Differences among Assassination, Tyrannicide, and Targeted Killing - Essay Example

Explain the Differences among Assassination, Tyrannicide, and Targeted Killing. Discuss the Ethical Underpinnings of Each Tyrannicide can be distinguished from assassination on the basis of private and public lives of people. Tyrannicide is an act of killing a tyrant for the betterment of the people whereas assassination is an act serving for some personal, political or ideological motives. On the other hand, targeted killing can be differentiated as the killing of an individual or a group of individuals without involving any political or ideological reasons but for the purpose of state self-defence. Assassination involves treachery, betrayal and infidelity. Gross has argued that assassination is not allowed in the regulations of armed clashes and that it can be considered as murder by deceitful means (245). This indicates that if there is no kind of treachery involved, there would be nothing wrong with assassination. The author makes it clear in his argument that assassination is not always a result of betrayal but is also evidence of morality of premeditated killing of the individuals. Some researchers use the terms “assassination” and “targeted killing” interchangeably in order to avoid linking treachery with assassination. The ethical legitimacy of targeted killing can be described when it is compared to other methods of fighting against terrorism, which can be massive invasion and destroying the complete infrastructure of terrorists. Many experts claim that the real war method would be the invasion rather than targeted killings, because it bears the actual concept of war. Invading a civilian area leads to a more number of deaths and casualties of common innocent people. With targeted killing the damage is reduced; hence, it is the preferable method as it saves innocent lives and keeps the damage low (Gross 115). There have been various arguments to justify tyrannicide. Unless tyrannicide is linked with an effort to change the regime entirely, it is expected to result in repressions of the general public greatly. Assassination is considered to be a careful choice when aiming at preventing and ending the war against terrorism. This might be applicable in some cases, but assassination has not been preferred because there are other less harmful and less objectionable methods like tyrannicide (Lenin 60-62). Discuss Collateral Damage, Providing a Conceptual Definition First, and Then an Illustration of It, by Using Examples Drawn from Different Fields and Different Historical Periods The term “collateral damage” was first used by the US army during the Second Gulf War. Collateral damage can be described as civilian casualties due to bombings of allied military forces. By describing losses of civilian lives and properties, the officials redirect the criticism against the military for a high death count of common people (Hashmi 125-127). Though the phrase has its roots in the military background, it has also been interchangeably used in common language. The business world is fond of the usage of this term for unintentional damage caused by an action. For example, if an organization shifts its offices to a new city, the losses suffered by the local businesses can be termed as collateral damage. The abrupt or unexpected closing of a section or division of a company due to financial crisis can also be termed as collateral damage, as the employees would lose their means of income. This damage will be considered as significant, but the losses will be still acceptable if compared to the advantages and profits of taking action. Many experts believe that focussing only on the deaths of common people as a way of accessing a military operation is not a flawless approach. The US military’s protests against body count have its roots in Vietnam, where there were no links of enemy death count to the overall success of a mission. Many researchers and analysts argue that failure of a mission cannot be determined by the total death count of civilians. Others are of the opinion that it would be unjust if the number of innocent casualties is ignored or not discussed. Many of them express their fears and frustrations at the narrow perception of the media and human rights groups on civilian deaths (Johnson 9-12). It is also significant here to analyze the potential adverse effects of focusing on avoiding casual deaths. Examples may include failure to eradicate Serbian air defense, fearing of collateral damage in civilian localities, extended the war unnecessarily and ultimately resulted in implementation and acceptance of methods which increased civilian casualties in Operation Allied Force. Usage of non-lethal weapons to control crowds, such as tear gas, is restricted by the NATO and by the Chemical Weapons Convention (Walzer 95). Many human rights representatives state that every military operation should be balanced in terms of minimizing collateral damage, force protection and mission success. However, there is quiet unrest in the human rights sectors for the inability of methods and approaches developed and implemented in order to minimize collateral damage. Attempts have been made to minimize collateral damage during air bombardments which are conducted by the US Air Force, which include better planning and strategic processes for fixed targets. In urban populations, where there is a higher risk of innocent deaths, the precision of weapons with careful planning allowed minimal effects on civilian populations in any operation. The bombings in the Second World War, however, completely ignored the laws of collateral damage and aerial bombings seemed to peak during these moments (Ward 147-148). Discuss Why and How One Could Make the Argument That an Ethical Perspective on War Makes Wars More Cruel Wars are strange activities of the human race, which can be not only the doorway of some of the traits such as bravery and self-sacrifice but also involve cruelty and suffering. Wars are a major candidate for ethical reflections of the human race. Many of the world’s most destructing wars have been fought in the name of religion, though most of the worlds’ religions teach justice and compassion for the fellow humans. We discuss here the religious and ethical views on war, which does not support wars. Most of the religious traditions consist of moral and ethical values regarding war, which do not support the views of other religions. The ones who believe in those traditions remain confused because of the contradictory moral values; hence, they should either select or reject some of their traditional values. The fundamental principle that can lead to acceptance, apart from their basic ethical beliefs, is to limit wars if complete eradication is not possible (Regan 30-32). According to the Christian traditions and beliefs, there is a wide range of ethical views on wars, which vary from limited fear, pacifism and total war. Jesus laid a very strong basis for love and forgiveness including non-retaliation even against enemies. According to the Bible (Carey), “You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth but I instruct you do not resist those who do wrong to you. If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, do not retaliate, turn and offer him the other one” (145). In the Islamic traditions, there are certain examples of war, but Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H) instructed the followers to show love and compassion for everyone irrespective of religion, gender or caste. Though revenge has been made permissible in Islam, the followers are instructed to take exactly equal revenge and if they forgive, they would be considered more pious in the eyes of God. The Prophet himself had forgiven all his enemies, even those who tried to assassinate him. The Prophet Mohammad said: “He who killed one man, killed the entire human race.” Mentioning the Jewish concept of war, one of the Ten Commandments stated in Exodus 20 is “Thou shalt not kill.” As it is evident, none of the religions allow killing of innocent people, even during the war, and wars should be avoided in the first place. There are no wars such as just wars; violence should be prohibited in every case. Every religious tradition has one or the other kind of ethical principles that are not at all compatible with total war. How can a person believe that God is compassionate and on the other hand, also think that God would command total war? The global war against terrorism has now renewed the concept and discussion for those people who believe that they abide by some values of their ethical and religious traditions. Those who attempt to justify wars, presenting the ethical perspectives of war, have only made the situation worse. There can be no war which is just since every war ultimately results in killings of innocent people and destruction of their properties. The most appropriate defence procedure for a person who is pressurized to reach a specific judgement is the ethical acceptance and recognition that no one is well served in a war. A war cannot be justified on any religious social or cultural grounds and those who attempt to point out the ethical perspective of wars only make it more disturbing in justifying a cruel act against the human race. Works Cited Carey, Mathew. The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments. Philadelphia: Printed by Mathew Carey, no. 122, Market-Street, 1811. Print. Gross, Michael L. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print. Hashmi, Sohail H, and Steven Lee. Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. Johnson, James T. Morality & Contemporary Warfare. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Web. Lenin, Vladimir I. On Just and Unjust Wars. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1984. Print. Regan, Richard J. Just War: Principles and Cases. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Print. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Print. Ward, Thomas. The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Print. Read More

 

Read More