Gene Volchenko
Hum.127
Mr. Leck
2/27/15
Morality & Judgment in War on Civilians
When discussing morality, one has to define morality. Morality –“principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”(Oxford dictionary). So basically morality discusses good or bad. When people discuss war they don’t think about good or right” War does not determine who is right - only who is left “(Bertnard Russel). People usually think of bad and wrong when it comes to war. However, at times of war it seems that morals have a different meaning. For example, it is not about good or bad, right or wrong. It is about “not as bad” or “not as wrong”.
In the years between 1939-1945 over 25 million civilians had lost their lives because of the actions of WW2. The war included 31 countries that spread all over the planet. No one thought that it would come to those great numbers of deaths when it all began (History Channel)). But again, it looks like war has no rules. It is not surprising that civilians die in times of war. All great empires killed civilians. From Alexander the great to Genghis Khan. Back at those times it was perfectly normal and no one had a doubt that civilians are a target of warfare. However, in the 20th century people kind of started to understand the value of a human life. This is how it seemed. But then WW2 took place and we were surprised by that. The German purpose of the war was to eliminate all not Arian people of Germany in order to become a superior race country (Nuremberg). Besides that Germany also wanted to expand their territory by taking over Eastern Europe (Poland, the Soviet Union). And shortly after that idea with Hitler`s confidence he also wanted the rest of Europe (France, England). In other words, the beginning of this war was; one side attacks and one side defends (The Century). But, how come the side of defense has become shortly with time aggressive and was not less immoral then the evil German side? But again war changes people. “There is no denying that in the heat of war the morality of the “just war” doctrine tends to be forgotten” (Justice in Modern War). This same article discuses “old standards of war and how could they be enforced in practice at WW2”. Well, with our technological revolution at the 20th century “old standards “could not be applied to a “new world”. The tactics of wars changed with times. Enemies don’t fight in an open field line to line with horses and swords. Nowadays, we have weapons, air force, bombs, ships who were made only for one reason; to destroy. How could we apply “old standards” when countries hold weapons of ultimate destruction?
The well-known action of “The Blitz” and more like it that took place all over Europe and lead to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki event at 1945 completely changed the nature of war. There was no longer any distinction made between civilians and soldiers. The reasons for those actions could be explained by the theory that says that in order to win a war one side has to kill or take hostage the high leaders of the other side or simply to surrender(Fog of War). The high leaders of Germany were mostly placed at Berlin and spread all over the city, because they knew that the enemy would never bomb a place full of innocent civilians. However, war again seems to change any predictable behavior. At times of war we as humans become simple animals that are driven by instincts of protecting our own by any means without taking into consideration the enemies felling (Above and Below). The war was long and frustrating. When people are frustrated they will play dirty to get their need. All sides of that war knew and acknowledged morality but they seemed not to follow that code of rules. US bombings in Japan got completely out of control by killing 3 million Japanese people by air bombing(Fog of War).
When the basic need of survival is under pressure all other knowledge is put a side. This war was set up in a way of each one is for
for our impartial sentiments this is the foundation of morality. Hume’s first argument against the rationalists is the argument of motivation. This argument being that moral judgments can motivate us, and rational judgments can’t, therefore moral judgments are not rational judgments. Hume states that reason can’t motivate because reason only creates relations between ideas. Through this he renounces Externalism, which is the belief that morality needs to be supported by law, and/or divine punishment;…
concept of morality can and does exist within cultures that have only one god, as well as cultures that have multiple gods. Without morality, the world would be a place of extreme chaos and pandemonium. However, the foundation for morality within polytheistic religions is quite contradictory to the foundation for morality with monotheistic religions. Morality within polytheism is somewhat inconsistent and relative; whereas in monotheism, morality becomes more consistent and absolute. Morality exists…
objective moral judgments? Are moral judgments about some reality, and so true/false insofar as they correspond with that reality? Are moral judgments one’s that all persons with intellect/reason concur in making? I. Definition of objectivity Objectivity in judgment requires that: (a) The judgment can be seen to be true by everyone who has all the information relevant to the truth, i.e. “the recognition of facts as true by all who understand them fully” AND (b) The judgment can be true II…
engage in? Piaget proposed that the autonomous morality of late childhood is preceded in early childhood by heteronomous morality. When someone acts autonomously, it is because they act based upon internal drives, desires and values. On the other hand, when one acts heteronomously, he or she acts based upon external forces and obligations from their environment. Children thinking in terms of heteronomous morality see the world as an unchangeable collection of rules and laws that…
Andrew Coe September 18, 2011 Ethics v. Morality The terms “ethics” and “morality” have been topics of great debate for many centuries. Both terms are becoming ever more commonplace in casual conversation, and both are used interchangeably without much hesitation. Many scholars, however, would argue that the two terms have distinct differences – that they do not mean the same thing – and that they should be used more prudently. Authors William H. Shaw (San Jose State University) and William K. Frankena…
the behavior of its practitioners. Question 2 The origins of morality stem from where? a) Religion Feedback: The answer is d. Morality is influenced by a number of different origins; not just one value is the sole proprietor of morality. Question 3 Ethical relativists claim that: a) Moral standards are determined by what a culture or society decides is right and wrong. Feedback: The answer is a. Ethical relativism is the view that morality is not absolute, and ethical standards should be adjusted…
century a medieval morality play was written by an unknown author called “Everyman”. The author uses the character Everyman to describe all of human kind. Everyman is seen as a man cares little about faith and lives solely for his own pleasures. It isn’t until Death comes to him as a messenger from God to summon him to be judged by God, that he realizes that death is imminent. He realizes that his actions throughout life will decide his fate after death. The author of this morality play uses allegory…
points—in the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance, Kant places greater emphasis on ends and not just on motives—but this summary and analysis will cover only the general points of Kant’s ethics, which both his major works share in common. Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive…
identify with the view that moral judgements are only true for particular individuals? To believe that moral judgments are true for particular individuals could take two approaches: A judgment is true for a person who subscribes to moral relativism, if that judgement conforms to the majority view of their society. Or, for a person who believes in moral subjectivism, their moral judgment will always be true as long at it is their belief. Critiquing the subjectivist’s view, Barcalow argues that…
society. (Society dictates what is “right”) Subjectivism Often rejected—Most people judge it to be “counter-intuitive_.” (goes against our reasoned intuition) Some standard of right/wrong must exist; otherwise, the culture would not exist. If morality is all about individual approval/disapproval_, there would be no need for the concepts of right/wrong (We develop word_/vocabulary/language to express/convey concepts_ that need to be communicated_.) The concepts of right/wrong presuppose/assume…