Morally Significant Difference between War and Mass Murder - Essay Example

The Dialogue between Michael Walzer and Henry Kissinger Name: Affiliation: Date: The Dialogue between Michael Walzer and Henry (Michael and Henry are sitting in under pal tree. Henry seems lost in thoughts and Michael awakens him) Michael: Do not over think my friend what is lost is gone and there is no way you can get you and children back. You have to gulp your vodka and move on with life. We only have few years to live and then we go our ways to heaven. Henry: Yes, you are right my friend; we can do to bring our loved ones back. However, you cannot stop thinking about them. Probably by now Eric grandsons would have married and Leah would be an old hag like me (giggles).It takes a lot of courage and grace of God to face life even after that trauma.my friend it’s not easy it’s not easy Michael: What do you thinks Henry, is there any significant difference between mass murder and war. Our families were murdered in remote village and the fighters knew very well that soldiers were not there. It would have been easy to surround the village and take them captive rather than bomb, innocent children and women. I agree that our country started the war but there was no good reason to do such to the children and harmless mothers. Under normal circumstances, the war involves combating the enemy and securing the areas (Avalon Project, 2008). Moreover, the august 1949 the convention (IV) law suggests that the civilians must be under tight protection and therefore killing our families was a violation of the law1. Henry: Additionally the general provision has a list divided into articles which I must take you through to see the hypocrisy of the self-acclaimed superpowers. Article one states that contracting parties must respect and ensure that the current convention is under stiff respect under all circumstances. Secondly, addition to the provisions implemented in peace time, the current conventions must apply to all cases of the declared war or any armed conflict that might arise between the contracting parties even the member countries do not recognize the state of war. The third article states that incase armed conflicts that do not have international character occurring in the territories of the parties under contract, they shall remain bound to apply some provisions that aim to restore life. For instance, the people who do not take part in active hostilities such, as children and women must not be hurt (Fisher, 2011). Moreover the soldiers who have laid down the arms, wounded, detention or any other cause must not under torture at any one time. Therefore, the action of those monsters killing our wives and children was an act of cowardice and not bravery (Hatfield, 1972). Michael: I perfectly understand the article I agree with you that the mass murder was a historical injustice that robbed us our loved ones to an extent that we feel void at old age. It is unfortunate that even when these international laws are in place, there are hooligans that never mind to follow. Moreover, arguing from the biblical perspective, the law (Torah) states that it is wrong to kill people who are innocent and more especially children. Do you not remember the story of Cain and Abel? When Cain killed Abel out of jealousy, the blood of Abel started crying to God for vengeance (Heberer, 2008). God called Cain and inquired from him the whereabouts of Abel but he said that he is not his brother’s keeper. This is an unfortunate thing because it drove Cain to inherit a curse that followed all his generations. Therefore the same thing Cain did to his brother is the same thing that these infidels did to our families. The blood of those little children and mother still cries to God even today and God will rouse and avenge their blood. The infidels must pay for their mistakes someday (Hinde,& Rotblat,2007). Henry: I totally agree with my friend. Considering the ethical theories, deontological theory affirms that the actions of those infidels were right because they were receiving orders from the authorities. The Security Council allowed the attack to; place and the drone could not miss the location of the village. It is very unfortunate that the people making those decisions are fathers, husbands and mothers who should have a bit of mercy (Hinman, 2010). However, they went ahead and killed the innocent because their ludicrous law states that. Although law is above everybody, they should have considered the august 1949 the convention (IV) before taming such action. Therefore, in as much as they are deontologically correct, they shouldn’t have done such mess to the innocent people. On the other hand, the utilitarian theory affirms that every action must be done to the good of all people. However, considering the above situation, the infidels did not consider the implications of the war on both sides (Johnson& Reuband, 2008). Through the drone strike they managed to secure the country and hanged the president, but they did not count the innocent civilians who perished in the accidents. Considering the massive number of people who perished in the attack, it’s evident that the action was totally unethical. Michael: (he gulps a vodka) the pain is unbearable my friend. I wonder what will ever make things right for us. Our country has committed so many atrocities in the international scene and everybody skips a beat at the mentioning of the country’s name. The former governments have spoiled the good name of our country through collaborating with criminals and making biological weapons that United Nations has prohibited (Johnson& Reuband, 2008). These actions coupled with collaborating and harboring criminals and terrorists has made our country a target of many countries who feel the urge to fight. The continuous warnings that the country has received from united Nations has strengthened the enemy’s conviction to attack .From the outsider’s perspective, its morally right to attack any country that collaborates with international criminals who have killed thousands of people. Therefore, the National Security Council acts of deciding to attack the country fulfill the desires of many countries that yearned to see it down. Honestly, under the 1975 article convention that prohibits the development, stockpiling and production of any, chemical and biological weapon (Lyster, 2010). The country deserved to have stopped failure to which such attacks must have occurred. The act states that for the countries that are parties to the convention, they must not use Asphyxiating, poisonous or any other biological chemical that is harmful to the lives of the civilians. Moreover, the general assembly in the United Nations has condemned such acts on several occasions and therefore the attack seemed just to us. Henry: your argument is true my friend, however, I wonder which justice or reason will ever come into my heart and convince me that they were wrong. Considering the situation, it is evident that our country appeared to be the source of criminals and terrorists. Moreover, the chemical weapon that the former government embarked on manufacturing placed the country on the lime light such that any terrorism attack in the world had close affiliation to the country. This has created a wrong picture that justifies every nation to declare or help countries that desire to fight with us (May, 2007). Therefore, the infidels who have always wanted a share of this country’s resources took the opportunity of the “just war” and fought against us because they had concrete reasons according to the general assembly declaration on lethal weapons as well as the 1975 convention. Therefore, they turned the “just war” into a mass murder for women and children never fight (Schlesinger 1971). Michael: I liken our situation with Americans did in Vietnam. Although Vietnam had close links with communist countries and key player during the cold war, the America’s action of attacking and killing people especially the civilians does not conform to ethical considerations. Most of the people who died in Vietnam are children and women who did not take part in the fighting. This indicates that the people who planned and financed the operation have a moral obligation just like in our case (Nagel, 1972). For instance, Mylai massacre did not serve any strategic purpose and many lives were lost in the process. The atrocities committed by the United States government in Vietnam prompt the American public to have mercy on the people though they appear to be on the wrong. The entire actions that happened in Vietnam are more than massacre and there are no claims of a just war in that case (Orend, 2006). Henry: I totally with you that Americans did evil to the Asians and they should pay for their mistakes. It is very unfortunate for people do not regard God any more. Most of these super imposed superpowers do not consider the presence of God and they have carried the Dostoevsky assertions to be true. They have done all sorts of evil without getting any punishment and they feel that there is no power that controls the world. God controls the universe and he has given rules (commandments) to human beings to guide their interaction (Osiel, 2011). However, human beings have flouted the laws and they live according to their own ways. Therefore, God has allowed evil to come into the world hence people affirming that there is no God. Michael: That is very true because many people feel that God should take control of some situations. For instance, during the two world wars, many people lost their lives and this prompted masses to doubt about the existence of God. However, this should not be a reason to continue doing evil. For instance, in the bible, the book of exodus and Joshua indicates how God destroyed people who lived in Canaan simply because they practiced what is evil in sight of God. Moreover, God instructed the Israelites to avoid the practices done by Canaanites because he would also destroy them. God exists and allows evil to befall people when they violate His commandments (Walsh & Asch, 2004). Therefore, the evils befall human beings because they have left God and gone what is evil. Henry: The religion aspect has also contributed to emergence of wars because of different faiths. For instance, the Hebraic wars led by the Hebrews believed that they were holy because God was leading them. They believed that anybody who was not Jew was a gentile and his practices were unclean. Therefore, whenever they engaged in wars, they fought believing they were doing what is right in the sight of God (Zinn, & Samam, 2005). They gave their lives to overcome the enemy of Israel. Any war waged against them or that which they would wage against other tribes was just and they had a clear determination to win. These believes also exist in Islam and they believe those who are not Islamic are infidels hence the need to change or else killing them. Michael: Sure, these are what they call jihad wars for they believe they are fighting for their God. Over the years, these wars have caused many deaths especially in the Middle East. They can murder people in mass numbers and still believe that its justice. Henry: There is another reason that makes mass murder and just to have no difference. The principle of relativism asserts that every community or religious affiliation have rules of individual making hence making it difficult to define the ultimate and the ultimate bad. Instead of valuing supernatural authority, the people rule of their own making. The rules have different makers, time and setting and therefore, to define morally right action is impossible. The relativism idea gets a very bad taste from many philosophers though it has contributed to collapsing of the moral values in the society. For instance, the classic scholar-Herodotus criticizes King Cambyses who is the son of King Cyrus. Cambyses did not show respect to the laws of the Persians and this caused mixed reactions among the Persians. For instance, he mocked tradition and religion not knowing that there were communities that choose its cultures and tradition. During the reign of King Darius, Cambyses asked the Greeks if they would any amount of money to start eating the corpses of their fathers (Fisher,2011). The Greeks felt infuriated and they could not take it. Similarly, Darius summoned some Indians who used to eat the body of their parents and asked them how much money they would take to stop the practice and instead cremate the bodies. The Indians cried in horror fearing to drop their traditions. Therefore, these traditions have made war and mass murder morally in honor of the traditions. Michael: I think it would very difficult to handle such people. For instance, if a community somewhere believes that it is morally right to kill all the people in war, it would be disastrous to engage a war with those people for it would lose the actual meaning. Similarly, some jihadists believe that if they kill as many infidels as possible, they will go to heaven and get seven virgins who will minister to him. This erroneous reasoning has prompted many people to lose their lives and at the same time creating horrific scenes. The same beliefs have prompted suicide bombers to kill thousands in the name of just war (Heberer, 2008).i Henry: I do get your argument. However, there is still a point I need clarification. Remember we want to evaluate the morality difference between just war and mass murder. Under all circumstances, mass murder is evil and immoral. Taking an example of the September 2011attack on the American World Trade Centre, the terrorists bombed the centre as an act just war against Americans. The Americans had previously terrorized Middle East countries to injurious levels and therefore the revenge was justified. The people who sustained injuries and died were far much too many compared to the number that had died initially in the Middle East. Therefore, the action changes from a just war to mass murder. According to the Americans, the action was a mass murder but to the terrorists who orchestrated the attack, it was a just war. Therefore, the aspect morality hangs between the groups (Hinde & Rotblat, 2007). The Americans believe it was massacre while the terrorists take it justly. The defining factor in this circumstance is the cultural setting or the principle of relativism. The cultural values and traditions are relative hence lacking justifiable claim of morality significant aspect in the action. In turn, the Americans bombed entire Afghanistan in search of one man Osama Bin Laden and thousands died in return. George W. Bush termed the action as an act of war and Al Qaeda terrorists were responsible. Therefore, there is no significant act of morality in the two actions. Michael: Considering the situation, the Americans had a moral justification to chase the terrorists up to their hideouts for the National Security Council clearly states that they do not negotiate with terrorists. Thousands had injuries and hundreds in the caskets, and this gave Mr. Walker Bush a go ahead to declare war against terrorists. However, the task killed so many civilians compared to the people who died in Washington (Hinman, 2010). The actions lead to an ethical dilemma because it is not possible to justify. Applying utilitarian approach allowed Americans to stamp out the terrorists because it would be for the greater good of the American people. Therefore, the action of America sending troops to Afghanistan were for the benefit of the American while the civilians suffered.ii On the other hand, the Al-Qaeda felt that the action of Americans intruding the territories of their countries was wrong and that is why the war graduated to be a mass murder. Henry: Consider what we have spoken today, it is evident that there is no morally significant different between a just war and mass murder. What seems to be a just war starts well but eventually it turns out to be a mass murder. Under the I975 conventions, it is clear that torture, and killing of civilians and surrendered soldiers should not take place but it happens all the time. For instance, in the antiterrorist war, many of the captured soldiers end up dying through heinous torture in the hands of the other soldiers (Lyster, 2010). Therefore, a war will never take place without mass murder. Refereeing back to the Second World War, the Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed thousands and the civilians were the majority. It started as a just and eventually ended up to become massacre. Michael: War is a demon, there is nothing moral in it, once it has started it robbed people, their loved ones, moral values and eventually humanity. Therefore, I conclusively agree with you that there is normally significant difference between a just war and mass murder because each turns out to be the other from a relative approach2. References Avalon Project - The Laws of War. (2008, January 1). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp Fisher, D. (2011). Morality and war: Can war be just in the twenty-first century? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatfield, M. (1972). The Necessary Morality of Foreign Affairs. Theology Today, 500-503. Heberer, P. (2008). Atrocities on trial: Historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press ;. Hinde, R., & Rotblat, J. (2007). Bending the rules morality in the modern world: From relationships to politics and war. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hinman, L. (Ed.).2010, January 1). Ethics Updates - Philosophers Speak Out about War, Terrorism, and Peace. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Resources/PhilForum/Terrorism/index.asp Johnson, E., & Reuband, K. (2008). What We Knew Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany. New York: Basic Books. Lyster, I. (2010). Among the Ottomans diaries from Turkey in World War I. London: I.B.Tauris &. May, L. (2007). War crimes and just war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nagel, T. (1972, January 1). War and Massacre. Retrieved April 1, 2015. Orend, B. (2006). The morality of war. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. Osiel, M. (2011). Making sense of mass atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press. Walsh, S., & Asch, E. (2004). Just war. Boston: Thomson/Wadsworth. Zinn, H., & Samam, M. (2005). Just war. Milano: Charta. Schlesinger J (1971) the necessary of amorality of foreign affairs. Harper's Magazine. Virginia H (2004) Terrorism and war_ The Journal Of Ethics 8: 59–75, 2004. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Simon B (2001) Ethics Oxford University Press Inc., New York Read More

For instance, the people who do not take part in active hostilities such, as children and women must not be hurt (Fisher, 2011). Moreover the soldiers who have laid down the arms, wounded, detention or any other cause must not under torture at any one time. Therefore, the action of those monsters killing our wives and children was an act of cowardice and not bravery (Hatfield, 1972). Michael: I perfectly understand the article I agree with you that the mass murder was a historical injustice that robbed us our loved ones to an extent that we feel void at old age.

It is unfortunate that even when these international laws are in place, there are hooligans that never mind to follow. Moreover, arguing from the biblical perspective, the law (Torah) states that it is wrong to kill people who are innocent and more especially children. Do you not remember the story of Cain and Abel? When Cain killed Abel out of jealousy, the blood of Abel started crying to God for vengeance (Heberer, 2008). God called Cain and inquired from him the whereabouts of Abel but he said that he is not his brother’s keeper.

This is an unfortunate thing because it drove Cain to inherit a curse that followed all his generations. Therefore the same thing Cain did to his brother is the same thing that these infidels did to our families. The blood of those little children and mother still cries to God even today and God will rouse and avenge their blood. The infidels must pay for their mistakes someday (Hinde,& Rotblat,2007). Henry: I totally agree with my friend. Considering the ethical theories, deontological theory affirms that the actions of those infidels were right because they were receiving orders from the authorities.

The Security Council allowed the attack to; place and the drone could not miss the location of the village. It is very unfortunate that the people making those decisions are fathers, husbands and mothers who should have a bit of mercy (Hinman, 2010). However, they went ahead and killed the innocent because their ludicrous law states that. Although law is above everybody, they should have considered the august 1949 the convention (IV) before taming such action. Therefore, in as much as they are deontologically correct, they shouldn’t have done such mess to the innocent people.

On the other hand, the utilitarian theory affirms that every action must be done to the good of all people. However, considering the above situation, the infidels did not consider the implications of the war on both sides (Johnson& Reuband, 2008). Through the drone strike they managed to secure the country and hanged the president, but they did not count the innocent civilians who perished in the accidents. Considering the massive number of people who perished in the attack, it’s evident that the action was totally unethical.

Michael: (he gulps a vodka) the pain is unbearable my friend. I wonder what will ever make things right for us. Our country has committed so many atrocities in the international scene and everybody skips a beat at the mentioning of the country’s name. The former governments have spoiled the good name of our country through collaborating with criminals and making biological weapons that United Nations has prohibited (Johnson& Reuband, 2008). These actions coupled with collaborating and harboring criminals and terrorists has made our country a target of many countries who feel the urge to fight.

The continuous warnings that the country has received from united Nations has strengthened the enemy’s conviction to attack .From the outsider’s perspective, its morally right to attack any country that collaborates with international criminals who have killed thousands of people. Therefore, the National Security Council acts of deciding to attack the country fulfill the desires of many countries that yearned to see it down. Honestly, under the 1975 article convention that prohibits the development, stockpiling and production of any, chemical and biological weapon (Lyster, 2010).

Read More