War, Terrorism, Torture, the Environment, and International Justice - Essay Example

Mini Essays Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date War Based on my own personal view it seems to be right to assess the behavior of states using the same moral codes as those that are used in assessing the behaviors of individuals. Citizens of a country tend to have a major role to play in their countries and those moral codes that are used by the citizens ought to be the same one that the state is governed on (Botstein et al. 2007). Citizens of a country are the ones who have a major role to play in a country and the moral codes that they use have been developed by their states and it would therefore seem incorrect to assess the state suing a different form of moral codes while they have developed for their citizens. Dissimilar models of the accurate relationship that exists between the state and its citizens seem to be embodied in various different regimes that exist and these tend to legitimize the models based on the most preferred political ideology. All regimes seem to have a number of formal institutions that mirror the ideological claims of the regimes. Prior to the modern state, there seemed to be little relationships that existed between the citizens of a country and its state. Over time there have been the development of citizenship and they argue that citizens of a country were not termed as the residents of a given country but they were closely affiliated to various political communities (Brodie 1973). The relation between the states and its citizens seems to be interdependent with one another. Without its citizens a state would not be capable of the laws, laws for which denounce as well as praise. Citizens can only be termed as citizens when they are able to acquire the political power. There would not be a state without the citizens living in it so as to be able to make up the government of the state. The government of a country is usually tasked with the duty making laws that will govern its citizens. The individual have a duty to obey and live according to the set moral standards. The various individual moral conducts tend to form the national moral codes. And thus the moral conduct of the state in a way tends to depict the moral conduct of their citizens living in that country and thus it could seem inappropriate to have dissimilar laws or conduct of conduct for the state and for individuals (Dyer 1985). In instances when a state acts in a manner that is not acceptable to its citizens the citizens are likely to be concerned since their national image has been tainted. And thus the government is supposed to act at all times with the interests of their citizens in mind since they are governed by the same moral code and conduct (Junger 2010). The government is also supposed to act in accordance with the rules so as to be an example to its citizens since they are the ones who have formulated those laws and rules. And failure by them to adhere to them may lead to the states citizen having a low level of regard for those laws and moral conducts. Thus the government is tasked with the duty of being good examples and the citizens are also supposed to uphold their moral conduct whenever they go so as to act as ambassadors of their countries in other countries and among other people who they are not of the same origin (Dyer 1985). Terrorism Many are the times when the freedom fighters are confused for terrorists but there exists a distinction of the two. Taking the 2001 attacks in America, this can be labelled to be terrorism as the activities that took place were not approved by law and the activities that took place deprived freedom from a lot of people. Terrorism can thus be described to be a way of intimidating different governments in their political stands hence the group is meant to terrorize though they may call themselves freedom fighters (Binyamin 1995). Terrorists have a different approach in attacking any government. A terrorist group uses a systematic approach to attack where they launch attacks leaving no one alive using a one off attack. Terrorists are meant to intimidate hence use violence especially in military groups. This makes governments want to pay back hence this is meant to make people lose lives in the process of defending their country. Freedom fighters on the other hand seek to defend its country and sides the government in all its enemies. It is also meant to have legitimate attacks for the defense of military and the government. They therefore act in collaboration with the government to ensure a peaceful civilian world. It is a fact to state that one person may be regarded as a freedom fighter but on the other hand they may be regarded to as terrorists (Haaretz 1998). Though this remains to be a debatable issue, there seems to be a possibility of agreeing where ethical norms are applicable to distinguish such a situation. In the definition of terrorism, three elements are taken into consideration where main terrorist activities are to impact violence among people as this is what most groups affiliated with terrorism are about. The second element is that being politically involved in a specified country. By having economic intentions in that country, they have to use violence in order to accomplish or take over a country’s practice. This can be motivated by other ideologies such as religion in order to act as a mask behind any terrorist attacks. The third element may be that of interaction with civilians. Terrorism is best known to be vulnerable to civilians in a country where innocent lives are killed to serve as warnings to the governments of their intention to control other countries. This therefore means that there is a difference that exists between freedom fighters and terrorists as taking the example of guerrilla a warfare, such a group had the aim of freeing the country from any external influence hence a positive intention towards the civilians of the country (Ray and Yonah 1986). In comparison of both groups, the guerrilla warfare is seen to concentrate more on war with external bodies and uses military troops to launch their attacks. In a way terrorism can be seen to be a revolution of freedom fighting where heavy weapons are used but in this case more stronger and sophisticated weapons are used to launch attacks (Binyamin 1985). In comparison to both groups, freedom fighters are seen to be people who launch attacks at unpredictable times and they do so due to the fact that they have weak weaponry as compared to terrorist groups where they inform governments I advance as they have strong weapons to retaliate attacks. Aims also differ in both groups were though they have similar political aims, they have different approaches to accomplish them. While the terrorists aim is to seek for national liberation, it is the aim of freedom fighters to fight for a changing government that incorporates civilians as their main target (Binyamin 1995). The terrorist groups however act with the aim of targeting military groups so that they can take charge of the security in a country. To distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, the following will help: If the group gets involved in killing or targeting noncombatants. This will show that the group is involved in terrorist attacks (Netanyahu N.D). It will also be terrorism if the group’s main focus is on the military of a specified country as this is meant to destabilize a country’s security. Torture Torture has been in existence for a long period of time but though practiced, there has been nothing positive about it hence many consider it to be morally wrong. It can therefore be claimed to be an evil act that challenges how humanity treats life as this is meant to deny person's chances of leaving. This essay gives a discussion of moral issues that have been involved in torture and situations where torture can be said torture is said to be a way in which there is the intention of inflicting negative behavior like violence which thereafter causes mental and physical suffering. This is mainly done by a group that seeks to get crucial information but the party to give practices some resistance hence probe force to be used. Torture is illegal in some countries while others continue with this demonic behavior (Walzer 1973). One may also ask themselves if there is a relationship that exists between killing and torture and in my own opinion, it can be said that torture is seen to be a slow way of death as opposed to killing which is instant. Some people even suggest that it would be better to be killed rather than being tortured as this is a process that is followed by moments of suffering both mentally and physically. In any situation that is attended by inflicting harm, it is said to be immoral hence not acceptable by humanity. Many are the times when torturing activities are done in private and they go unpunished as the murdering is carried out in secret environment. Of late, many political institutions have been practicing torturing activities in order to get the information they may need but this is not presumed to be the best way to investigate any criminal activities. In liberal governments, torture was carried out in morally upright ways where this was only meant for terrorist activities. There exists a question of if torture is morally justifiable but to come into a conclusion, there is the need for explaining what is torture and the extent in which it can be justifiable. Torture can be defined to be an intention of an individual or a group of people to inflict suffering or a group with no free will of the party being tortured (Walzer 1973). Torture can therefore be defined to be a moral wrongness where torture this can be seen to be killed where life is derived. Though torture is not meant to kill, it is meant to make a person suffer but this is still a way of impacting pain in a person. Secondly, torture can be seen as a way of making an individual powerless meaning that there is the probability of making an individual die but this time in a slow manner (Davis N.D). This makes them defenseless and prone to physical harm hence can be concluded that torture is morally worse and it would be preferred if the torturer would kill rather than torturing. It can be said that torture acts against the right of autonomy hence in taking a maximal perspective, breaking an individual right to autonomy leads them to be tortured. Torture such as beating and terrorism activities can be said to be legalized in some countries as this can be applied in emergency situations but this is allowable in situations where torture is institutionalized (Alan 2003). Morality seems to be a sharp instrument with regard to law and in a situation of torture; it might be found to be unlawful due to political organizations and cultural orientation. It can thus be argued that in rare situations is torture necessary hand this can be assumed to be an immoral activity being practiced. However with legal rules being enacted in torture, it can be said that it is morally right. Under the Statute of Rome, it has been seen that the courts have the powers to give or deny a person responsibilities where they can exercise torture. In defining torture, there is the need to distinguish it from coercion as torture is sent to be greatly attributed to the coercion meaning that there is a close relationship with terrorism which aims at killing its enemies but with a slow manner. Torture can therefore be said to interrupt the normal conduct of human life as this is accompanied by pain and mental suffering. The Environment Most human beings make use of animals for their own purposes and most of them do not think if the practice of using animals really needs some moral justification. A great number of people used and also continue pot use these animals for farming, transportation, recreation, sport, companionship and also for food. Those who are in support of the use of animals claim that, animal use has made a great contribution to research in psychology and in the society. Through the use of animals a great number of people have been able to understand a wide range of topics in psychology such as the learning theory, perception, parental deprivation and aggression. Also through their use there has been development a wide range of applicable applications based on the findings (Thomson 2008). Those who are in support of use of animals also claim that animals seem to be convenient. Animals tend to be good subjects when conducting experiments and also when undertaking various activities for example in the farms or in the day to day activities such as transportation. Animals in most instance do not in a way try to have clear understanding of the main purposes or agendas of the experiments been conducted and thus they tend to be more controllable. Also animal’s faster breeding cycles also makes tests to be carried out in relation to the impact that the environment as well as the heredity have on the behavior of the animals (Thomson 2008). Those who are not in support of the use of animals terms it as being unmorally right to use animals for human need for example consumption and use of them in research. A great number of people claim that animals tend to suffer greatly. Animals such as donkeys are usually expected to carry heavy loads and sometimes are beaten thoroughly by their owner’s when they end up suffering. Also those animals that are used in research suffer greatly. There seems to be a lot of information that there are a number of objectives as well as behavioral measures that show that animals can at times be affected by stress, anxiety and pain (Allen & Marc 2007). By inflicting a bit of suffering on other creatures which in this case are animals it seems to be morally objectionable. In most instances the suffering that animals tend to go through cannot be justified from the advanced knowledge that has been acquired from all the studies. Those who do not support the use of animals by humans also says that the suffering that is usually inflicted on the animals seems to be unnecessary based on a number of methodological and practical reasons. Human beings are in a way physically qualitatively dissimilar with the other creatures and a good example of this is in relation to the structure of the brain, specialization as well as the complexity and they also tend to react differently to the drugs that are administered to them (Carbone 2004). Another reason why critics think that animals should not be used is based on the fact that humans seem to be mentally qualitatively dissimilar with all the other creatures that exist in the world. In relation to this, humans must often regard the consciousness of the humans as being the key area of disparities. Shallow similarities between the behavior of humans and those of rats would probably lead to erroneous over generalizations of the findings relating to rats and humans. While the bulge of human like characteristics of the animals such as rats would probably be an exaggeration of their similarities (Francione 2007). The critics also claim that the studies at time slacks ecological validity as compared to those that have conducted on human beings. And in the long run this invalid and untrue finding seems to be less critical when it comes to the generalization of the behavior of human beings. International justice Singer argues that giving most of our money away to help the very poor is an act of duty, not an act of charity. In a number of his articles Singer broadly describes mass starvation as been as aspect that is experienced a most parts of the globe and based on his arguments he argues that the able people in the society have a moral duty and obligation to make contributions in terms of their time as well as income in the aim of elevating hunger (Tyler 2007). He in most instances assumes the passivity in that people are supposed to act in order to prevent evil. According to him people can now be able to offer assistance irrespective of the distance between them and this has been made possible by globalization. Through it there has been the advent of instant communication as well as air travel; and this has really made a lot of contribution to making the world a global village. In his arguments in by passers were to spot a child who was drowning on a pound, they are supposed to take all measures to ensure that the child is safe and in instance when they fail to do they will be a gross moral negligence (Sterba 2003). Based on singer death and suffering that are attributed to lack of food seems to be bad. Individuals have the power to prevent a bad from ever happening, and this can be done without sacrificing some anything that can be compared to the moral importance thus individuals need to do it in a moral way. One is therefore supposed to offer help and not cause other faults when offering the help. Singer argues that were are supposed to prevent what seems to be bad form happening and also not to promote what is right, and individuals are also required to do the same and they were supposed to do it without making any sacrifices from a moral perspective. It seems that individuals have a duty as well as power to prevent anything bad from ever happening and at the same time not doing away with anything that can be of benefit to is thus in the moral sense we are supposed to do that. An example of the application of this principle can be as follows if I was passing near a pond of water and saw a child drowning, I ought to ensure that the child does not drown I have to get into the pond and pull the child out the child. This will ultimately mean that I will soil my clothes but this seems to be insignificant since if the child was to die it would be unmorally right when I was trying to prevent from soiling my clothes (Orend 2000). I also think that giving may not be an act of duty if the number of people has been helped is many. In relation to these numbers tend to make a considerable difference. I may not be able to offer to a great number of people but if all people were acting morally and offer a little amount of help each. All the people would end up being helped. Singer does not say that people ought to be forced to give unto others. But he further argues that there seems to be no permissible reason why it would be wrong to make people give forcibly. If the polices forcibly giving maximizes the utility of the people then it would be right to implement such a policy. After a clear view of the people in the society today most of them will not do as Singer urges. Singer suggests that the help offered to the poor ought to encompass certain fundamental reforms in a number of improvised countries so as to improve their long term goals. Based on the fact that Singer does not offer any information that he may support such an argument, giving to the poor ought to be an act of charity but not a duty as Singer has articulated (Altman & Wellman 2009). References Alan D 2003.Why Terrorism Works (Melbourne: Scribe Publications. Allen, C & Marc B 2007, ‘Animal minds, cognitive ethology, and ethics’, The Journal of Ethics, vol. 11, pp.299–317. Altman, A & Wellman, C 2009, A liberal theory of international justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Binyamin, N 1985, Terrorism: How the West Can Win .New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Netanyahu, ND. p. 27. Binyamin, N 1995, Fighting Terrorism. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York. Botstein, S., Ward, G. Arkin, A., Conway, K., Holtz, R., McCormick, C., et al. 2007, The war, PBS Home Video, United States. Brodie, B 1973, War and politics, Macmillan, New York. Carbone, L 2004, What animals want: Expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal welfare policy, Oxford University Press, New York. Davis N.D. “The Moral Justifi ability of Torture.” Dyer, G 1985, War, Crown, New York. Francione, G 2007, ‘The use of nonhuman animal in biomedical research: Necessity and justification,’ Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 241-248. Haaretz 1998. Accessed from: (http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=50).Viewd on 3rd May 2013. Junger, S 2010, War, Twelve, New York. Orend, B 2000, War and international justice a Kantian perspective, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ont. Ray, SC & Yonah1986, A Terrorism as State-Sponsored Covert Warfare .Virginia: Hero Books. Sterba, J 2003, Terrorism and international justice, Oxford University Press, New York. Thomson, J 2008, ‘Turning the Trolley’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 36, no. 4, pp.359-374. Tyler, T 2007, Legitimacy and criminal justice: international perspectives, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Walzer, M 1973, ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’, 2 Philosophy and Public Affairs. Read More