First Paper Assignment - Essay Example

Thus, the thesis of this paper can be put like this: Killing in war is seriously morally wrong, because it is cruel and worthless deprivation of the most valuable one has which is human life. A number of analytical and psychological researches have been conducted on the reasons, causes, and consequences of one of group of people killing other group of people during war time. However, such appalling facts as raping and killing women and children are shocking evidence of human worst weaknesses and absence slightest responsibility for the most severe crimes.

Contemplating on such problematic issue of human life as war, I would go as far as to claim that we do not need war and have to learn to live without it. Killing enemies in war, soldiers become automated machines of mass destruction which never stop even before helpless crying child (Calhoun 40). If one’s psychology is so complex that in war they do not distinguish their aims and enemies from helpless women and little children, then they should not engage themselves in war at all. Today, we are witnesses of revolutions and overthrowing of national leaders in the Islamic countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

One of the major claims the Colonel Qaddafi’s son has recently made proves the leader’s interests in power and his philosophy that the end justifies the means: “We will fight until the last man, until the last woman, until the last bullet” (Kirkpatrick).War politics is often based on the assumption that killing combatants in war is self-defending act. It is concluded that war and killing are acceptable. Fighting and killing for one’s country, family, rights is considered to be even honorable.

Soldiers are also human beings with their rights to life. Therefore, killing is deliberate deprivation of human life (White 414). In such a chain of logical arguments, it would be reasonable to conclude that end does not justify means. There is a statement which became commonplace during war times: kill or be killed. If to look at this statement from religious perspective, to be killed is honorable, while to kill is not. Furthermore, a person who is forced to kill like a soldier whose “duty” is to kill, will always have some psychological trauma or, at least, negative images in their mind related to killing and dead bodies of their enemies.

Killing in war is similar to some animal instinct for surviving. Hence, any inclination to kill even as a duty in wartime is a rudiment of our ancestors who lived as tribes in caves fighting with their human and non-human enemies for survival. It is neither right nor just to divide soldiers into guilty and not guilty, because they are all the same. They are employed by someone else to do a dirty job which is to kill during a war. Killing then is called “carrying out of mission” – a very respectful job, one might think.

If to assume that killing is self-defense, many combatants are killed of another reason, which is their enemy’s duty, to kill (White, 415). Therefore, all the war actions which involve intentional deprivation of someone else’s life cannot be morally excusable, because in most if not all cases it is murder. Killing in war should be looked at from a perspective of immorality of war itself. Duties and responsibilities of a soldier are to be thoroughly looked through and reconsidered. Fullinwider correctly states that killing is