war should be legal. Another debate is on self defense and if killing is okay when the victim kills the criminal under the means of self defense. There are many types of killing some deembed ‘okay’ and some that are not. Killing
One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.